M7 WA#1: Strategies to Reduce Aggression in Early Childhood Classrooms

Social Development in Early Childhood CH. 9

· Chapter Introduction

· 9-1 Theory of Mind in Early Childhood

· 9-1a Theory of Mind

· 9-1b Individual Diversity in Theory of Mind

· 9-1c Group Diversity in Theory of Mind

· 9-1d Classroom Implications of Theory of Mind

· 9-2 Moral Judgment in Early Childhood

· 9-2a Different Views of Moral Judgment

· 9-2b Development of Moral Judgment in Early Childhood

· 9-2c Individual Diversity in Moral Judgment and Behavior

· 9-2d Classroom Implications of Moral Judgment

· 9-3 Prosocial and Antisocial Behavior in Early Childhood

· 9-3a Prosocial Behavior

· 9-3b Conflict Resolution

· 9-3c Development of Antisocial Behavior and Aggression

· 9-3d Individual Diversity in Antisocial Behavior

· 9-3e Group Diversity in Antisocial Behavior

· 9-3f Classroom Implications of Antisocial Behavior

· 9-4 Friendship and Play in Early Childhood

· 9-4a Development of Friendship

· 9-4b Development of Play

· 9-4c Individual Diversity in Play

· 9-4d Group Diversity in Play

· 9-4e Classroom Implications of Play

· 9-5 TV and Media Use in Early Childhood

· 9-5a The Issue of Time

· 9-5b The Issue of Content

· 9-5c Individual Diversity in Media Use

· Chapter Review

· Chapter Summary

· Summary of Early Childhood Development (3 to 5 Years)

Do you know preschoolers who play abundantly with peers who enjoy them? Chances are that they are skilled at “reading” other people and are seldom aggressive. However, most preschoolers are occasionally aggressive and lie, so how do you know what behaviors are typical and how to help learners develop age-appropriate social behavior? In this chapter, we answer these questions as we discuss social development in early childhood. After you read this chapter, you will be able to:

· 9-1Describe the development of learners’ theory of mind, and create classrooms that foster social cognition.

· 9-2Understand different views of moral judgment, how honesty develops, and how to promote moral development in your classroom.

· 9-3Describe types of antisocial behavior, and create classroom environments that reduce aggression.

· 9-4Explain the role of play in development, and foster playful learning in your classroom.

· 9-5Evaluate how media positively and negatively influence learners, particularly in terms of aggression.

9-1 Theory of Mind in Early Childhood

Terrell snuck cookies from the kitchen. He carefully left the box in its place on the shelf and made sure that he did not dribble crumbs across the kitchen floor. He knew that his mother would not notice his theft if the box was in place and there were no traces across the floor.

Although only 5 years old, Terrell is pretty smart about people; he has good social cognition. Cognition refers to thought processes like reasoning and problem solving. Social cognition refers to cognition applied to social situations. A goal of schools is to help children think clearly and solve problems. In what domain is clear thinking and problem solving more important than the social domain? In this chapter, you learn how to foster two aspects of your learners’ social cognition: theory of mind and moral judgment.

Terrell knew that his mother would assume cookies were still in the cupboard if she saw the box. He cleverly led her to a false belief by placing the empty box in its place. He deliberately manipulated his mother’s mind. Terrell has developed a landmark ability of childhood called theory of mind.

Theory of mind (ToM) refers to the understanding that other people have mental states—beliefs, desires, knowledge, and intentions—that are different from our own and to the ability to infer or figure out others’ mental states. Thus, a simple definition of ToM is “people reading.” It is a “theory” because it helps children explain and predict others’ behavior. ToM makes it possible to learn from others, which is essential according to Vygotsky’s sociocultural theory (see  Chapter 7).

ToM is usually studied using two types of false-belief tests. In one test, children observe George leaving an object, like a candy bar, in one location. While George is gone, someone else moves the object to a new location. Children are asked where George will first look for the object on return. In the second test, children are shown a box, like a crayon box, and asked what they believe will be inside (e.g., crayons). Children are shown that something unexpected is inside (e.g., buttons). Children are then asked what George would think is inside the box (crayons). In each test, George has a reasonable but false belief about where the candy bar is or what is inside the crayon box, just as Terrell’s mother will have a false belief about the cookie box.

ToM is also assessed with “appearance versus reality” tests. Children are shown a deceptive object, such as a sponge that looks like a rock. After playing with the object, children are asked what the object looks like (e.g., a rock) and what the object really is (e.g., a sponge). Then children are asked what George would think it is.

Typically, young children fail these tests. They claim that George would look in the new location for the candy bar, would know that there were buttons in the crayon box, and would think that the rocklike object is really a sponge. Success on these tests requires ToM because children must separate their own knowledge of the true condition from George’s belief in the false condition. This ability develops with age. Failure to develop age-appropriate ToM is a key feature of autism spectrum disorder (see  Box 9.1).

Box 9.1

Challenges in Development: Autism Spectrum Disorder

James was a bubbly 2-year-old who loved “mashed totatoes” and playing with swords. But he soon became a nearly silent, unhappy child who “pulled cowboy boots on and off until his feet were raw.” His father described the change as “falling out of the world.” James forgot his name. After intensive one-on-one treatment (at home, at preschool, and with a speech therapist), James began to talk again. By kindergarten, he was able to enroll in a regular classroom but also went to a resource room and had an in-class aide. By 3rd grade, he was told that he had autism. He raged, cried, and denied it—and then began to come to terms with it. James continues to adjust to school, with the help of parents and teachers—and, best of all, a friend. His friend has provided a giant step toward helping James develop social skills. (Adapted from O’Neil, 2004).

Autism is a condition characterized by abnormal social cognition. There is a wide spectrum of functioning among children with autism, so it is referred to as  autism spectrum disorder (ASD) . It is characterized by challenges in three areas: social interaction, poor verbal ability, and repetitive behavior such as flapping the hands or, in James’s case, putting on and removing cowboy boots. Children with autism may have trouble comprehending emotions in others and have poor emotion regulation, like giggling for no reason. They may have preoccupation with a narrow interest like maps or light switches. They may have temper tantrums, self-injury like head banging, and difficulty controlling their movements. Some may be overly sensitive to sights, smells, or sounds (e.g., a dog barking), and others may seek out sensory stimulation such as flickering lights (Pellicano, 2013). Some (8–25%) may have seizures (American Psychiatric Association, 2013).

About 41% of children with ASD have low cognitive ability—that is, an IQ below 70 (CDC, 2009a). They also tend to have poor executive functions (Pellicano, 2007). However, low scores on IQ and executive-function tests may be due to language problems. On IQ tests like the Raven’s Matrices (see  Chapter 15), which do not require much verbal ability, some children with autism may score in the average to high range (Dawson, Soulières, Gernsbacher, & Mottron, 2007). Furthermore, children with autism may have a strong ability that stands out, like reading at a very young age. They may have excellent long-term memory for facts. Some have exceptional ability to focus attention, resist distractions, and pick out objects in a field of other objects, like in  Figure 9.1 (Gernsbacher, Stevenson, Khandakar, & Goldsmith, 2008).

Figure 9.1Visual Search Tasks That Distinguish Children with and without Autism

If asked to find the striped ball in the left panel, most children experience a sense of “pop out.” They do not need to examine each object to locate the striped ball. But if asked to find the orange cube in the right panel, children without autism typically examine each item until they find the target. In contrast, children with autism easily search the field and are little thwarted by the distracters. Children with autism are nearly twice as fast as other children at these sorts of tasks.

Source: Gernsbacher, Stevenson, Khandakar, and Goldsmith (2008).

Autism and Theory of Mind Children with autism, regardless of cognitive ability, have ToM deficits. With limited ToM, children are not motivated to communicate with others, which could explain why children with autism have language delays. They are less likely than other children to look at faces and follow another person’s gaze, which prevents them from sharing attention and experience with other people.

Asperger’s Condition Although  Asperger’s condition is no longer an official diagnosis, it is commonly used to refer to some children at the high-functioning end of the autism spectrum. These children have impairment in social interaction and have restricted, repetitive patterns of behavior and interests but do not have delays in language, cognitive abilities, self-help skills, or curiosity about the environment (American Psychiatric Association, 2013). Children with Asperger’s often want to interact socially but don’t know how. They may perseverate on topics or emotions. For example, a 12-year-old with Asperger’s became distressed about worms being crushed on the sidewalk near his school and could think of nothing else for days; he cried, went outside to protect the worms, and even got in fights with children who cared less about the worms (Mazefsky, Pelphrey, & Dahl, 2012).

Prevalence of ASD Severe autism is clearly recognizable by 3 years of age but may be diagnosed at a younger age because symptoms may appear by 1 year of age (Gilga, Jones, Bedford, Charman, & Johnson, 2014). You may be asked to help with the diagnosis because teachers are accurate reporters of symptoms of autism. Diagnosis of autism has increased in recent years (see  Figure 9.2). As of 2012, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) estimated that 1 in 68 children has some form of ASD (1 in 42 boys and 1 in 189 girls). The increase in ASD may be due to changes in diagnosis or to real increases in ASD related to cohort effects such as increasing age of first-time parents or environmental toxins. Families with a child with ASD are more likely than other families to have another child with the condition (Ingersoll, 2011).

Figure 9.2Prevalence of Autism Spectrum Disorder from 2002 to 2012

The CDC monitors prevalence of autism spectrum disorder across the United States. The 2012 rate is over double the rate of 1 in 152 in 2002.

Source: Christensen et al. (2016).

Children with severe autism are not likely to be able to live and work independently as adults. However, adults with milder forms of ASD can lead independent lives and have successful careers, although they may have social oddities and problems with empathy. Youth with autism who are capable of insight can become depressed when they realize their limitations, and they may need support from you.

Practicing Inclusion—How Can You Help Learners with Autism? Intervention can help many children with autism improve in behavior, social interaction, and language ability. The younger the child when the intervention begins, the more successful it is; it should, preferably, begin in toddlerhood. One common approach is behavior modification (also called applied behavior analysis, see  Chapter 8) to reduce problem behaviors and teach new skills such as how to converse, make eye contact, or read emotional cues in others. This was the approach used with James. A second common approach is to be highly responsive during social interaction, such as imitating the child and scaffolding joint play (Smith & Iadarola, 2015). Sometimes the two approaches are combined. In addition, exercise has helped improve social skills and reduce repetitive behaviors in children with ASD (Pontifex et al., 2014).

You can help children with autism function in your classroom by keeping the physical environment stable (e.g., don’t move chairs around); providing lecture notes and extra time for writing for older children; and capitalizing on the good rote memory and intense, obsessive interests (e.g., dinosaurs, astronomy, maps) of some children with autism (Brownell & Walther-Thomas, 2001). You can also help promote their ToM by talking to them about others’ emotions, thoughts, and desires, which will help your other learners as well (Slaughter, Peterson, & Mackintosh, 2007). You can help them form friendships with particularly warm, kind, and socially mature classmates (Mendelson, Gates, & Lerner, 2016). You will need to collaborate with parents and therapists to provide an optimal classroom environment for each learner.

9-1aTheory of Mind

In  Chapter 5 , you learned that infants and toddlers have rudimentary people-reading skills. They can infer others’ intentions and preferences from their behavior. However, there are dramatic increases in ToM in early childhood. Three-year-olds tease siblings. They comfort a crying baby by bringing a blanket. They feign injury to get sympathy (Newton, Vasudevi, & Bull, 2000). One 3-year-old told her mother she was sick and faked coughing so that she would get a sweet-tasting cough drop. Such deception requires understanding others’ mental states.

Despite these people-reading skills, children rarely pass typical false-belief tests before age 4 (Rubio-Fernández & Geurts, 2013). Why do 3-year-olds fail them? The tests may overwhelm their language and information-processing abilities. ToM tests require the child to hold information in mind (e.g., George will think there are crayons in the box) in the presence of conflicting information (e.g., there are actually buttons in the box). Preschoolers develop better language skills, which helps them converse about others’ mental states. Preschoolers also develop dramatically better executive functions as the prefrontal cortex of the brain matures, so that they are better able to think about the false-belief test. By 5 to 6 years of age, children perform similarly to adults on false-belief tests (Wellman & Liu, 2004).

9-1bIndividual Diversity in Theory of Mind

Think about This

ToM research is an indirect product of Piaget’s research—that is, modern scientists were testing whether his view of young children’s egocentrism was true. Review egocentrism in  Chapter 3 . Does the research on ToM support Piaget’s view? Explain.

All typical children will eventually pass false-belief tests. However, some children are more skilled than age-mates at people reading.

What Do Individual Differences in Theory of Mind Predict?

In  Chapter 5 , you learned that social cognition predicts  language ability, because children figure out what new words mean by following the gaze of others as they talk about an object. Theory of mind ability also predicts  social competence. Young children with better ToM skills tend to have high-quality play with friends; they are better at joint planning, such as “pretend you are squirting me again,” and role assignment, such as “let’s be firefighters now” (Jenkins & Astington, 2000). The same is true of older children. A meta-analysis of many studies found that from ages 2 to 10, children who had better ToM abilities were better liked (Slaughter, Imuta, Peterson, & Henry, 2015). ToM helps children take another person’s perspective when trying to resolve conflict, consider what kind of help someone needs, decide how to tell a joke, and so on. To function socially, a child must take into account the mental state of others.

Brain Research

The Puzzle of Autistic Brains

Current evidence shows that the brains of children with ASD, particularly the frontal lobe of the cortex, are overly large. Their brains grow faster in the first few years than other children’s. Researchers do not yet know why or whether this causes or results from autism. One possibility, based on animal research, is that ASD-related genes control migration of neurons in the developing fetus and also the size of brain regions. Genes can affect the brain by altering neurotransmitter quantity, neuron connections, cell survival, or degree of myelination. Genes can also shift the delicate balance between neuron excitement and quieting at synapses so that neurons cannot easily distinguish important signals from background noise. There probably is not a single path of brain development for ASD (Rubenstein, 2011).

One puzzle about ASD (and ADHD) is why boys are more susceptible. Some neuroscientists describe ASD as the “extreme male brain” (Rubenstein, 2011). As you learned in  Chapters 2  and  4 , genes must be expressed to affect development. Why are autism-related genes expressed in some susceptible children, especially boys? To date, this remains a mystery.

In addition, ToM ability predicts  deception, or intentionally giving someone a false belief. Deception is among the earliest indicators of ToM. In one study, 3-year-olds played a hide-and-seek game with candy. If they lied to an adult about where the candy was, they got to keep it. If the adult found it, the adult got to keep the candy. Despite strong motivation, none could lie successfully. However, after ToM training they became much better at deception (Ding, Wellman, Wang, Fu, & Lee, 2015). Young children are eager to play similar games of deception. Deception is a positive skill when it is used to make others feel good, such as telling a joke. When deception involves controlling emotions or showing an emotion that is not felt, it is called  emotional dissemblance, which you learned about in  Chapter 4 .

Sadly, ToM also predicts the loss of joyful performance we see in very young children. Contrast inhibited tweens, who hunker down on the sidelines at school dances, with preschoolers, who will dance with relish and confidence anywhere. Preschoolers’ joyful performance disappears as they come to read others’ mental states and understand that others may be negatively judging them (Chaplin & Norton, 2015).

What Predicts Individual Differences in Theory of Mind?

Genes may play a small role in ToM ability, probably through their influence on information processing and verbal ability. We examine these abilities next, and then three influences from the social environment.

Information Processing

Children who have better executive functions (see  Chapter 7 ), especially inhibitory control and greater working memory capacity, have better ToM.     Executive functions make it possible for children to reflect on their thoughts, to distance themselves from the immediate situation, and to ignore false information (e.g., what the crayon box appears to hold but does not), which all contribute to ToM. Greater working memory capacity helps children keep all this relevant information in mind at once. Terrell had to keep in mind what his mother expected to see in the cupboard so that she would think the cookie box was full, even though he knew it was empty. Some researchers think that executive functions are the foundation of ToM (Diamond, 2013).

Verbal Ability

Think about This

In  Chapter 1 , you learned that a correlation means that two variables go together, but not necessarily that one causes the other. Discuss how this might apply to the link between verbal ability and ToM.

Verbal ability is strongly related to whether children pass false-belief tests (Milligan, Astington, & Dack, 2007). The relationship is bidirectional. This means that good verbal ability predicts children’s ToM ability and that ToM ability predicts children’s verbal ability. Infants who are better at gaze following tend to become toddlers who talk more about mental states (e.g., forget, pretend, want, wish, angry, scared), and tend to become preschoolers who are more skilled at false-belief tasks (Brooks & Meltzoff, 2015). Why is verbal ability correlated with ToM? One possibility is that conversation with others exposes children to different points of view, helping them learn about others’ mental states while also helping them become verbally fluent (Ensor & Hughes, 2008). This may be why deaf children who converse with people fluent in sign language have normal ToM development, but deaf children who are unable to converse are significantly delayed in ToM (Schick, de Villers, de Villers, & Hoffmeister, 2007). Similarly, children with language impairment tend to be delayed in ToM (Nilsson & de López, 2016). Lack of opportunity to converse with others may slow development of ToM.

Parent’s Mind-Mindedness and Attachment

Parents sometimes say, “You want …” or “You know …” in pseudo-conversation with their infants. These parents are making mind-related comments about their infants’ desires and thoughts. This may seem like a silly way to talk to an infant, but parents who do this tend to have children with better ToM and verbal ability (Hughes & Devine, 2015). Psychologists call this  mind-mindedness.

Parents’ mind-mindedness may foster ToM because it helps them perceive their children’s experience, respond sensitively, and form a secure attachment. Attachment predicts theory of mind. ToM requires an understanding of emotional states in others, which grows from the attachment relationship (De Rosnay & Harris, 2002). Insecurely attached children struggle to read others’ minds and to make meaning of others’ behavior, perhaps because their attachment figures are unpredictable in caring for them (Dykas & Cassady, 2011).

Talking about Others

Children whose parents frequently talk about others’ mental states have greater ToM (Hughes & Devine, 2015). With 1-year-olds, parents may talk mainly about the child’s own desires, like “You  want juice?” As children’s ability to understand their own desires grows and they start to use  I and  me, sensitive parents get more challenging—talking about others rather than the child, and talking about thoughts as well as desires (Taumoepeau & Ruffman, 2008). “She doesn’t realize …”; “They are really pretending …”; “He remembers …”—these are all ways that families talk about others’ mental states with older children. (If you recognize this as scaffolding in the child’s zone of proximal development, which moves as the child’s competence increases, you go to the head of the class!)

Families vary considerably in how much they use words like  think, know, believe, wonder, and  understand. Let’s consider two different mothers showing their preschoolers a picture book with no words, in which a dog named Carl babysits a toddler:

Mother 1:

[Carl the dog is] all happy because the baby’s in bed, nice and clean, and he’s cleaned up, and Mom doesn’t know that they had fun in the house.

Mother 2:

Oh, here she comes! And there’s Carl waiting for her. Look at that! She’s home. And the baby’s still safe in bed. (Slaughter, Peterson, & Mackintosh, 2007, p. 846)

The first mother talks about the mental states of Carl and mother, but the second does not. This may seem subtle, but over time the first mother may use thousands more mental-state words with her child than the second mother. Better-educated mothers talk more about others’ mental states, which may explain why their children have greater ToM ability (Jenkins, Turrell, Kogushi, Lollis, & Ross, 2003). See  Photo 9.1 . Remarkably, researchers have been able to improve preschoolers’ ToM after just a few training sessions in which they give them false-belief tasks with feedback (“No, he thought there were pencils in the box because….”) and read stories emphasizing mental state words (Ding et al., 2015; Lecce, Bianco, Demicheli, & Cavallini, 2014).

Photo 9.1

Children develop ToM ability when their parents talk about others’ mental states during storybook reading.

Alexandra Day/CORBIS

Seeing others’ reactions may contribute to ToM. Blind children tend to be delayed in ToM, passing false-belief tests much later, at about 12 years of age (Peterson, Peterson, & Webb, 2000). Their inability to use social referencing, joint attention, or emotional displays as they hear talk about others may delay their people-reading abilities.

Peers and Siblings

Younger children in large families develop ToM earlier than do other children (McAlister & Peterson, 2013). Preschoolers with older siblings are exposed to more talk about mental states than only or eldest children (Jenkins et al., 2003). Siblings and peers provide children with the opportunity to talk about others during humor, conflict, and play. Thus, interacting with minds that are different from their own may promote children’s ToM. However, the beneficial effect of siblings occurs mostly in families with positive sibling relationships and in middle-class homes (Lewis & Carpendale, 2002; Recchia & Howe, 2009). Let’s look at other group differences next.

9-1cGroup Diversity in Theory of Mind

Gender and SES may be linked to ToM. From preschool through high school, studies generally find that girls and boys perform similarly on ToM tests, but when there is a difference, girls do better.     This may help to explain why girls generally have higher ratings of social competence than boys. In addition, children whose parents have higher-status jobs and higher education levels perform better on ToM tests. This has been found across countries (Shatz, Diesendruck, Martinez-Beck, & Akar, 2003).

9-1dClassroom Implications of Theory of Mind

Learners in your classroom who have better ToM are likely to get along well with peers and teachers. There are four things you can do to promote each learner’s ToM skills:

1. Help learners develop good verbal ability. You learned how to do this in  Chapters 3  and  7 .

2. Converse with learners about others’ mental states. Use words like  think, know, believe, wonder, remember, forget, guess, expect, meant, ignore, pretend, and  understand. This can be done during classroom talk, such as “Do you think Joey was surprised?” or “Why do you think Samantha wore boots today?” This can also be done when learners have conflict, during social interactions in class, or when reading stories, like the first mother in the earlier vignette reading the book about Carl the dog.

3. Provide learners with the opportunity to interact with peers who might have different perspectives. We discuss play later.

4. Establish secure teacher–child relationships. You learned how to do this in  Chapter 4 . Secure attachment is linked to greater ToM ability.

A second aspect of social cognition of vital importance to children’s well-being in their social world is moral judgment. Let’s turn to this topic next.

9-2Moral Judgment in Early Childhood

I was standing in the classroom, looking out the window, and I saw Ruby coming down the street, with the federal marshals on both sides of her. The crowd was there, shouting, as usual. A woman spat at Ruby but missed; Ruby smiled at her. A man shook his fist at her; Ruby smiled at him. Then she walked up the stairs, and she stopped and turned and smiled one more time! You know what she told one of the marshals? She told him she prays for those people, the ones in that mob, every night before she goes to sleep!

(Coles, 1986, pp. 22–23)

This is the account of a teacher watching 6-year-old Ruby Bridges, the African American child who initiated school desegregation in New Orleans in 1960 ( Photo 9.2 ). Ruby was the only student in the entire school for a while because the other students’ parents kept them home. She even received death threats.

Photo 9.2

Ruby Bridges was a moral exemplar at age 6.

AP Images

How does a 6-year-old come to know what is morally right, and act on it in spite of threats, including from authority figures? There are different views on what motivates moral behavior. The ethologist view (see  Chapter 4 ) is that humans have an inborn tendency to care for others because it promotes their survival (Krebs, 2008). The behaviorist view is that children acquire values through imitation and reinforcement (see  Chapter 3 ). Freud’s view was that children identify with and internalize their parents’ values (see  Chapter 8 ). Yet another view is that rather than learning morality from external sources, children internally construct principles of right and wrong as they develop cognitively. The last view emphasizes moral judgment, which we discuss next.

9-2aDifferent Views of Moral Judgment

Moral judgment refers to how children  reason about moral issues and laws. Notice that this is not the same as moral  behavior because it focuses on  thinking, not  behaving. Cognitive developmental theorists believe that with age, children develop increasingly advanced reasoning about justice, which leads to increased morality. That is, children are not morally mature until they are cognitively mature. Piaget was a leader of this view.

Piaget’s View

Piaget believed that children do not simply copy the moral standards of their culture, but rather that conflict during interaction with peers leads children to  construct their own notions of right and wrong. Piaget viewed  justice as the essence of morality. To study children’s concepts of justice, Piaget told them stories of misbehavior, like playing with a ball in the house and breaking a lamp. Then he asked children what would be fair and unfair punishment. Based on their responses, Piaget concluded that children have two kinds of moral judgment:

1. Heteronymous morality is authority-oriented. Rules are viewed as fixed and unalterable, and should be rigidly followed. Heteronymous children behave well in order to avoid punishment and because of the pressure of external authority.

2. Autonomous morality is based on reciprocity, mutual respect, and cooperation, rather than external pressure. Autonomous children behave well because they “feel from within the desire to treat others as they would wish to be treated” (Piaget, 1965, p. 196).

Piaget believed that children progress from heteronymous to autonomous morality.

Prosocial Reasoning

Not everyone agrees with Piaget that the essence of morality is justice. Some researchers focus on prosocial reasoning , which is reasoning about stories in which caring about others is pitted against self-interest, rather than stories about justice and fairness (Eisenberg, Hofer, Sulik, & Liew, 2014). Many real-world dilemmas involve prosocial reasoning rather than moral judgment. To study prosocial reasoning, psychologists give children hypothetical dilemmas, such as keeping food versus sharing with others, playing with friends versus helping a classmate study for a test, or standing up for a peer being teased. One commonly used dilemma involves a birthday party:

On the way to a party, Emmalee saw a girl who had fallen down and hurt her leg. The girl asked Emmalee to go get her parents. But if Emmalee did run and get the girl’s parents, Emmalee would be late to the party and miss the fun with her friends. (Adapted from Carlo, Koller, Eisenberg, Da Silva, & Frohlich, 1996, p. 233)

Children are asked what they should do, and why. In addition, researchers sometimes observe children’s natural moral behaviors and then ask them why they behaved that way. Five different types of reasoning have been identified:

1. Hedonistic. The focus is on self-oriented consequences, such as “I like her,” or “She’ll do the same for me.”

2. Needs-oriented. The focus is on the other’s need, such as “She needs my help.”

3. Approval. The focus is on others’ approval, such as “Her parents will thank me.”

4. Stereotyped. The focus is on what “good” people do and a desire to be considered “good,” such as “People will think I’m a good person if I help.”

5. Internalized. The focus is on how being good makes one feel, such as “I would feel better if I help.”

These types of reasoning are hierarchical in that the fifth is considered a higher form of prosocial reasoning than the first. This sequence is subject to criticism, however, because focusing on how Emmalee would feel if she did not help (level 5) may not be morally higher than focusing on the other girl’s needs (level 2).

Honesty and Lying

In addition to being just and caring, moral character includes being honest and refraining from lying (Goodwin, 2015; Uhlmann et al., 2015). Lies are intentionally false statements. False statements that are not intentional, like mistakes, are not lies. One caveat about the morality of lying is that most people believe trivial lies that benefit others or are humorous are not immoral, such as “We’re glad the principal is visiting our classroom today.” These are known as  white lies, altruistic lies, and  trick lies. They are viewed differently from malicious lies or lies to cover up misdeeds.

Piaget (1932) studied how children understand and evaluate lying. Not surprisingly, he found age trends in understanding lies that parallel age trends in moral judgment and prosocial reasoning. Let’s see what he found for preschoolers.

9-2bDevelopment of Moral Judgment in Early Childhood

Moral reasoning builds on other developing skills—executive functions, reading others’ emotions, and theory of mind—that allow preschoolers to begin to know right from wrong (Decety & Howard, 2013). See  Photo 9.3 . By age 3, children tend not to violate parents’ prohibitions; they are distressed if they do; and they confess wrongdoing (Emde, Biringen, Clyman, & Oppenheim, 1991). They become upset when resources are not allocated fairly, and they try to fix inequity. For example, in a study in which one puppet had two cups of play dough and another had just one, 4-year-olds gave play dough to the deprived puppet (Li, Spitzer, & Olson, 2014).

Photo 9.3

Rudimentary morality is present by age 3.

Mel Yates/Stone/Getty images

Preschoolers will strongly protest violations and enforce rules (“It goes here!”). This is true even for rules of games, which 3-year-olds see as unalterable facts handed down by supreme authorities, just as Piaget described for heteronymous morality (Köymen et al., 2014). However, by age 5 children see game rules as negotiable.

This reflects an interesting development in the preschool years, which is that by age 4 or 5, children distinguish between social convention and morality. Social conventions are standards of behavior dictated by culture. Preschoolers know that a breach of social convention, like calling a teacher by her first name, is wrong only if there is a rule against it, and the rule can be changed. They also know that it is wrong to hit someone in order to get a swing, even if they are told the school has a rule saying it is all right (Helwig & Turiel, 2011). They believe that a moral transgression is wrong regardless of rules, and its wrongness is unchangeable. This is contrary to Piaget’s views of 5-year-olds as egocentric and externally oriented in their moral judgments (Thompson, 2012).

Despite recognizing lies as morally wrong, preschoolers are quite willing to lie. Children lie more from the toddler to preschool years (Evans & Lee, 2013). See  Figure 9.3 . Scientists have a sneaky way of testing this. They put a secret toy behind young children and say, “Do not turn around and peek at the toy. I’ll be back soon,” and then they leave the room. Hidden cameras reveal that about 80% of young children peek at the toy. Among the peekers, 2- to 3-year-olds confess, but most 4- to 5-year-olds lie, saying they did not peek (Lee, 2013).

Figure 9.3Age Trends in Lying

In experiments in which children are asked not to peek, most peek, but some do not. Among the peekers, the percentage of those who lie, or deny that they peeked, increases with age. Where is the steepest increase?

Source: Lee (2013).

Preschoolers are not always successful at lying. In these experiments, follow-up conversations with preschoolers often go something like this:

Experimenter:

Did you peek at the toy?

Child:

No.

Experimenter:

What do you think the toy is?

Child:

A Barney doll because it was purple.

The truth often leaks out because preschoolers do not have sufficient ToM or executive functions to maintain the lie. Even when researchers offer them a reward for lying, 3-year-olds are not very successful (Ding et al., 2015). The ability to successfully lie develops rapidly between ages 3 and 7, as does the prevalence of lying (Lee, 2013).

Preschoolers may be willing to lie partly because they do not fully understand what a lie is. They equate exaggeration, “naughty” words, incorrect statements, and mistaken guesses with lies. They may think of “lies” as statements about negative acts and truths as statements about positive acts (Wandrey, Quas, & Lyon, 2012). They have an overly generous view of what a lie is. Yet, they recognize the difference between “good” and “bad” lies. They view lying to cover up a misdeed as morally wrong and judge white lies less harshly than lies intended to harm others (Evans & Lee, 2013; Jambon & Smetana, 2014; Talwar & Lee, 2008).

Think about This

If children become better at moral judgment with age, as cognitive developmental theorists would assert, how can you explain adults who spit on 6-year-olds, as some did to Ruby? What factors might lead to such behavior?

In summary, children behave as though they have some moral sense by 3 years of age. Preschoolers are able to distinguish social conventions from moral issues. They are prolific, but not very successful, liars, even though by age 3 they believe lying is wrong.

9-2cIndividual Diversity in Moral Judgment and Behavior

Research indicates that honesty is influenced by the situation and that individual differences in honesty appear by early childhood. For example, in studies of toy peeking, more than one-third of guilty 3-year-olds confess and tell the truth, but the rest do not (Talwar & Lee, 2008). In a study of elementary children, half peeked at a test and half did not. Of those who peeked, 93% lied about it (Talwar, Gordon, & Lee, 2007).

What Predicts Individual Differences in Moral Judgment?

Are such differences in moral  behavior the result of differences in reasoning and moral judgment? Among preschoolers, those who use more  needs-oriented and  internalized prosocial reasoning tend to be more kind (Carlo et al., 1996; Eisenberg et al., 2014). The research on  moral judgment is less clear. Children with  above-average moral judgment and understanding of lying are not consistently more honest, fair, generous, or compassionate than average children, although  below-average moral judgment is linked to aggression and antisocial behavior (Gummerum et al., 2008; Talwar & Lee, 2008).

Theory of Mind

Theory of mind is foundational to moral judgment (Thompson, 2012). Whether or not you blame someone for misbehavior (moral judgment) depends on whether you view the misbehavior as intentional (ToM judgment). Humans are unique in their ability to assess  intentional states that allow moral judgment. Children with better ToM are more likely to have mature moral reasoning (Smetana, Jambon, Conry-Murray, & Sturge-Apple, 2012).

Children with better ToM may also be better liars because lying is the deliberate attempt to instill false beliefs in someone else. Children have been found to lie and deceive before they are able to pass false-belief tasks, meaning full-blown ToM is not necessary for dishonesty. However, individual children with better ToM are better liars in that they do not let the truth leak out as much as other children; they can maintain their lies despite questioning by an adult (Talwar & Lee, 2008). One scientist said that lying is ToM in action (Lee, 2013).

In young children, moral behavior is also related to inhibitory control. Preschoolers with good inhibitory control are more likely to obey the rule to clean up their mess or not cheat in a game when unsupervised. They also give less selfish responses to prosocial dilemmas, like Emmalee helping an injured child and missing the birthday party, than children with less inhibitory control. Both inhibitory control and prosocial reasoning are linked to authoritative parenting.

Quality of Parenting

Secure attachment and authoritative parenting are both foundational to development of conscience (Thompson, 2012). This is partly because parent–child relationships that are warm motivate the child to be receptive to parents’ influence and to embrace their values (Kochanska, 2002). In addition, children whose parents are authoritative have higher levels of moral reasoning than other children because their parents are likely to use induction rather than power assertion (see  Chapters 5  and  8 ). Induction is a form of discipline in which the adult explains the need for a rule and points out the consequences for others of the child’s misbehavior. Parents are more likely to express anger and use induction (rather than commands) in response to  moral transgressions as compared with other kinds of transgressions, such as making a mess (Dahl & Campos, 2013). Induction leads to internalization, or conscience, which refers to doing the right thing because it is right, not to avoid punishment. (You probably thought “internalization” sounds like Piaget’s “autonomous morality.” Good thinking!) Induction promotes guilt, a moral emotion that inhibits immoral behavior (Tangney et al., 2007). Children whose parents use induction are more likely to feel bad if they cheat at a game, grab a toy, or do not help someone. Other-oriented induction conveys to children that the needs of others are important.

Moral Identity

Individuals with a strong moral identity feel that being moral is core to their self-identity. They tend to anticipate feeling positive about their good deeds and are more likely to behave in moral ways (Dinh & Lord, 2013; Hardy, Walker, Olsen, Woodbury, & Hickman, 2014). As young as age 5, children differ in their moral identity (Thompson, 2012). For example, in one study 5-year-olds were able to report whether they are the kind of person who is likely to tell someone right away when they break something, as opposed to trying to hide it so no one finds out. The children who self-identified with a strong moral compass were rated as better behaved 2 years later by their teachers (Kochanska, Koenig, Barry, Kim, & Yoon, 2010).

9-2dClassroom Implications of Moral Judgment

So how should you approach moral education? Piaget believed children’s morality is  constructed out of social interaction and principled reasoning. Behaviorists and Freud hold a different view; morality is  handed down from elders to children. The term  moral education is often used to refer to programs based on the first view, and the term  character education is often used to refer to programs based on the second view (Berkowitz & Grych, 2000). However, both terms are sometimes applied to any education aimed at promoting morality. Let’s take a look at what a moral teacher might do from each approach.

Moral Education (Constructing Morality)

To promote moral development, you should encourage classroom discussion about moral issues. This approach may be used in preschool when reading stories. For example, a teacher fostered moral discussion while reading a well-known book called  Heckedy Peg, wherein a witch has abducted children, and their mother is trying to get them back. The witch tells the mother she cannot come into her house because the mother’s feet are dirty, so the mother pretends to cut off her feet, but really just hides her legs (DeVries, Hildebrandt, & Betty, 2000). Here’s how the dialogue went:

Teacher:

Do you think that what the mother is saying is okay?

Edward:

Uh-uh, it’s—she’s lying.

Teacher:

Is it okay to lie in this case?

Children:

No!

Teacher:

No? Why? Can you tell me why it’s not okay?

John:

It’s bad, and she will look at her and say, “You have feet,” and she’ll say, “Yes I do.” That’s a lie, right?

Amanda:

I think that she’s just trying to trick the witch. I think that she’s just trying to get her children back.

Teacher:

Okay, Edward has a disagreement. Tell us what you think. Do you think … it’s okay to lie to save your children?

Edward:

Uh-uh, it’s not.

Teacher:

Well, we have a difference of opinion. (Adapted from DeVries, Hildebrandt, & Betty, 2000, pp. 26–28)

In this constructivist approach, adults are not supposed to impose their values on children, yet critics point out that in constructivist practice, adults typically do impose their values by indicating which response is acceptable (Goodman, 2000). If adults remain truly neutral, then what values should children internalize? Critics would further argue that a traditional approach in which the teacher clearly states a rule (e.g., “Telling lies is wrong—except to a witch who has stolen your children”) is more honest.

Character Education (Handing down Morality)

In contrast to the constructivist approach, proponents of character education believe that character is a collection of virtues like honesty, kindness, courage, politeness, and obedience. These virtues are not innate, but are inculcated in the child. To promote moral behavior in your learners from this perspective, use these guidelines:

1. Identify the virtues that you hope learners will learn, and make them an explicit goal for learners and teachers. Some teachers even post their goals on the wall.

2. Provide opportunities for learners to practice the virtues. Learners need to practice and develop well-worn scripts for moral behavior.

3. Praise learners who behave in accord with the virtues.

4. Prohibit undesirable behavior and punish misbehavior, like stealing. However, keep in mind the costs of punishment that you read about in  Chapter 8 . If you must use punishment, combine it with other-oriented induction.

5. Highlight virtuous role models. Use literature with moral heroes and virtuous deeds. In one study, children who heard the story of George Washington and the ever-suffering cherry tree, which extols the virtues of truth-telling, and were told “I want you to be like George Washington and tell the truth,” were more truthful than children who heard stories about the negative consequences of lying, such as  Pinocchio (Lee et al., 2014). Emphasizing honest behavior, rather than dishonest behavior, was more effective. However, be aware that elementary-age learners, even as old as 5th grade, may not understand the theme of a moral story unless you make it explicit (Narvaez, 2002), or they may take a different message from the story than you intended, such as identifying with the bad character.

Critics of the character-education approach argue that behavior without principled reflection is not moral—indeed, that this may be the goal of totalitarian regimes. Rote obedience should not be the aim of moral education, because principled objection to oppressive rules is also moral. Proponents would counter that while self-determination based on moral principles is important, moral judgment is meaningless without habits of moral behavior.

Teach Morality through Everyday Interactions

The way you interact with your learners may be more important in promoting morality than a moral education program. Among the most important parenting factors associated with moral development are  modeling, authoritative parenting, a  democratic family structure in which parents show respect for children, and  induction (Berkowitz & Grych, 2000). The same factors can be applied to your classroom. That is, moral teachers model moral behavior. Authoritative teachers are democratic and allow verbal give-and-take with learners, including discussing moral issues. They are demanding and set high standards for moral behavior, but are also warm and caring. Let’s focus next on two factors we have not yet discussed in this section:

1. Use inductive discipline and be careful about what you discipline learners for. As you learned in  Chapter 8 , inductive discipline results in internalization, or learners who obey even when no one is looking. Recall that discipline is a teaching act. It is during discipline that learners learn adults’ core values. Learners are able to infer that the issues you are most demanding about, like not hitting someone, are core values and nonnegotiable. The issues that you are flexible about are not core values, and choices are acceptable, like whether to raise your hand during circle time. Teachers tend to present learners with choices about personal issues but state rules and give commands about moral issues (Killen & Smetana, 1999).

2. Care for learners. You learned how to foster teacher–learner attachment in  Chapter 4 .

You will recognize some overlap between how to help children develop strong moral reasoning and how to help them behave prosocially (see  Chapter 5 ). Let’s revisit prosocial behavior as it applied to preschoolers, and then delve deeply into antisocial behavior, because aggression is most common in the preschool years.

9-3Prosocial and Antisocial Behavior in Early Childhood

Both prosocial and antisocial behavior are common in early childhood. However, because aggression peaks in early childhood, we discuss in detail development of aggression and how to create a classroom environment that reduces aggression.

9-3aProsocial Behavior

In  Chapter 5 , you learned that between 1 and 2 years of age, toddlers become selective in their prosocial behavior. Preschoolers may become even more selective about their prosocial behavior, directing it primarily toward friends and family. They also are discriminating; 3-year-olds do not show concern for others whose distress is not justified, such as crying over a minor inconvenience rather than real hurt (Hepach, Vaish, & Tomasello, 2013). Yet, they are fair and egalitarian with others. When 3-year-olds work together to earn a treat, most will share the treat evenly (Warneken, Lohse, Melis, & Tomasello, 2011). They also begin to be genuinely helpful when others are distressed—a toddler might simply cry when another child cries, but a 4-year-old might fetch the child’s comfort “blankie.” By age 4, children have a wide range of helping behaviors that they can draw on.

Interestingly, preschoolers who are highly prosocial are often highly aggressive as well. They are very sociable children, and they have lots of both positive and negative interactions with others. Thus, preschoolers who share are also likely to snatch (Hay, 2009). By middle childhood, children tend to specialize, becoming predominantly positive or negative with others.

9-3bConflict Resolution

Between ages 1 and 7, children may have conflict every 3 to 12 minutes, depending on the age and setting (Chen, Fein, Killen, & Tam, 2001; Miller, Danaher, & Forbes, 1986). Thus, if you think young children are often in conflict, you are right.

Among preschoolers the sources of conflict are often social control, like who has to be the “baby” during play and who can join the group (Chen et al., 2001). When children try to enter an ongoing playgroup, the group resists about half of the time (Shantz, 1987). Preschoolers are more skilled than toddlers at resolving these conflicts. About half of 4-year-olds, but only a quarter of 2-year-olds, can resolve their own conflicts, and 4-year-olds use more-sophisticated strategies such as saying, “How about we share it?” rather than just saying, “No! Mine!”

As you learned above, preschoolers’ burgeoning ToM skills help them resolve conflicts more constructively. Conflict with peers and siblings also provides fertile ground for developing ToM and moral judgment. Recall that it is through conflict that Piaget believed children come to know what is right and wrong. Conflict also can lead to aggression, our next topic and a common behavior among preschoolers.

9-3eGroup Diversity in Antisocial Behavior

Both gender and poverty are linked to antisocial behavior. Let’s take a look at group differences in aggression next.

Gender

Perhaps the single most robust gender difference in child development is that boys are more aggressive than girls ( Photo 9.4 ). This difference holds across SES groups and across nations, from Britain to Ethiopia to Mexico (Joussemet et al., 2008; Lansford et al., 2012). This difference occurs early and persists through adulthood. In infancy, boys show more precursors of aggression, such as biting, hitting people, and anger (Hay et al., 2014). By age 2, boys grab, push, shove, and hit more than girls (Alink et al., 2006; Baillargeon et al., 2007). Gender differences get larger with age. Boys continue to be more aggressive, dishonest, disruptive, and delinquent than girls from preschool through high school (Autor, Figlio, Karbownik, Roth, & Wasserman, 2015; Ho, Bluestein, & Jenkins, 2008; Xie et al., 2011). Although these differences are real, teachers tend to amplify them, over-attributing aggression to boys (Pellegrini, 2011). Thus, you may need to guard against bias in your classroom.

Photo 9.4

Boys are more aggressive than girls. This is the most robust gender difference in behavior.

© iStock.com/Kathy Dewar

Some people believe that although boys are more physically aggressive than girls, girls are more socially aggressive, for example, by gossiping or excluding peers. Where might this “mean girls” stereotype come from? There is a subset (about 15%) of girls who specialize in social aggression. In addition, although girls overall are  less often aggressive, by 4th grade,  when girls are aggressive, they are more likely to use social aggression than physical aggression, especially gossip (Ettekal & Ladd, 2015; Putallaz et al., 2007). However, dozens of studies across countries have found that boys are socially aggressive as often, if not more often, as girls (Card, Stucky, Sawalani, & Little, 2008; Lansford et al., 2012). This makes sense because physical, verbal, and social aggression are highly correlated.

Socioeconomic Status

On average, learners from low-SES homes are more likely to be antisocial than high-SES learners (Bradley & Corwyn, 2002). One exception is that high-SES students tend to use more alcohol and other drugs. Low-SES learners have higher rates of aggression in preschool and when they begin school, and they increase in antisocial behavior across the school years (Aber, Brown, & Jones, 2003; Hay et al., 2014). The link between SES and antisocial behavior has been found in many countries, like the United States, England, Scotland, and the Netherlands, but not in all European countries (Rigby, 2002).

Why is there a link between SES and antisocial behavior? One reason may be exposure. Low-SES learners tend to use more-violent media, live in more-violent neighborhoods, and experience harsher parenting than middle- or high-SES learners (Dodge, Pettit, Bates, & Valente, 1995; Evans, 2004). For example, in one study low-SES parents were hostile toward their kindergarteners on average every 2 minutes while playing and reading together. The more hostile the parent, the more aggressive the child was on the school playground (Snyder et al., 2005). Parents who feel financial stress when they are not able to pay the bills tend to treat their children with more hostility (Williams, Conger, & Blozis, 2007). This fits the family stress model from  Chapter 1 . Children who have hostile parents are likely to develop a bias toward assuming hostility on the part of others. They tend to have stronger physiological reactions, like a rapidly beating heart, in ambiguous situations (Chen, Langer, Raphaelson, & Matthews, 2005). Effects are particularly strong for children who have both an emotionally negative temperament and stress-filled families (Schermerhorn et al., 2013).

Many low-SES learners are not aggressive. Those who are  not aggressive have parents who are less harsh and who have less substance use than their aggressive peers (Ackerman, Brown, & Izard, 2003). Learners’ aggression may change when risk factors change, such as a mother’s boyfriend moving in or out, or parental drug use increasing or decreasing.

9-3fClassroom Implications of Antisocial Behavior

Because of age trends in aggression, preschool classrooms are likely to have more incidents of aggression than those with children at other ages. How can you reduce aggression in your classroom?

1. Eliminate hunger and tiredness. Hunger and tiredness foster aggression (Anderson, 2001). For example, allow a snack if learners must wait too long for lunch. Let parents know when learners are overtired in your class, so they can get more sleep.

2. Be thoughtful about what behavior you reinforce. Aggressive learners are reinforced when they get what they want through aggression.

3. Establish a warm teacher–child relationship. High-quality teacher–child relationships are linked to less aggressive, more positive behavior; greater classroom participation; and liking school, regardless of how aggressive learners are to begin with and regardless of a genetic predisposition (Brendgen et al., 2012; Meehan et al., 2003; O’Connor, Dearing, & Collins, 2011; Thomas, Bierman, & Powers, 2011). It is difficult to establish positive relationships in a classroom with several highly aggressive learners, but if you can be sensitive and supportive, they are likely to become less aggressive (Thomas et al., 2011).

4. Avoid power-assertive discipline. Power assertion causes resentment and models aggressive interaction.

5. Screen for behavior problems early, preferably before age 8. Aggression becomes stable at an early age and is difficult to change, although even adolescents can benefit from intervention. Learners who are at high risk for conduct problems can be identified as early as age 3 because at that age they are impulsive, irritable, and noncompliant. Early childhood teachers should be especially concerned about learners who have a high ratio of negative to positive behaviors.

9-4 Friendship and Play in Early Childhood

A key reason to help children reduce aggression and increase prosocial behavior is to improve the quality of their friendships and opportunities for play. Let’s look at preschoolers’ friendships and then delve deeply into the role of play in their development.

9-4cIndividual Diversity in Play

Do you know learners who seem highly playful? Some learners consistently play more, and in more advanced ways, than others. Differences in play provide a window into a child’s cognitive and social competence. Let’s examine how learners differ in their play.

What Do Individual Differences in Play Predict?

Learners who frequently play in age-appropriate ways have better cognitive abilities and academic achievement. They have greater intelligence, verbal ability, visual-spatial ability, problem-solving ability, creativity, literacy skills, and math achievement.     Learners who frequently play in age-appropriate ways also have better social and emotional competence. They have greater self-control, theory of mind, prosocial behavior, emotional perspective-taking, emotion regulation, and happiness, and less aggression.     These positive outcomes have been linked to play for all children, from preschoolers through adolescents. These benefits are especially evident in low-SES learners.

Does play  cause these good outcomes? It seems reasonable. Vygotsky (1978) believed that play promotes development because it allows children to practice and acquire skills beyond their current level, raising their zone of proximal development. For example, a 3-year-old cannot pour a real pot of hot tea or ride a horse, but can pour a pretend pot or ride a stick horse. Video games are similar in that they allow teenagers to be their “ideal self” in a virtual world (Przybylski, Weinstein, Murayama, Lynch, & Ryan, 2012). An 18-year-old may not be a defender of kingdoms, but can imagine being one during a video game. Nevertheless, you could argue that play is the result, not the cause, of social and cognitive abilities. That is, some learners may engage in more-advanced play because they are already more socially skilled and intelligent. This was Piaget’s view (Piaget, 1962). How might you answer the question of causation? One approach is an experiment (see  Chapter 1 ). If learners who have poor skills are trained to play more, and then their skills improve, you can conclude that play probably caused the improvement. Let’s look at what experiments have revealed.

One stark example of a field experiment occurred at Mother Teresa’s orphanage in India. Children’s physical needs were met, but the overworked caregivers were reluctant to let children play because they believed it would increase their workload. The children had significant developmental delays, much like the children who suffered neglect in hospitals and orphanages, as described in  Chapter 4 . Researchers convinced the caregivers to try a 90-minute daily playtime. Within 3 months, the children’s motor, cognitive, and social skills improved dramatically. Children who could not talk or feed themselves developed those abilities. The children were more active, playful, responsive, and independent, which actually decreased the caregivers’ workload (Taneja et al., 2002).

This is a dramatic example, but similar results are sometimes found when at-risk children in preschools or childcare centers are trained in sociodramatic play (Roopnarine, Shin, Donovan, & Suppal, 2000). How might you train children to play? One approach is to read fantasy books—like  The Three Little Pigs—and then help the children enact the story. Another approach is to help the children plan their play—like “Let’s play grocery store”—and then back away (withdraw scaffolding), only intervening if the children need help to sustain their play, followed by a debriefing session—like “What did you play? What did you say to …?” (Craig-Unkefer & Kaiser, 2002). Research on interventions like these suggests that play causes improvement in language, but there currently is no clear evidence that play causes improvement in other domains (e.g., intelligence, creativity, theory of mind, executive functions, or social skills). More rigorous research to determine whether play  causes positive outcomes is needed (Lillard et al., 2013). Nevertheless, play clearly has value; it is fun, energizing, and helps solidify relationships.

What Predicts Individual Differences in Play?

Several  child factors predict playfulness. Learners who are humorous, imaginative, curious, expressive, social, verbal, active, and novelty-seeking play more than other learners. In contrast, learners who have poor emotion regulation and are immature, impulsive, aggressive, and rejected by peers play less. Learners who have physical or mental limitations may be less playful. For example, learners with visual impairment tend to have less mature pretend play (Lewis, Norgate, Collis, & Reynolds, 2000). Their play may be limited because they cannot observe peer models at play, and their attention is not visually drawn to play objects. Learners with autism tend to have impoverished functional and pretense play. Play is so characteristic of children that atypical play is often used to diagnose developmental delays.

Several  parent factors predict playfulness. Parents influence the quality and amount of their children’s play by providing opportunities for play and through the type of relationship they have with their children. Children with power-assertive parents are more likely to withdraw from social play, whereas children with authoritative parents are more likely to play cooperatively. Children with secure parent–child attachment initiate more play and have richer, more creative, and more socially complex play. Children with avoidant attachment are more likely to play in ways that involve no people (Cassibba, Van Ijzendoorn, & D’Odorico, 2000; Sroufe, 1996).

A Cautionary Note about Solitary Play

In  Table 9.2  you learned that solitary play is a less mature form of play. Solitary play can be a cause for concern, but it depends on the context and whether the play is active or passive. Solitary-active play involves either functional play or dramatic pretense play. It is a red flag for poor social skills if a learner plays  alone when others are available to play with. For example, a learner might play with a ball alone when there are several others playing nearby with a ball. Solitary- active play could be a cause and/or consequence of social withdrawal and peer rejection.

In contrast, solitary-passive play is not necessarily a cause for concern. It involves constructive play—like doing puzzles, drawing, coloring, or building with blocks. These are activities that are typically done alone, even when playmates are abundant. Solitary-passive play is linked to high academic achievement and social competence for socially competent children. Children who play alone but are socially skilled and have friends fare well (Coplan et al., 2013). However, learners who play in a solitary-passive way because of social anxiety may have low achievement and internalizing problems (Burgess, Rubin, Cheah, & Nelson, 2005). Learners who miss the benefits of social play could lag in social and academic skills. Thus, solitary- passive play warrants careful observation to determine underlying motives for solitary play. Keep in mind that solitary play is only a concern in the midst of a classroom of playmates, not when there is no one else to play with, such as at home

9-4dGroup Diversity in Play

Differences in play are linked to gender and socioeconomic status. Let’s look at these group differences next.

Gender

In  Chapter 8 , you learned that children are gender detectives who are drawn to peers and activities that they think are for their own sex. As a result, gender segregation occurs during play throughout childhood. As boys play with boys, and girls play with girls, different play cultures emerge. Preschool girls are more likely to play indoors, near adults. They play house and games that require verbal interaction. They typically play with only two or three others. Their play involves cooperation, discussion, support, and encouragement, with themes oriented around domestic or romantic scripts and maintenance of order and safety (Maccoby, 2002). Boys’ play involves dominance, competition, conflict, and risk-taking, with themes of danger, destruction, and heroism. Boys engage in more rough-and-tumble play (Pellegrini, 2003). See  Photo 9.7 . For example, a teacher of 2- to 3-year-olds described play among the learners in her class:

Photo 9.7

Can you tell whether this is aggression or rough-and-tumble play? What clues are you using?

I Love Images/SuperStock

The girls usually draw and play with dolls while the boys usually “drive” toy trucks. Both boys and girls play with the puzzles and books. When I bring out the puppets, the boys immediately begin making their puppets growl and try to gobble each other up. This is funny because the puppets are a turtle and a giraffe—neither of which is known for growling. The girls make their puppets meow, cry, and kiss each other.

Such differences will continue into early elementary school. That is, boys play more games with balls, like soccer, basketball, and football; and girls play more games that involve songs, chants, and rhymes—like jump rope (Pellegrini et al., 2004). Boy–girl differences in play have been found during almost a century of research on play (Harper & Huie, 1998).

Where do these gender differences in play come from? In  Chapter 8 , you learned that fathers engage in different activities with sons and daughters. So perhaps parents cause gender differences in play by reinforcing gender-typed play and providing gender-typed toys, like footballs to baby boys. Or perhaps parents are simply responding to children’s innate gender differences, rather than causing them. Furthermore, the peer group, rather than parents, may be more powerful in sustaining gender differences in play. Learners who cross boundaries, especially boys who play in “girl” ways, tend to be rejected by their peer group (Rubin, Bukowski, & Parker, 1998).

Both  selection and  socialization are at work in the peer group. Children are exposed to both boy and girl play patterns at school, but they  select playmates who have play patterns similar to their own. Gender differences become more pronounced over time as children  socialize one another within their same-sex play groups (Martin et al., 2013). This means that at the beginning of the school year, preschool and elementary teachers see fewer gender differences than they do at the end of the school year. Thus, gender segregation may be both a cause and a consequence of differences in play patterns.

Socioeconomic Status

SES affects the amount of space and the range of choices available for play. It is also linked to quality of play. Low-SES children tend to play in less elaborate ways than do middle-SES children. That is, during pretense play they have shorter episodes, fewer different roles, less imaginative use of props, more aggression, and less discussion. Their play involves less reading and writing compared with higher-SES children (Roskos, 2000). These SES differences in play spawned the research on play intervention discussed previously. Scientists hypothesized that if low-SES children could be trained to play in more-advanced ways, they would develop better language, and perhaps cognitive and social skills. They appear to have been correct.

9-4eClassroom Implications of Play

Play predicts physical, cognitive, and social development. Playful learning that is carefully designed and challenging is a powerful approach to instruction (Lillard et al., 2013). To promote play in your classroom, follow these guidelines:

1. Provide props, space, and time for pretense play. Such play can facilitate literacy when preschoolers pretend to be a shopper buying items or a waitress taking orders (Roskos & Christie, 2001).

2. Provide board games and puzzles when appropriate. Playing with challenging puzzles helps young children develop better spatial skills, which are important for math and science ability (Levine, Ratliff, Huttenlocher, & Cannon, 2012). In  Chapter 7 , you learned that playing board games helped preschoolers learn number sense.

Friends and play are a pervasive influence on children’s social development. So is media, as you will see next.

9-5TV and Media Use in Early Childhood

Lilly enters the children’s section of the community library. Although she is surrounded by appealing books, 4-year-old Lilly heads straight to one of the computers at the back of the room and logs on to an educational video game. Her mother tries to coax her to select books, but Lilly doesn’t seem to even hear her mother, she is so absorbed by the screen. After 10 minutes, her mother turns the game off. Later, as they leave for home, Lilly begs, “Can I watch  Daniel [a children’s television show] when I get home?” Her mother has a rule of only 20 minutes of TV or movies per day, and absolutely no violent videos. Lilly has her own hand-me-down iPad with a few educational games, which she loves, but is only allowed to use during car drives.

Although children like Lily are exposed to newer technologies, TV still dominates their media use (Hofferth, 2010). Television has a unique niche that is not replaced by newer media. It entered US homes in the 1950s and flooded the market by 1960. Today, 98% of homes have at least one TV. Most families also have video games, a computer, and other media devices. Do other children use as much media (or as little) as Lily? Are they more likely to watch violent or educational shows? These questions reflect two concerns about media use—time and content. Let’s look at these concerns.

9-5aThe Issue of Time

Children spend a great deal of time using media. This media use displaces other, potentially more important, activities. The more time 1- to 12-year-olds spend watching TV or playing video games, the less time they spend sleeping, playing, reading, or studying (Hofferth, 2010).

9-5bThe Issue of Content

Some TV and computer programs are educational or prosocial. Shows like  Sesame Street are designed to build academic skills. Shows like  Arthur are designed to teach social skills, like conflict resolution and kindness to others. Unfortunately, children spend substantially more time with antisocial media.

Antisocial media contains violence. The average child watches tens of thousands of violent acts on TV. The violence is often depicted as glamorous or without traumatic consequences. Aggressors are often heroes with no remorse who go unpunished, and victims often miraculously recover. Video games are even more violent than TV. Some people argue that violent media simply mirrors society. This is a myth. Your learners will seldom personally witness a murder, even in violent neighborhoods, but they will watch thousands in media. One media critic estimated that if the level of violence on TV were realistic, within 50 days every US citizen would have been murdered, and the last one could turn off the TV (Medved, 1995).

Antisocial media contains sexual content. About 84% of sitcoms have sexual content (Lorch, 2007). TV shows average five sex-related scenes per hour, including shows watched by children during prime time. Sexual content on TV has increased 10-fold since the 1970s, and nearly doubled between 1998 and 2005 (Kunkel, Eyal, Finnerty, Biely, & Donnerstein, 2005). The average child may be exposed to 10,000 to 15,000 media references to sex each year. Women are often portrayed as sex objects. Sex is portrayed as superficial and risk-free. It is often portrayed without emotional or physical consequences such as sexually transmitted infections or pregnancy (Ward, 2003).

Preschoolers watch about an hour and a half per day of TV, making Lily’s carefully controlled exposure unusual (Rideout, 2014). They mostly watch shows designed for adults. However, young children are more likely to watch child-oriented educational or prosocial TV and play educational video games than are older youth (Wartella, Caplovitz, & Lee, 2004).  Table 9.4  shows that media use goes up, but  educational media use goes down, from ages 2 to 10.

Table 9.4

Screen Media Use by Age

Time spent with screen media (hours:minutes), by age
	Among all	2- to 4-year-olds	5- to 7-year-olds	8- to 10-year olds
Average amount of time spent per day with:
Television	1:21	1:20	1:18	1:24
Video games	:17	:03	:20	:27
Computers	:14	:02	:15	:25
Mobile devices	:14	:10	:14	:18
Total screen	2:07	1:37	2:08	2:36
Proportion of screen time that is educational (hours:minutes), by age
	Among all	2- to 4-year-olds	5- to 7-year-olds	8- to 10-year olds
Average amount of time spent using any screen media in a typical day	2:07	1:37	2:08	2:36
Average amount of time spent using any educational screen media in a typical day	:56	1:16	:50	:42
Proportion of total screen media time that is educational	44%	78%	39%	27%

Notice that media use goes up, but  educational media use goes down from ages 2 to 10.

Source: Rideout (2014).

9-5cIndividual Diversity in Media Use

Huge individual differences exist in media use. Children tend to maintain television viewing habits that they start as toddlers—that is, heavy viewers remain heavy viewers (Huston et al., 2007). Lily is likely to grow into a teen who seldom, if ever, plays video games, whereas others play many hours each day (and night). Still others are constantly texting and checking Facebook.

What Do Differences in Media Use Predict?

How much media children use and the content of those media are linked to all domains of the child—physical, cognitive, emotional, and social. Outcomes linked to media use can be positive or negative, depending on content and amount of time using the media. Let’s look more closely at specific outcomes next.

Physical Development

Media use can undermine physical well-being in two ways. First, media use replaces physical activity. Heavy media users tend to be overweight (pun unintended), particularly girls (Lorch, 2007). Second, media use promotes bad eating habits. TV ads sell high-calorie foods; youth eat more high-calorie foods while watching TV; and metabolism during TV watching is lower than during sleep (Kaiser Family Foundation, 2004).

Cognitive Development and Achievement

Heavy TV viewers read less and talk less with their parents. They have lower verbal and reading ability, lower grades, and more attention problems, and spend less time studying. These effects occur from preschool through high school (Busch et al., 2014; Ennemoser & Schneider, 2007; Fuligni & Stevenson, 1995; Wright et al., 2001).

One concern is that television viewing may lead to short attention span, limited imagination, and passive children because it is fast-paced with many interruptions. Some research suggests that when toddlers experience several hours per day of TV, they are likely to develop ADHD-like problems later, but not if they watch moderate amounts (Foster & Watkins, 2010). Yet, an experimental study found that just minutes of watching a fast-paced cartoon resulted in short-term deficits in executive functions (see  Figure 9.8 ).

Figure 9.8Watching TV Results in Poor Executive Functioning in the Short Term

Four-year-olds were randomly assigned to watch a fast-paced cartoon, to watch a slower-paced educational video, or to draw for 9 minutes. They were then given three tests of executive function and a delay-of-gratification test using marshmallows and crackers. (The HTKS [head toes knees shoulders] test asked children to touch their toes when told to touch their head, and vice versa. This was repeated with shoulders and knees. The backward digit test asked children to repeat a sequence of numbers, such as 4–3–1, in reverse order.) A z-score is the number of standard deviations above or below the mean, with zero as the mean.

Source: Lillard and Peterson (2011).

Similar outcomes are linked to video gaming. In one experiment, 1st- to 3rd-grade boys who did not own a video gaming system were given one. Half were randomly assigned to receive it immediately, and half to receive it 4 months later. At the end of the 4 months, the boys who were new game players had lower reading and writing scores and more learning problems compared to those who had not yet received their gaming system. The new game players spent less time reading, listening to stories, writing, and doing homework (Weis & Cerankosky, 2010).

On the positive side, children who use  educational media read more and have better reading, math, and vocabulary test scores than those who use  entertainment media (Schmidt & Anderson, 2007). Lily’s video games helped her learn the alphabet. Watching  Sesame Street and using educational video games helps low-SES 3-year-olds develop school-readiness skills (Huston et al., 2007; Li & Atkins, 2004).

Emotional Development

Media violence is linked to anxiety and fear. Heavy users develop a “mean world” belief that the world is violent and that they are more likely to be victims than is really the case. Media violence also desensitizes children so that they respond less to others’ distress and are more tolerant of aggression (Bushman & Anderson, 2009). We got our first TV when our daughter was a toddler. The first few times that actors fought and shot guns, she raced up the stairs as fast as her short legs would go, clambered into the dry bathtub, and cowered behind the shower curtain until we coaxed her out (trying not to laugh). Now, three decades of TV later, she can watch highly violent shows with little arousal. She is desensitized, just as you probably are.

Prosocial Behavior

One of our university students had a difficult childhood, with an absent father and a drug-addicted mother who was often incarcerated and disappeared for days at a time with boyfriends. Today, he is a tender father and husband, which he credits to watching  Father Knows Best in childhood. He set a goal that when he grew up, he would imitate the father in the show, rather than his mother. Research supports his life story. Children who watch prosocial TV and play prosocial video games (yes, they do exist) are more likely to share, help, and comfort others, and are less likely to be aggressive, than other children (Gentile et al., 2009; Padilla-Walker, Coyne, Collier, & Nielson, 2015). This effect is not just correlational. In experimental studies, participants are randomly assigned to play either a prosocial, neutral, or antisocial video game. Those who play prosocial games are more likely to help others after playing the game (Greitemeyer & Osswald, 2010).

Antisocial Behavior

Unfortunately, much of the media children experience is antisocial. The Surgeon General of the United States issued a report that violent media leads to aggression in children (Anderson et al., 2003; Wartella et al., 2004). Key points of the report follow:

· A variety of types of studies—experimental, laboratory, and correlational—demonstrate that watching violent TV increases children’s aggression and acceptance of violence. For example, when young children watch a violent film before playing together, they are more likely to be aggressive during play.

· Similar effects of violence are found for viewing videos, listening to songs, and playing video games. Some, but not all, studies find that video games are more harmful than TV because gamers actually pull the trigger to shoot others and are rewarded for it.

· Most children are affected by TV violence to at least a small degree, but some vulnerable children are affected to a large degree.

Similar effects are found across countries such as Holland, Finland, Germany, Japan, England, and Canada. Thus, violent media is a compelling risk factor for aggression. More recent research continues to support these conclusions (e.g., Anderson et al., 2010; Hull et al., 2014; Verlinden et al., 2012).

In summary, both media content and amount of use are linked to children’s physical, cognitive, emotional, and social well-being. Nevertheless, some psychologists claim that violent media are simply entertainment, neither helping nor harming children (e.g., Ferguson & Kilburn, 2010). They argue that the scientific evidence discussed herein is not compelling because

· (1)

effect sizes are small, and

· (2)

most of the research is correlational.

Thinking like a Scientist

These same criticisms apply to most research on child development. In  Chapter 1 , you learned that today’s teachers need to be able to understand and interpret research. Let’s take a few minutes to hone your scientific skills by examining these criticisms.

Effect Sizes

Table 9.5  shows effect sizes for various outcomes linked to media use. Taking aggression as an example, the effect of violent media (0.13 to 0.31) is small to moderate in size, just as with childcare (Anderson et al., 2010; Wartella et al., 2004). This means that not every child who uses violent media will behave aggressively. In  Chapter 1 , you learned that no single risk factor is likely to have a large effect because so many factors affect children. An effect size of 0.30 for any single factor may be as high as you will see for complex behavior that has multiple causes, which scientists call the “0.30 barrier.” The same is true in medical sciences as well (Meyer et al., 2001).

Table 9.5

Effect Sizes for Media Use Predicting Various Outcomes

Type of media use	Outcome	Effect size
Physical development
Television viewing	Obesity	0.08
Video game use	Obesity	0.13
Television viewing	Physical activity	−0.13
Video game use	Physical activity	−0.14
Tobacco use in media	Attitudes toward smoking	0.11
Tobacco use in media	Smoking initiation	0.22
Media use	Male body satisfaction	−0.10
Cognitive development
Media violence	ADHD symptoms	0.12
Emotional development
Facebook use	Loneliness	0.17
Exposure to scary television	Fear or anxiety	0.18
Social development
Media violence	Antisocial behavior	0.31
Media violence	Aggression	0.13
Violent pornography	Aggression	0.22
Video game use	Aggression	0.19
Violent video game use	Aggression	0.15
Video game use	Prosocial behavior	−0.16
Child use of positive media	Positive interaction	0.24
Child use of positive media	Stereotype reduction	0.20

Note: Each row represents a different meta-analysis, and each meta-analysis included many different studies. Negative numbers indicate outcomes and media use are in opposite directions (i.e., the more video game use, the less prosocial behavior, but the more aggression).

Source: Valkenburg, Peter, and Walther (2016).

So why pay attention to small effects? Small effects can have practical significance; over large populations, they can alter society. Furthermore, although violent media has a small effect on most children, it has a large effect on vulnerable children. If just 25% of US children are affected by violent media, then more than 10 million would be more violent. To put media effects in perspective, research suggests that TV violence has a stronger effect on children’s aggression than low IQ, divorce, child abuse, or antisocial friends (Bushman, Rothstein, & Anderson, 2010). The effect size is larger than the effect for smoking or asbestos exposure on cancer. The government has taken action on these other issues but has not protected children from violent media.

Correlational versus Experimental Research

Think about This

Laws have been proposed to restrict selling violent or sexually explicit video games to minors. Some courts have ruled that protecting First Amendment rights of producers is more important than protecting children and that there is no causal connection between media use and children’s antisocial behavior. If you prepared a brief for the court, how would you argue this issue? Is there a parallel with protecting children from purchasing alcohol? Should educational or prosocial TV be mandated?

In  Chapter 1 , you learned that only carefully controlled, randomized experiments can convincingly demonstrate that violent media  causes aggression. Most parents object to scientists randomly assigning their children to use violent media for years to see if it makes them aggressive. So scientists resort to short-term, artificial experiments. For example, children are randomly assigned to watch a violent or a nonviolent film, then given the opportunity to play with peers, and their aggressive acts like shoving or name-calling are counted. Such studies show that children exposed to violence are more aggressive during the study, but these studies cannot tell you whether a steady diet of violent media causes long-term aggression in real life. Correlational studies, on the other hand, can tell you whether TV viewing is linked to children’s real-life aggression, but they cannot demonstrate causation. Children who are already aggressive may choose to watch more violent TV. Which causes which? Longitudinal research shows that current TV watching is correlated with aggression years later, but the reverse is not true—current aggression is not correlated with TV watching years later. This helps make a case for causation.

Each form of research has shortcomings, but when many studies using different approaches all converge on the same conclusion, you can have some confidence in that conclusion. You can have further confidence when the conclusion is supported by evidence-based theories, such as social cognitive theory, which focuses on the effects of modeling (see  Chapter 15 ). This is the case for the claim that violent media causes aggression.

What Predicts Individual Differences in Media Use?

How much and what media children use depends on parents. Children usually watch what their parents watch. Parents set limits, model media use, and provide alternative activities. If parents encourage playing, reading, or extracurricular activities, their children have less time for TV. Lily is likely to be healthier, less anxious, more prosocial, and have better kindergarten readiness skills because her mother limits her screen time and permits only educational or prosocial shows and video games.

In summary, in this chapter on social development in early childhood, you have learned how preschoolers make dramatic gains in both people reading and reasoning about social dilemmas, and how you can help promote these abilities. You also learned about aggression, including the role of media, and how to reduce aggression in your learners. Finally, you learned about the importance of play and its development. In  Chapters 13  and  17 , you will learn how children develop in the social domain in middle childhood and adolescence.