PSY 620P January 15, 2015 January 22 – Culture in Development (cont). Lansford, J. E., Chang, L., Dodge, K. A., Malone, P. S., Oburu, P., Palmerus, K., Bacchini, D., Pastorelli, C., Bombi, A. S., Zelli, A., Tapanya, S., Chaudhary, N., Deater- Deckard, K., Manke, B., & Quinn, N. (2005). Physical discipline and children’s adjustment: Cultural normativeness as a moderator. Child Development, 76, 1234. Jaime1 Chen, X., Chen, H., Li, D., & Wang, L. (2009). Early childhood behavioral inhibition and social and school adjustment in Chinese children: A 5-year longitudinal study. Child Development, 80, 1692-1704. Sarah1 Chen, X. (2012). Culture, peer interaction, and socioemotional development. Child Development Perspectives. Caroline1 Bulotsky‐Shearer, R. J., Manz, P. H., Mendez, J. L., McWayne, C. M., Sekino, Y., & Fantuzzo, J. W. (2012). Peer play interactions and readiness to learn: A protective influence for African American preschool children from low‐income households. Child Development Perspectives, 6(3), 225-231. doi: 10.1111/j.17508606.2011.00221.x Liz1 Focus on: Multiple, mutual, continuous interaction of all components of developing system Emergence of new forms of behavior Development as an open system ▪ Self-organizing with relative plasticity Multiple levels of organization Fused, embedded, nested Development can be seen across all units of time ms years Development is adaptive and organized Not just random change Limits on possible outcomes, self-organization Contexts are not fully independent ▪ Parenting is directly associated with the type of crowd adolescents choose to affiliate with (Brown et al., 1993) Effects of contexts on individual can be altered by other contexts within the system ▪ Maladaptive adolescent crowd affiliation (vs. adaptive or neutral) increased adverse effects of poor parenting and diminished effects of positive parenting (Brown & Huang, 1995) Effects of contexts on individual can be altered by other contexts within the system High levels of support from school personnel decreased levels of distress among young adolescents with low levels of parental support (but didn’t make a difference for kids with high levels of parental support) (Dubois et al., 1992) ▪ Restrictive and controlling parenting is adaptive in dangerous neighborhoods (e.g., Baldwin et al., 1990) Social Contexts are Themselves Dynamic ▪ Effects of poverty on development change depending on timing and duration ▪ Greatest effects on child if (a) family in poverty for multiple years vs. shorter amounts of time, and (b) poverty experienced early in life vs. adolescence (Brooks-Gunn & Duncan, 1997) Dynamic Systems Theory – Applications Focus on change, emergence of new forms, self- organization ▪ Static System xt = f (a,b,c….) vs. ▪ Dynamic System xt = f (xt-1,a,b,c….) Dominant behaviors as attractors ▪ Arousal + negative emotional valence? Dynamic Systems Theory – Applications ▪ State Space Grid Analysis ▪ 2-dimensional grids reflecting co-occurrence of 2 or more variables Strange Situation examples see Howe & Lewis, 2005; Martin et al., 2005 (and entire Developmental Review, 25 special section) ▪ State Space Grid analysis of dyadic interaction ▪ e.g., “Child 2 may have been goading the seemingly affable Child 1 through negative behavior. ▪ Eventually, Child 1 responds in kind and the interaction ends in mutually high negativity, indicating a conflict has ensued.” ▪ True? C. L. Martin et al. / Developmental Review 25 (2005) , pp. 307-308 Same sex peer proclivities Other sex peer proclivities How do these dyadic emotional dynamics differ? ▪ State Space Grid Analysis What features attract the target child in these 3 hypothetical plots of their successive interaction partners? Fig. 5. Examples of SSG using focal observations. (A) Focal SSG for boys: Session 1 only. (B) Focal SSG for girls: Session 1 only Fig. 6. Examples of SSG using focal observations. (A) Focal SSG for same-sex playing children. (B) Focal SSG for other-sex playing children 20 YEARS OF DYNAMIC SYSTEMS THEORY AUTHORS: SPENCER, PERONE, & BUSS, 2012 CASEY BURROWS, 1/16/14 DYNAMIC SYSTEMS THEORY • Emphasis on “how” of development • Change occurs within complex systems that interact over time to contribute to produce change in behavior • Unit of analysis: organism within a given context • Systems are self-organizing • Behavior as emergent • Rejection of dichotomies • Nature vs. nurture • Qualitative vs. quantitative change REMAINING CHALLENGES • Formally connecting units of analysis • Integrating time scales • Empirical methods Real time Developmental time Smile (sleep/drowsy) Attentive Brow (awake) Smile (awake) Messinger,, et al., 2002; Dondi, et al., 2007