Sibs, peers, & prosociality
Messinger
your idea of a good friend





In kindergarten was the person who let you
have the red crayon when all that was left
was the ugly black one.
In first grade the person who went to the
bathroom with you and held your hand as you
walked through the scary halls.
In second grade was the person who helped
you stand up to the class bully.
In third grade the person who shared their
lunch with you when you forgot yours on the
bus.
In fourth grade was the person who was
Are you the same or different
than your siblings?
6/30/2016
Messinger
5
Why are siblings so different?
Siblings are often no more alike than
random children chosen from similar
backgrounds
 Full siblings share a quarter of their genes
 Do they share (exactly) the same
environment?

–
–
6/30/2016
Each provides the other’s environment
They are complementary
Messinger
6
Sulloway: Competition for
parental resources
Attention, food, birthrights
 Firstborns - align perspectives and interests
with those of parents

–

Excel in domains left open by firstborn
–
6/30/2016
Less open to change
More open to change
Messinger
7
Historical Evidence

Propensity of first-borns
to resist and later-borns to
spear-head radical change
(social, religious, and
scientific)
–

E.g., Radical scientific
controversies
–
6/30/2016
Factors in age and social
attitudes
73% correct classification
Messinger
8
Personality surveys tell a
different story

Researchers in personality psychology who
had worked on birth order using surveys in
which the subjects self-report. When
subjects fill out the surveys themselves,
birth-order differences seem considerably
smaller than they are with historical
samples, or with life stories of
contemporary individuals.
http://www.eastbayexpress.com/issues/2001-04-27/feature.html
6/30/2016
Messinger
10
Constructing Shared Meanings
During Sibling Pretend Play



Kindergarteners with older (7) or younger (3.6) sib.
Older dyads more shared meaning strategies; younger
dyads engaged in disruptions to play flow
Firstborns used more disruptions, second-borns
extended partner's ideas.
–
Dyadic strategies to construct shared meanings (e.g.,
extensions, building on) positively associated with
frequency of pretense and internal state language.

Sibling relationship illuminates social understanding
and relationship dynamics during pretend play.

Child Development, 2005, Howe et al.
6/30/2016
Messinger
11
Levels of analysis

Interactions
–

The braiding of two individual’s behavior
Relationships
–
“succession of interactions”


Groups – collection of interacting kids
–
6/30/2016
Friendship is a reciprocal, voluntary relationship based on
affection
Defined by cohesiveness, hierarchy, heterogeneity
Messinger
13
Implications
Interactions, relationships, and groups are
mutually constitutive and have emergent
properties
 Concepts like popularity exist at an
individual and group level

6/30/2016
Messinger
14
Closeness in young adult sibling
relationships



6/30/2016
Interaction between close siblings characterized by
higher positive affect, fewer power struggles,
lower heart rate reactivity, higher scores of
emotional empathy and cognitive aspects of
empathy such as perspective-taking than distant
siblings.
No evidence that sibling closeness was related to
family structure variables.
Shortt, J. W., & Gottman, J. M. (1997). Closeness in Young Adult Sibling Relationships: Affective and Physiological
Processes. Social Development, 6(2), 142-164. doi: 10.1111/j.1467-9507.1997.tb00099.x
Messinger
15
Childhood Sibling Relationships as a Predictor of
Major Depression in Adulthood: A 30-Year
Prospective Study
Waldinger, Vaillant, &
Orav (2007)
Marchante
Poor sibling relationship qualitydepression/drugs
• Family history of depression and poor sibling relationship
quality before age 20 resulted in higher odds of MDD (controlling
for quality of parenting in childhood)
• Family history of depression and poorer sibling relationships
uniquely associated with more use of mood-altering drugs
• Question: Other control variables to consider??
Marchante
Peer overview
Kids are interested in kids
 Preferring peers to adults early on and more
dramatically with development
 Finding appropriate models for their
developmental niche

6/30/2016
Messinger
19
Early development

Infants have rudimentary abilities (to 1 yr)
–

Toddlers
–
–
6/30/2016
I.e., increased gazing at peers
Imitate and are aware of being imitated
Have reciprocal relationships with specific kids
Messinger
20
Early childhood

Types of play
–
–
–

Friendship emerges
–

6/30/2016
Unoccupied, solitary, on-looking, parallel, associative,
cooperative
Parallel play is important transitional activity
Pretend play emerges (inter-subjectivity)
More prosocial and aggressive behavior with friends
As do dominance hierarchies
Messinger
21
Middle childhood & school

Peer interaction rises and changes
–
–

Friendship develops
–

Friends more likely to resolve conflicts with
eye toward protecting relationship
Groups emerge
–
6/30/2016
10% (3 y olds) to 30% (middle childhood)
Peer group increases and is less supervised
and understanding of role and status in group
Messinger
22
Adolescence

29% of waking time with peers
–

Friendship
–

Single sex cliques mesh into looser mixed-sex groups
Crowds
–
–
6/30/2016
Autonomy granting and increased intimacy
Groups
–

Out of classroom
Druggies, loners, brains, jocks
Increasingly prominent aspect of social life
Messinger
23
Theories
Sullivan emphasized pre-adolescent
chumships as foundation of intimacy and
precursor to romantic coupling
 Piaget emphasized moral development
occurring during give-and-take with peers
(rather than obedience to, or rebellion
against, adults)

6/30/2016
Messinger
24
Assessment techniques

Observation
–

Not enough known about process of friendship
formation and rejection, but see Gottman
Peer report
–
Sociometry

Moderately stable (.4 - .7)
–



6/30/2016
Depending on construct
Teacher report
Agreement across sources - low to moderate
What would you use?
Messinger
25
Social status
High Disliking
(Rejection)
Controversial
Kids
Rejected
Kids
Low Liking
High Liking
(Acceptance)
Neglected
Kids
Popular
Kids
Low Disliking
6/30/2016
Messinger
26
Neglected, popular

Neglected kids
–
–

Popular kids
–

High prosocial behaviors, low aggression
Rejected kids
–
6/30/2016
Less interaction of all types
Social competence reports = average kids
40=50% are aggressive
Messinger
27
Parenting and peers
Security of attachment has a pervasive
moderate impact on quality of peer relations
 Parenting beliefs influence behaviors
influencing social competence & peer
relations

–
–
Child-directed parenting  pos. peer relations
Inept parenting  antisocial behavior  peer
rejection
 But
6/30/2016
reverse cycle is also plausible
Messinger
28
Relative

Relation between behavior and popularity depends
on whether behavior is normative
–
–

Cross-cultural work needs to be done
–

6/30/2016
Chinese popularity highlights reticence
Friendship possibilities depend on similarity to group
Cross-age groups understudied?
Sex differences less pronounced than might be
expected
Messinger
29
Culture and Peer Interactions Reminder (Chen, 2012)
Chen, Wang, & DeSouza, 2006
Distinguishing conflicted shyness
from social disinterest @ 3-5 years

Conflicted Shyness
–
–
Want to play, but are too fearful or anxious
High approach + high avoidance




Overprotective parenting may be a contributing factor.
Related to later maladjustment
Puts boys at greater risk than girls
Social Disinterest
–
–
Prefer to play alone but willing to engage
Low approach + low avoidance


Often not distinguished from shyness
Participation in solitary activities later internalizing
Three forms of social withdrawal in Early Childhood
Coplan & Armer

Shyness
– Wariness/anxiety due to social novelty and perceived evaluation

Behavioral inhibition

Linked to maladjustment across lifespan
–



Protective: language ability, high-quality friendship
Risk: parental overprotection, negative emotional climate classrooms
Social Avoidance
–
–
Low-social approach and high-social avoidance
Most at risk?



Extreme shyness (Boys)
Distinct from other forms ?
Extreme fearful shyness? Pre-cursor to child depression?
Social Disinterest
– “Non-fearful” preference for solitary play, unsociability
– Independent of shyness; relatively benign?


Association: solitary play & peer rejection/internalizing problems
Solitary play not a sufficient indicator of social disinterest?
Nayfeld
Trajectories of Social Withdrawal from Middle
Childhood to Early Adolescence
(Oh, Rubin, Bowker, Booth-LaForce, Rose-Krasnor, & Laursen, 2008)

Social withdrawal
Consistent solitary behavior with peers across situations & time
Moderately stable
Risk factor for psychological maladjustment
Peer environments
–
–
–
–


Peer rejection vs. friendlessness
Best friends – ameliorate or exacerbate?
–

Current study: 392 fifth-graders
1.
2.
Trajectories of social withdrawal
Factors that predict trajectory membership

3.

Characteristics and quality
Ameliorate/exacerbate within a trajectory
Children with best friends
Note: 5th – 6th graders + 1 later time point
Kolnick
Social withdrawal
Predictors of trajectory (between)
1.
–
5th grade (decreasing & increasing > low-stable)

–

6th


1.
Trajectory patterns
–
Prosocial behavior
Peer exclusion/victimization
–
grade (increasing > low-stable)
–
Low-stable (85%)
Decreasing (8 %)
Increasing (7%)
Peer exclusion/victimization
Friendship involvement
Trajectories of Social Withdrawal from Middle Childhood to Early
Adolescence
Kolnick
(Oh, Rubin, Bowker, Booth-LaForce, Rose-Krasnor, & Laursen, 2008)
Discussion

Trajectories consistent with other study of social withdrawal
trajectories from 1st to 6th grade
–
Decreasing trajectory:

–
Increasing trajectory

–
Highest initial withdrawal
Both friend absence and unstable friend presence
Predictors of membership


Exclusion and victimization matter
But, so does prosocial behavior
–


Compliance?
Unexpected: having a friend predicts increasing social withdrawal
Friendship: protective or risk factor?
–
Share maladaptive characteristics



Friend’s withdrawal predictive
Co-rumination?
Friendship quality NOT predictive
Kolnick
Children with an early childhood history of
anxious solitude were more rejected, poorly
accepted (boys), and victimized (girls) by
peers and demonstrated more depressive
symptoms (girls) in 1st-grade classrooms with
a negative observed emotional climate.
Messinger
Social withdrawal and maladjustment in
a very group-oriented society.
Withdrawal associated with loneliness in
Cuban data > Canadian data,
 Aggression a correlate of loneliness in the
Cuban data from both cohorts.
 Pronounced role of peer group in Cuban
society regulating social behaviours.


Sociometric, 4 & 6 grade, 2 cohorts.

Valdivia, Ibis Alvarez; Schneider, Barry H.; Chavez, Kenia Lorenzo; Chen, Xinyin
International Journal of Behavioral Development. Vol 29(3), May 2005, 219-228.
6/30/2016
Messinger
38
Antisocial and prosocial popular boys

Popular pro-social boys
–

Popular anti-social boys
–

High Academic, Affiliative, Popular, Winning
High Aggressive, Popular, Winning
Differentiated by teacher ratings
–
Self & peer nominations also distinguish the groups


Both types are often-named members of
prominent classroom groups

6/30/2016
E.g., on Aggression and Academics
Rodkin & Farmer. (2000). Heterogeneity of Popular Boys: Antisocial and
Prosocial Configurations. Developmental Psychology, 36(1), 14-24
Messinger
39
Varies by classroom characteristics
6/30/2016
Messinger
40
•Among friended children, no prospective associations
between social isolation and either internalizing or
externalizing problems.
•Among unfriended children, initial social isolation
subsequent increases in internalizing and externalizing;
•Initial internalizing and externalizing  predicted
subsequent increases in social isolation.
Farhat
Friends don’t let friends…
internalize & externalize
Farhat
6/30/2016
Bichay
45
Background
Roughly half of middle school friendships
do not last an academic year
 Sources of Friendship Dissolution

–
–

6/30/2016
Dissimilarity
Individual Characteristics
Purpose of study: To compare dyadic
differences in behavior with individual
levels of behavior to predict occurrence and
timing of dissolution of friendships
Bichay
46
Method



N= 410 adolescents
Assessed annually from 7th to 12th grade
Measures
–
–
–

6/30/2016
Friendship nominations
Peer nominations
Teacher-reported school competence
Used Survival analyses
Bichay
47
Results
6/30/2016
Bichay
48
Results cont’d.
6/30/2016
Bichay
49
Discussion




6/30/2016
Differences between friends predicted friendship
dissolution beyond individual characteristics
Friendship stability is a function of similarity
Effect of participants in study that had higher
school competence scores then those that dropped
out?
Other factors that may predict friendship
dissolution?
Bichay
50
Modeling homophily over time with an
actor-partner interdependence model
Popp, D., Laursen, B., Kerr, M., Stattin, H., & Burk, W. (2008). Developmental Psychology, 44(4), 1028-1039.

Why do friends engage in similar deviant behavior (homophily)?
–
–

Evidence for selection effect
–

Higher similarity in deviant behavior pre-friendship
Evidence for socialization effect
–

Socialization: friends influence behavior
Selection: deviant kids choose deviant friends
Increased deviant behavior controlling for pre-friendship levels
Difficulty in disentangling unique contributions
–
–
Friends behave interdependently, i.e. behaviors are not statistically independent
Actor-partner interdependence model (APIM) takes this into account
Fuccillo
Actor-partner interdependence model
Control for “partner”
influence
Control for initial
similarity (selection)
Control for additional
unobserved sources of
similarity (socialization)
Control for “actor”
stability

7th & 10th graders in small Swedish city
–
–


Nominated 3 important peers on 3 consecutive years
Reported frequency of intoxication each year
Reciprocated friendship groups (451 dyads)
Randomly paired comparison groups to gauge age-related
increases (545 dyads)
– Friendless
– Friended
– Total sample
Fuccillo
T1
T2
T3
Enduring



Waning



Nascent
Time 1


Time 2

Time 3
Intermittent



Nascent friend dyads
Not friends

–
–

Based on correlation between Time 2, Time 3 & Nascent friends before friendship
Relatively small correlations in comparison groups
Socialization effects
–

Friends
Selection effects
–

Friends
Based on residual correlation of Time 2, Time 3 & Nascent friends during friendship
Relatively small correlations in comparison groups
Selection and socialization effects similar in magnitude across models
Partner influence effects
–
–
–
Based on nascent group as friendship developed
Older child influence at first, then mutual influence
No significant effects in comparison groups
Fuccillo