The wiley-blackwell handbook of childhood social development 3rd edition peter k. smith 2024 scribd
The Wiley-Blackwell Handbook of Childhood Social Development 3rd Edition Peter
K. Smith
Visit to download the full and correct content document: https://ebookmass.com/product/the-wiley-blackwell-handbook-of-childhood-social-dev elopment-3rd-edition-peter-k-smith/
More products digital (pdf, epub, mobi) instant download maybe you interests ...
Disorders of Childhood: Development and Psychopathology
The Wiley-Blackwell Handbook of Childhood Social Development
Wiley-Blackwell Handbooks of Developmental Psychology
This outstanding series of handbooks provides a cutting-edge overview of classic research, current research, and future trends in developmental psychology.
• Each handbook draws together 25–50 newly commissioned chapters to provide a comprehensive overview of a sub-discipline of developmental psychology.
• The international team of contributors to each handbook has been specially chosen for its expertise and knowledge of each field.
• Each handbook is introduced and contextualized by leading figures in the field, lending coherence and authority to each volume.
The Wiley-Blackwell Handbooks of Developmental Psychology will provide an invaluable overview for advanced students of developmental psychology and for researchers as an authoritative definition of their chosen field.
Published
Blackwell Handbook of Adolescence
Edited by Gerald R. Adams and Michael D. Berzonsky
The Science of Reading: A Handbook
Edited by Margaret J. Snowling and Charles Hulme
Blackwell Handbook of Early Childhood Development
Edited by Kathleen McCartney and Deborah A. Phillips
Blackwell Handbook of Language Development
Edited by Erika Hoff and Marilyn Shatz
The Wiley-Blackwell Handbook of Childhood Cognitive Development, 2nd edition
Edited by Usha Goswami
The Wiley-Blackwell Handbook of Adulthood and Aging
Edited by Susan Krauss Whitbourne and Martin Sliwinski
The Wiley-Blackwell Handbook of Infant Development, 2nd Edition
Edited by Gavin Bremner and Theodore D. Wachs
The Handbook of Early Childhood Development Programs, Practices, and Policies
Edited by Elizabeth Votruba-Drzal and Eric Dearing
The Wiley Handbook of Developmental Psychology in Practice: Implementation and Impact
Edited by Kevin Durkin and H. Rudolph Schaffer
The Wiley Handbook of Group Processes in Children and Adolescents
Edited by Adam Rutland, Drew Nesdale and Christia Spears Brown
The Wiley-Blackwell Handbook of Childhood Social Development, 3rd Edition
Edited by Peter K. Smith and Craig H. Hart
The Wiley-Blackwell Handbook of Childhood Social Development
John Wiley & Sons Ltd (1e, 2002); John Wiley & Sons Ltd (2e, 2013)
All rights reserved. No part of this publication may be reproduced, stored in a retrieval system, or transmitted, in any form or by any means, electronic, mechanical, photocopying, recording or otherwise, except as permitted by law. Advice on how to obtain permission to reuse material from this title is available at http://www.wiley.com/go/permissions.
The right of Peter K. Smith and Craig H. Hart to be identified as the authors of the editorial material in this work has been asserted in accordance with law.
Registered Offices
John Wiley & Sons, Inc., 111 River Street, Hoboken, NJ 07030, USA
John Wiley & Sons Ltd, The Atrium, Southern Gate, Chichester, West Sussex, PO19 8SQ, UK
Editorial Office
The Atrium, Southern Gate, Chichester, West Sussex, PO19 8SQ, UK
For details of our global editorial offices, customer services, and more information about Wiley products visit us at www.wiley.com.
Wiley also publishes its books in a variety of electronic formats and by print-on-demand. Some content that appears in standard print versions of this book may not be available in other formats.
Limit of Liability/Disclaimer of Warranty
The contents of this work are intended to further general scientific research, understanding, and discussion only and are not intended and should not be relied upon as recommending or promoting scientific method, diagnosis, or treatment by physicians for any particular patient. In view of ongoing research, equipment modifications, changes in governmental regulations, and the constant flow of information relating to the use of medicines, equipment, and devices, the reader is urged to review and evaluate the information provided in the package insert or instructions for each medicine, equipment, or device for, among other things, any changes in the instructions or indication of usage and for added warnings and precautions. While the publisher and authors have used their best efforts in preparing this work, they make no representations or warranties with respect to the accuracy or completeness of the contents of this work and specifically disclaim all warranties, including without limitation any implied warranties of merchantability or fitness for a particular purpose. No warranty may be created or extended by sales representatives, written sales materials or promotional statements for this work. The fact that an organization, website, or product is referred to in this work as a citation and/or potential source of further information does not mean that the publisher and authors endorse the information or services the organization, website, or product may provide or recommendations it may make. This work is sold with the understanding that the publisher is not engaged in rendering professional services. The advice and strategies contained herein may not be suitable for your situation. You should consult with a specialist where appropriate. Further, readers should be aware that websites listed in this work may have changed or disappeared between when this work was written and when it is read. Neither the publisher nor authors shall be liable for any loss of profit or any other commercial damages, including but not limited to special, incidental, consequential, or other damages.
Library of Congress Cataloging-in-Publication Data
Names: Smith, Peter K., editor. | Hart, Craig H., 1957– editor.
Title: The Wiley-Blackwell handbook of childhood social development / edited by Peter K. Smith, Craig H. Hart.
Description: Third edition. | Hoboken, NJ: Wiley-Blackwell, [2021] | Series: Wiley Blackwell handbooks of developmental psychology | Includes bibliographical references and index.
Identifiers: LCCN 2021035199 (print) | LCCN 2021035200 (ebook) | ISBN 9781119678984 (hardback) | ISBN 9781119678977 (adobe pdf) | ISBN 9781119678991 (epub)
Set in 10.5/12.5pt Adobe GaramondPro by Straive, Pondicherry, India
10 9 8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1
Becky Kochenderfer-Ladd, Gar y W. Ladd, and Stephanie A. Thibault
Jean Côté, Alex Murata, and Luc J.
Howe, Amy L. Paine, Hildy S. Ross, and Holly Recchia
Julie C. Bowker, Robert J. Coplan, Kelly A. Smith, and Kenneth H. Rubin
Rosario Del Rey, Esperanza Espino, Mónica Ojeda, and Joaquín A. Mora-Merchán
Daniela Bulgarelli, Anne Henning, and Evelyn Bertin
Maria von Salisch, Katharina Voltmer, Rachel Miller-Slough, Jui-Chih Chin, and Susanne Denham
Hali Kil and Joan E.
Laura
Eric E. Rasmussen and Kathrin Karsay
Elisabeth Staksrud and Tijana Milosevic
Rachael Davis, Jacquiline den Houting, Anders Nordahl-Hansen, and Sue Fletcher-Watson
Janis B. Kupersmidt, Alison E. Parker, and Mary Ellen Voegler-Lee
Soo-Young Hong, Elizabeth A. Steed, Lori E. Meyer, and İbrahim H. Acar
Suman Verma
About the Editors
Peter K. Smith is Emeritus Professor of Psychology at the Unit for School and Family Studies at Goldsmiths, University of London. He is co-author of the textbook Understanding Children’s Development and co-editor of Bullying, Cyberbullying and Pupil Well-being in Schools: Comparing European, Australian, and Indian Perspectives, The Cambridge Handbook of Play: Developmental and Disciplinary Perspectives, and The Wiley-Blackwell Handbook of Bullying: A Comprehensive and International Review of Research and Intervention.
Craig H. Hart is a Professor of Human Development in the School of Family Life and Director of the Faculty Center at Brigham Young University. He has authored or co-authored numerous scientific papers and book chapters on parenting/familial linkages with children’s social development from a multicultural and US Asian immigration perspective. Dr. Hart has served in numerous university administrative capacities as well as on the Biobehavioral and Behavioral Sciences subcommittee, National Institute of Child Health and Human Development (NICHD).
List of Contributors
İbrahim H. Acar, Ozyegin University, Istanbul, Turkey
Kelly A. Smith, University of Maryland, College Park, MD, USA
Rhiannon L. Smith, University of Connecticut, Storrs, CT, USA
Peter K. Smith, Goldsmiths College, University of London, London, UK
Allie Spiekerman, University of Missouri, Columbia, MI, USA
Elisabeth Staksrud, University of Oslo, Oslo, Norway
Elizabeth A. Steed, University of Colorado Denver, Denver, CO, USA
Cara S. Swit, University of Canterbury, Christchurch, New Zealand
Victoria Talwar, McGill University, Quebec, Canada
Sandie Taylor, University of South Wales, Newport, Wales
Stephanie A. Thibault, Arizona State University, Tempe, AZ, USA
Judith Van Hoorn, University of the Pacific, Stockton, CA, USA
Suman Verma, Panjab University, Chandigarh, India
Laura Visu-Petra, Babeş-Bolyai University, Cluj-Napoca, Romania
Mary Ellen Voegler-Lee, University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, Chapel Hill, NC, USA
Katharina Voltmer, Leuphana University Lueneburg, Lueneburg, Germany
Maria von Salisch, Leuphana University Lueneburg, Lueneberg, Germany
Sara S. Whipple, Virginia Military Institute, Lexington, VA, USA
Linda A. White, University of Toronto, Toronto, Canada
Lance Workman, University of South Wales, Newport, Wales
H. Melis Yavuz-Müren, University of Toronto at Mississauga, Ontario, Canada
Kathryn M. Yee, University of Maryland, College Park, MD, USA
Introduction
Peter K. Smith and Craig H. Hart
This is the third edition of this Handbook, which has proved to be a successful volume in a successful series. In editing this third edition, we have sought to maintain the strengths of the first (2002) and second (2011) editions, update and further strengthen the breadth of coverage, and provide an advanced text which will be useful to many individual researchers, as well as an indispensable library resource. Many features are in common with the first and second editions, but there are some distinctive new features.
This volume is part of a series, and there are companion volumes on infancy; on cognitive development in childhood; and on adolescence. Thus, the age range covered in this volume is broadly from post-infancy (around 3 years) up to adolescence. It does not include material on infancy, or adolescence and beyond, except in so far as it might be necessary for understanding or contextualizing the theories, methods, and findings of the research in childhood. Of course, a wide age range remains, from preschool (3–5 years), early school (5–7 years) through to later elementary or middle school (8–11 years). Also, the chapters focus on social development. This includes several chapters in the social cognition area, in Part IX.
We asked for chapters at a certain level. Thus this Handbook is not meant for beginners in the area. Those who have not studied child development previously will be better served by one of the many introductory texts available. The brief we gave to authors was to give a clear and succinct account of work in their area, which would be suitable for anyone wishing to go beyond basic textbook coverage. This would include advanced undergraduates in psychology and behavioral sciences, and postgraduates taking taught or researchfocused master’s degrees, or pursuing doctoral research. It will also include teaching staff and researchers who wish for an authoritative update outside their immediate teaching/ research area. The book should also be useful for those professionals outside academic life – for example, educators, social workers, counsellors, probation officers – who have had training in the behavioral sciences and retain an active interest in the implications of research for their professional practice.
As in the first and second editions, we attempted – and feel we have succeeded – to get a very good geographical coverage of contributors. Much of the work in our domain does come from North America, and it is appropriate that the largest single country contributing authors is the United States. However, it is also appropriate that we have contributors
from Australia, Belgium, Canada, Costa Rica, England, Germany, Hong Kong, Hungary, India, Ireland, Italy, the Netherlands, New Zealand, Norway, Rumania, Scotland, Spain, Switzerland, Taiwan, Turkey, and Wales. This reflects the now very international community of child development researchers, and is an even broader spread than we had in 2002 and in 2011.
Regardless of their origin, we asked our contributors to be clear and succinct, but also interesting and where appropriate, challenging. In our letters of invitation we asked authors to “provide authoritative reviews of focused areas in social development, which both summarize existing knowledge, and highlight areas of debate and growing points in the discipline.” We worked with authors, sometimes intensively, to try to ensure that this was achieved.
For this new edition, while we retained some contributors from the second edition, well over half are new contributors. In all cases we pointed out that this new edition was being designed to capture emerging trends in the study of childhood social development as well as to provide updated insights on traditional topics covered in the first and second editions. We have several extra chapters; 42, compared to 34 in the second edition and 30 in the first edition, and two extra Parts making 11 in all.
Notable new features include a chapter on conflict, war, and famine as they affect children’s social development; a chapter on the impact of the climate crisis; and a chapter on the impact of the Covid-19 pandemic, still an active concern at the time of writing. We have an extra chapter on acculturation and children’s social development; a new chapter on social development of youth in sport; and one on the impact of faith and religion. Another new topic covered is lies and deception in relation to social development; plus, we now have two chapters dedicated to the influence of the media and social networking sites. We have 11 Parts in this new Handbook. Part I is a single chapter, as before, providing an historical overview of psychological research in social development; because of the foundational importance of this topic, this is effectively a double-length chapter. Part II (six chapters) covers different disciplinary perspectives – from behavior genetics, brain development, evolution, history, sociology and anthropology. Part III (five chapters) is on ecological contexts for social development, the physical environment, conflict, war, and famine, the climate crisis, and the Covid-19 pandemic. Part IV (three chapters) is on culture and immigration, including a focus on Asian and Latinx children in the United States, and studies in Europe. Part V (three chapters) is on child characteristics – temperament, gender, and ethnicity. Part VI (four chapters) is on contextual factors – child care experience, interpersonal skills in school, sport, and religion. Part VII (three chapters) is on parents, siblings, and the interplay between families and peers. Part VIII (seven chapters) focuses on forms of peer interaction including friendships, shyness, social competence, play, cooperation and competition, aggression, and bullying. Part IX (four chapters) covers social cognition, emotions, prosocial behavior, and lies and deception. Part X (two chapters) is on children and the media generally, and social networking sites specifically. Finally Part XI (four chapters) covers interventions in relation to social development, generally and for children with autism, children with disabilities, and finally for children in low-and middle income countries. In short introductions to each Part we highlight particular areas of debate or contrasting perspectives among the chapters. We have enjoyed working with the authors, and with our publishers. A thank you to Kathy McQuinn, for invaluable secretarial assistance. We hope that you will also enjoy the end product, and find it a useful and rewarding resource, whether for study, teaching, research, or professional practice.
PART I Historical Overview
This section has only one chapter, but it sets the stage for the rest of the volume. Gary W. Ladd is in an excellent position to provide a historical perspective. He has been a leading figure in developmental psychology for the past four decades, with an extensive scholarly publication record focusing on children’s friendships, peer group relations, and social competence. His research extends across the breadth of many social development topics covered in this volume, including child, family, and schooling factors that predict children’s success and difficulties in peer relationships. In his editorial roles with prestigious scientific journals, Ladd has witnessed much of the progress that has been made in this broad interdisciplinary field that covers the “modern era,” much of which emerged in the 1960s and blossomed in the 1970s and beyond with increasing sophistication that was evident by the 2021 bookend for this chapter.
The chapter builds upon the historical summary presented by Andrew Collins in the first and second editions of this Handbook that traces the developmental underpinnings of the modern era back to the 1800s. After briefly reviewing late 19th and earlier 20th century ideological forces, theory and scholarship that paved the way for modern era thinking and research on children’s social/emotional development, Ladd embarks on a journey through the empirical knowledge base on children’s social development that has emerged over the past half century. Guided by four overarching aims, Ladd takes us through some illustrative research emphases and findings that have contributed to our understanding of multiply determined social developmental phenomena across early and middle childhood.
Aim one focuses readers on how childrearing and socialization processes facilitate children’s social development. Research is reviewed that focuses on children’s relationships with caregivers, including the study of attachment processes, parenting characteristics and behaviors, family processes, moral socialization, culture, and dyadic features involving child and parenting effects as they play out in child social cognitive and social developmental
outcomes. Recent decades of scholarly inquiry into children’s peer interactions, relationships, and groups are also explored that includes: seminal work on peer group dynamics and behavior and the contexts in which they occur; the associated relationship processes that are linked to friendships and peer group adjustment and difficulties; and the social cognitive, behavioral competencies and social skill deficits that drive them. Ladd concludes this section with an overview of the extensive research on the effects of childcare, schooling contexts, and media influences on children’s social development.
Aim two delineates the biological foundations, mechanisms, and processes that influence the course of children’s social development. Ladd begins with a brief survey of the behavioral genetics discipline that emerged in the 1960s and discusses how genetic influence on social characteristics has been ascertained indirectly by studying adopted children and twins. Scientific and theoretical advances led to a greater understanding of how environmental and genetic influences work together to influence behavior, along with ensuing controversies about the interplay between nature and nurture. He then addresses more direct approaches to studying genes that stem from genomic and molecular genetics disciplinary approaches that are facilitated by scientific advancements such as DNA sequencing and human genome mapping. Several illustrative findings are presented from this line of research showing how children’s genetic susceptibility to environmental influence plays out in some social behavioral characteristics. From there, Ladd briefly walks us through ways that the emergence of the neuroscience discipline in the 1960s has increased our understanding of how neurological and brain development processes are linked to children’s social development. More recent innovations in imaging technology have dramatically increased knowledge of how the construct of the “social brain” facilitates the analysis of social stimuli. A concluding section highlights the incremental refinements that have evolved in the study of variations in emotional, cognitive, and behavioral processes that tie child temperamental characteristics to social development.
Aim three takes readers through what Ladd refers to as the “nonobservables” such as social-cognitive, psychological, and emotional representations and processes that are reflected in child social developmental outcomes. This includes sections on: self-understanding (e.g., self-recognition, self-concept, self-esteem); social cognition which focuses on inferences children make about others’ mental states and psychological characteristics and how they use these insights to navigate their social worlds; and moral development, which includes research on moral reasoning, children’s knowledge about social norms and conventions, and internalization of moral rules and the emotions that guide moral decision making that is reflected in social behavior.
Aim four illuminates the ways that aversive socialization practices and other risk factors predict adverse psychosocial outcomes for children. Ladd gives an overview of the knowledge that has accumulated over the past several decades from research on the family system regarding the adverse effects of child maltreatment, marital discord, divorce, poor mental health, and insecure attachment relationships. This is followed by a review of research on impoverished child rearing conditions that negatively impact children’s social and psychological adjustment, with a focus on institutionally reared children and inconsistent caretaking. Problems in the peer system has been another area of systematic inquiry. Ladd discusses how poor peer relations in childhood is one of the best predictors of later problematic social and mental health outcomes. Much of this stems from peer group rejection, peer exclusion, and peer
victimization. Risky child characteristics that are manifest in behavioral tendencies towards different forms of aggressive or withdrawn behavior, along with difficult temperament and mental health challenges (e.g., childhood depression), are associated with a host of dysfunctional characteristics and outcomes in adolescence and adulthood.
Ladd concludes this chapter with an analysis of the major factors that have facilitated transformations in social development research over the past 50 years. Readers will be enlightened by his synthesis and evaluation of innovations in developmental theories and models of development, the sociocultural issues and public health crises that have given rise to new lines of investigation, and the unprecedented rate of knowledge that has been acquired through advances in research methodology and sophisticated analytic strategies.
Looking back and reflecting on the historical insights gleaned from this carefully crafted chapter and the chapters that follow can help advance interdisciplinary knowledge about children’s social development in new and potentially exciting ways. It is easy to ignore the past and forget how we got to where we are. But it is important to remember how the past still exerts a strong influence on the parameters of our present thinking. As we review the breadth of scientific literature on children’s social development that Ladd and the other authors in this Handbook have so eloquently organized and synthesized for us, we may learn something too from the successes and failures of our predecessors that will help strategically shape the next half century for the betterment of children around the world.
CHAPTER ONE
Conceptual and Empirical Precursors of Contemporary Social Development Research
Gary W. Ladd
The aim of this chapter is to consider how conceptual and investigative trends over the past half-century (i.e., 1970s to 2020s; the “modern era”; Collins, 2011) shaped the theoretical and investigative agendas that drive contemporary research on social development. This historical analysis begins by briefly examining some of the ideological and empirical foundations of the modern era. It then proceeds to identify the dominant aims and foci of social development discipline during the past half-century and trace the major research trends and substantive developments that transpired during that epoch. Of particular interest are research agendas that supersede individual substantive areas and thereby exemplify the overarching purposes of the larger scientific enterprise. Finally, this analysis traces some of the conceptual and empirical forces that transformed the discipline, including shifts in explanatory foci and frameworks, the influx of sociocultural issues and crises, and the introduction of novel research methods and analytic strategies.
Foundations of the Modern Era
The ideological underpinnings of the modern era can be traced to an intellectual awakening that originated during the 1800s and continued into the mid-1900s (the emergent and middle periods; Collins, 2011). Interest in child socialization and development grew
out of the enlightened humanitarian values and novel theoretical speculations that were expressed in the writings of philosophers, psychologists, educators, and physicians during the mid- to late 1800s. These innovative ideas challenged prevailing perspectives on a range of sociocultural and scientific issues including the origins of morality, the determinants of crime and juvenile delinquency, the causes of mental illness, and the value of education for children.
By the turn of the 20th century, these ideological forces inspired new ways of thinking about childrearing and development. Critical in this shift was the view that children’s development was driven not only by forces acting inside the child (e.g., the child’s nature), but also by forces outside the child, such as the socializing influences of families, peers, and cultures.
In the scientific community, the role of socialization and children’s social experience figured prominently in emerging theory and research on normal and abnormal development. Early examples include G. Stanley Hall’s (1844–1924) investigations of school children’s interests and experiences (White, 1994), John B. Watson’s (1878–1958) contention that learning drives development (Watson, 1913), and James Mark Baldwin’s (1861–1934) assertions that the child’s social environment, and the child’s reactions to this milieu, were essential and interrelated components of development (Cairns, 1994). During the earlyto mid-1900s, theorists such as Sigmund Freud, Erik Erikson, George Herbert Mead, Jean Piaget, and Lev Vygotsky contended that, among other influences, children’s development was affected by their experiences with adult caregivers and peers.
Freud (1856–1939) stressed the importance of early experience and theorized that conflicts between the child’s biological drives and rearing experiences (i.e., progressively across distinct psychosexual stages) shaped personality development. He also saw early parent–child play as a context that influenced children’s sense of self and shaped their emotional ties with caregivers (via brief separations and feelings of loss; Emde, 1994). In proposing the concept of the “looking glass self,” Mead (1863–1931) asserted that the individual’s self-concept was based on the reactions they received from others (Mead, 1913). Erikson (1902–1994), a student of Freud’s, recognized the importance of parents and peers in children’s identity formation by arguing that relations with socializers could enhance or undermine a child’s sense of interpersonal trust, self-worth, and social competence (Erikson, 1950).
Piaget (1896–1980) articulated a constructivist perspective in which organismic growth coupled with formative experiences – particularly conflicts with peers and other socializers –propelled not only children’s intellectual development but also their moral development (Beilin, 1994). The Russian psychologist Vygotsky (1896–1934), a contemporary of Piaget’s who died much younger than him, emphasized the social context of learning (Vygotsky, 1978). His concept of the zone of proximal development proved especially influential and was taken up later by Bruner in his concept of scaffolding. Many other scientists contributed to this paradigmatic shift and readers are encouraged to consult more detailed accounts of the intellectual currents and contributors that foreshadowed the modern era (e.g., Collins, 2011; Parke et al., 1994; Sears, 1975).
These early forerunners and their intellectual and empirical contributions created a foundation for social development as a discipline. Considered next are the theoretical and empirical elaborations and innovations that were erected upon this foundation during the following half-century, or the modern era.
Dominant Research Aims and Foci
Social developmental phenomena are complex and multiply determined and, as a result, empirically based knowledge has been built around circumscribed phenomena. Nevertheless, four overarching aims can be identified that capture the thrust and scope of empirical inquiry during the discipline’s recent history. In the sections that follow, each of these broader objectives is profiled and a few illustrative trends, findings, and citations are highlighted from research on early and middle childhood.
Aim 1: Elucidate childrearing and socialization processes and their contributions to child and adolescent development
Socialization has been defined as the process(es) through which youth are prepared to participate successfully in contexts, interactions, practices, and relationships that comprise their culture. Understanding how children are socialized to become successful members of their culture has been a priority in research on social development. Principal investigative venues have included primary socialization contexts such as the family, and secondary socialization contexts such as the neighborhood, peer group, school, and larger community.
The family context
Relationships within the family garnered considerable attention, particularly the child’s relationships with caregivers. At the forefront was research on attachment, driven principally by Bowlby’s theory and elaborations crafted by contemporary investigators (Cassidy & Shaver, 2008). Progress included the further explication of attachment processes (e.g., parents’ and child’s contributions), types of attachment relationships (e.g., secure vs. insecure typologies), and consequences of attachment. Longitudinal studies, for example, revealed that secure attachment anteceded a plethora of favorable socialization outcomes during childhood and adolescence, including social and emotional competencies, selfesteem, and mental health (Groh et al., 2017).
Research on parenting styles begun in the 1960s (Baumrind, 1967) expanded thereafter and offered new insights about the determinants of parent’s approaches to childrearing, child outcomes, and cultural variations. To illustrate, findings shed light on the antecedents of particular childrearing styles, including parent and child determinants (e.g., parents’ personalities, education; children’s temperament, behavior; e.g., Kelley et al., 1992). Longitudinal studies further explicated child outcomes. In one such study, early authoritative parenting (i.e., with preschoolers) was compared to other rearing styles (e.g., authoritarian, permissive) and found to predict favorable adolescent outcomes (e.g., social competence; Baumrind et al., 2010). Other findings revealed that parenting styles were construed differently across ethnic groups and cultures and were associated with culturespecific child outcomes (Pinquart & Kauser, 2018).
Parenting characteristics, behaviors, and interactions. Concern that parenting styles were not as robust as originally conceptualized (Maccoby, 2015) precipitated a movement away
from static typologies toward models that emphasized dynamic features, such as parenting behaviors and interactions. Some researchers studied features that were implied within parenting typologies (e.g., warmth) whereas others focused on attributes drawn from other theoretical perspectives, including dyadic constructs (e.g., connectedness, synchrony, autonomy support). Both avenues proved productive. For example, components of authoritative parenting were found to predict children’s social competence from infancy into adolescence (Valiente et al. 2009). Conversely, authoritarian parenting was linked with children’s aggressive and disruptive behaviors (Pascual-Sagastizabal et al., 2014). Likewise, studies of parent–child interactions revealed that dyadic features such as connectedness and synchrony were similarly or more strongly linked with child competence (Mize & Pettit, 1997).
Other trends included the study of child effects and bidirectional parent–child influences. Studies of child effects supported the notion that children’s actions evoke different forms of parenting (Newton et al., 2014) and that parenting influences are moderated by children’s temperaments (Kochanska & Kim, 2013). Research on bidirectional patterns of influence corroborated the premise that early child behaviors and emotions shape later parenting (e.g., punitiveness; warmth), and vice versa (Lengua & Kovacs, 2005).
Parental discipline and moral socialization were examined with multiple dimensions of children’s social development. Prominent objectives included evaluating parent–child interaction and disciplinary practices that were hypothesized to render particular socialization outcomes (e.g., higher levels of moral reasoning; responsible behavior). Key findings suggested that everyday parent–child discussions encompassing moral themes (e.g., rules, issues, conflicts) promoted growth in children’s moral reasoning (Dunn, 2006) and that positive parent–child relations fostered growth in children’s conscience and moral behavior (Kochanska et al., 2010). Investigation of the relative merits of inductive as opposed to assertive or hostile discipline revealed that, whereas induction forecasted children’s prosocial-moral beliefs and behavior (Hart et al. 2003), assertive and hostile discipline predicted antithetical outcomes (Baumrind et al., 2010).
Cultural contrasts. Researchers also compared Western socialization practices to those found in other cultures. In cross-national comparisons, for example, differences were found in parent’s perceptions of their children’s temperamental and behavioral characteristics (Russell et al., 2003), but similarities were reported for the consequences of particular parenting styles (e.g., authoritarian parenting and child aggression; Nelson et al., 2014). Other findings showed that parenting effects varied depending on the family’s ethnicity and cultural context. To illustrate, researchers found that, when compared to White or Hispanic youth, African-American adolescents were less likely to participate in gangs or gang-related delinquency if their parents abstained from lax discipline and wielded greater control over children’s behavior (Walker-Barnes & Mason, 2001).
The peer context
After a period of dormancy following World War II, research on children’s peer relations reemerged in the 1970s and expanded thereafter (Ladd, 2005). A key impetus was the premise that peer socialization prepared children to succeed in multiple spheres of life, including romantic and workplace relations.
Focal areas of inquiry included children’s peer interactions, relationships, and groups. Seminal work described the character of peer interactions and behavior (e.g., prosocial, aggressive, withdrawn) in varying social contexts (e.g., classrooms, playgrounds), explicated relationship processes and consequences (e.g., friendship formation, maintenance, termination, e.g., Parker & Seal, 1996; bully–victim dynamics, Veenstra et al., 2007), and probed the process by which children access and acquire status in peer groups (e.g., peer group entry, acceptance, rejection; Bukowski et al., 2018).
Evidence linking children’s behavior with the quality of their peer relationships led investigators to search for the origins of social “competencies” and skill “deficits” (Ladd, 2005). Among the determinants examined were the social-cognitive underpinnings (Gifford-Smith & Rabiner, 2004) and the parenting and family processes associated with children’s behavior amongst peers (Ladd & Kochenderfer-Ladd, 2019).
Another key objective was to confirm and extend early longitudinal findings suggesting that the quality of children’s peer relations during childhood predicted their health and adjustment in adolescence and adulthood. A new wave of prospective longitudinal studies largely substantiated this premise. Childhood peer rejection, victimization, and friendlessness forecasted a variety of later-life social difficulties and dysfunctions (Ladd, 2005).
Peer relations research eventually broadened to incorporate diverse ethnic and cultural contexts. Within North America, for example, researchers discovered that whereas EuroAmerican children had more cross-ethnic friendships than African-American children (Kawabata & Crick, 2008), African-American children had a larger number of friendships and more opposite-sex friendships (Kovacs et al., 1996). Internationally, research on bullying that had originated in Norway spread to many other nations. Additionally, crossnational comparisons were made of children’s friendships, peer group relations, social behavior, and interpersonal competencies (Chen et al. 2018).
Childcare and schooling contexts
Cultural and economic changes made childcare and formal schooling foci for social development research. A primary aim for childcare research, as detailed later, was to elucidate the impact of early nonparental care on young children’s socioemotional development. Another investigative thrust centered on the evaluation of compensatory programs for economically disadvantaged preschoolers. Programs such as Head Start, which were designed to prepare children for school, eventually expanded their objectives to include social as well as pre-academic competencies (Raver & Zigler, 1997).
With older children, researchers endeavored to elucidate the social features and consequences of formal schooling (Wentzel, 2015). Inquiry was wide-ranging and included factors such as school structure and organization (e.g., size, gender groupings, school transitions, race/ethnic composition), instructional environments and methods (e.g., open vs. traditional classrooms, didactic vs. peer-mediated learning), and classroom interpersonal dynamics (e.g., classmate and teacher–child relations). Among other discoveries, researchers found that smaller schools facilitated children’s engagement in extracurricular activities which, in turn, predicted favorable student outcomes (Schaefer et al., 2011). School transitions, in contrast, were associated with unfavorable student outcomes, such as stress, declining self-esteem, and disengagement (Eccles & Roeser, 2003). Research on classroom instruction and dynamics
revealed, among other findings, that peer-mediated learning improved children’s collaborative and interpersonal relations with classmates (Roseth et al., 2006; Tolmie et al., 2010).
Research on after-school arrangements for school-age children arose in response to the growth of dual-earner families. Studies of self-care (i.e., allowing children to look after themselves after school) often documented hazards and risks (e.g., stress, drug use, antisocial behavior; Lord & Mahoney, 2007). In contrast, children were found to benefit from structured, adult-supervised after-school programs (Vandell et al., 2005).
Media
Media, in all of its rapidly expanding forms, received substantial investigative attention. Early research focused on televised violence and its effects on children’s aggressive behavior. Corroboration of this effect and the pervasiveness of violence in media aimed at children (Wilson et al., 2002) spurred additional lines of investigation. Included were studies designed to explicate violent television’s role in fostering hostile attitudes and aggressive, violent, and delinquent behavior (Bushman & Huesmann, 2012). Researchers also examined media’s effects on children’s social relations, perceptions, and emotional sensitivity. Findings indicated that media use not only limited children’s participation in real-life peer relations (e.g., friendships) and social activities (Pea et al., 2012), but it also distorted their perceptions of the social world. Illustrations included results showing that children, after viewing episodes of interpersonal conflict, developed negative expectations toward unknown peers (i.e., perceived hypothetical classmates as unfriendly; Mares et al., 2012). Additionally, evidence suggested (although see Ferguson, 2007) that violent media and video games desensitized children to violence, reduced their emotional responsiveness, and fostered stereotypes (Bushman & Huesmann, 2012).
It also became evident that media need not be harmful and in fact, could facilitate children’s social development. Research on educational and public-service television revealed that, depending on its form and content, media could not only discourage antisocial behavior but also increase altruism. Investigators discovered, for example, that children who watched Sesame Street and Mister Rogers – TV programs rich in sociomoral and prosocial content – were more likely to learn and apply prosocial behaviors in real-life interactions (Mares & Woodward, 2001).
The introduction of the internet (i.e., social media) and its rapid adoption by youth prompted research on its use and impact (Livingstone & Haddon, 2009). Both benefits and risks were identified. For example, whereas evidence showed that children utilized these platforms to meet and maintain friendships (Wolak et al., 2002), it also revealed that internet usage made them vulnerable to cyberbullying and abuse by predators (Ybarra et al., 2006).
Aim 2: Delineate the biological foundations, mechanisms, and processes that launch, regulate, and shape the course of social development
Theory and research on the biological foundations of human development has grown exponentially over the past few decades. Particularly noteworthy are advances in human genetics, neurological and brain development, and child temperament.
Genetics
The discipline of behavioral genetics emerged during the 1960s and one of its aims was to estimate the heritability of human characteristics or behaviors. Because the human genotype could not be studied directly, genetic influence was investigated indirectly using adoption and twin studies and findings substantiated the heritability of many social characteristics (e.g., temperament, personality, aggression; Rutter, 2006).
As subsequently detailed, theoretical and investigative innovations enabled researchers to address more challenging questions (e.g., How do genetic and environmental influences combine to influence behavior? Scarr & McCartney, 1983; Rutter, 2006), but also generated controversies about the relative importance of genetic versus environmental influences. One such debate revolved around the contention that parental genes made a stronger contribution to children’s development than parenting behavior (Harris, 1995; Vandell, 2000).
As direct approaches to studying genes emerged, disciplines such as genomics and molecular genetics were formed. Innovations such as DNA sequencing techniques and the mapping of the human genome (Collins et al., 2003) made it possible to examine the association between specific genes and phenotypical social attributes.
The likelihood that multiple rather than single genes underlie observable characteristics, and the near- infinite number of combinations thereof, complicated research on the genetic bases of social characteristics. Nonetheless, evidence began to reveal how specific genes, in combination with particular rearing conditions, were linked with children’s social development. In one such study (Caspi et al., 2002), it was discovered that the effects of parental maltreatment were moderated by children’s genetic susceptibility to that particular stressor. Children with low- activity MAOA (monoamine oxidase A: a gene that breaks down stress- linked neurotransmitters) tended to develop higher levels of antisocial behavior than those with high- activity MAOA. Other findings showed that children who possessed a gene configuration linked to self- regulation difficulties (i.e., chromosome 7 gene with short 5- HTTPR) and experienced low- quality parenting were more likely to develop externalizing problems (Davies & Cicchetti, 2014).
Neurological and brain development
The emergence of neuroscience as a discipline and ensuing innovations advanced knowledge about neurological and brain development during childhood. Research strategies progressed from static, circumscribed techniques, such as mapping individual neurons and electrically stimulating brain tissue (Penfield, 1961), to dynamic, encompassing modes of inquiry made possible by imaging tools such as fMRI (Functional Magnetic Resonance Imaging). These innovations, along with other scientific initiatives (e.g., the “Decade of the Brain”) furthered efforts to elucidate the interface between brain growth and children’s social development.
Research on prenatal and infant development strengthened the premise that neurological development underlies early-emerging social abilities and, when compromised, contributes to social dysfunctions. Findings, for example, implied that infants are
biologically prepared to attend and respond to caregivers and to participate in rudimentary forms of social interaction (Bornstein, 2013). In contrast, neurological impairments attributable to prenatal teratogens (e.g., cocaine, marijuana, alcohol) were linked with early-emerging, and in some cases, lasting social and emotional difficulties (Behnke et al., 2013).
Studies of brain maturation revealed that, throughout childhood and adolescence, there were periods of rapid growth and pruning within specific brain regions (e.g., visual, motor, auditory, language centers) and progress toward hemispheric lateralization and connectedness. Growth of this type was found to be associated with improvements in infants’ and children’s social and emotional capacities, skills, and regulatory abilities (Nelson et al., 2006).
Neuroscientific findings also supported the conclusion that social experience is a necessary component of brain development. Evidence implied that, although the brain is wired to “expect” species-wide forms of experience (i.e., experience-expectant processes), it also is influenced by experiences that are unique to the individual (i.e., experience-dependent processes; Shonkoff & Phillips, 2000). On this basis, it was argued that experience essentially “customizes” the child’s brain (e.g., builds, differentially strengthens, prunes neuronal networks). Support for this contention included evidence linking brain alterations with differences in children’s early experiences and rearing conditions (e.g., deprivation, isolation, abuse; Nelson et al., 2007).
Recent innovations include the construct of the “social brain” which was conceived to be a network of brain sites (Blakemore, 2008; Bornstein, 2013) that facilitated the processing and interpretation of social phenomena (e.g., recognizing faces, predicting another’s actions). It was postulated that this network, along with other brain regions, contained a “mirror” system of neurons that enabled children to empathize or “experience” the same emotions they observed in others. Imaging data provided considerable support for the existence of these networks and their hypothesized functions (Blakemore, 2008).
Temperament
Beginning in the 1950s, investigators such as Thomas and Chess (Thomas et al., 1968) utilized the construct of temperament to account for early-emerging, stable individual differences in infants’ and children’s responses to their environments. Subsequent refinements to theory and research extended knowledge about the origins of temperament. Much of what was learned supported the hypothesis that temperament, although not impervious to environmental influences, has a genetic or neurological basis (Kagan, 2007).
Advances were made in the conceptualization of temperament, the specification of component dimensions, and the development of reliable assessments. Descriptive taxonomies (e.g., easy, difficult, slow-to-warm-up) were replaced with theory-driven models that attributed temperamental variations to specific emotional, cognitive, or behavioral processes (emotional reactivity to novel stimuli; Kagen & Snidman, 2007; effortful control, negative affectivity, extroversion-surgency; Rothbart, 2007). Empirical work clarified how temperamental characteristics were related to other aspects of children’s social development, including their behavior, relationships, and adjustment (Rothbart 2007).
Aim 3: Explicate the nature and development of children’s internal social-cognitive, psychological, and emotional processes
Another prominent objective was to expand knowledge about processes that transpire within the child, that is, nonobservables such as social-cognitive, psychological, and emotional representations and processes. Largely, investigative efforts were focused on explicating theory (e.g., specifying mechanisms driving development), gathering evidence about developmental transformations (i.e., age or stage changes, growth patterns), and linking specific internal processes with other aspects of child development (e.g., behavior, health, dysfunction).
Self-understanding
Priorities within this sphere were to further illuminate when children develop a sense of self (i.e., emergence of self-recognition), how children revise their self-construals with age and experience (i.e., development of self-concept), and how children appraise their abilities and worth (i.e., self-esteem). Findings suggested that self-recognition emerges early (i.e., around age two) and becomes more reliable and less context-dependent across early childhood (Miyazaki & Hiraki, 2006).
Constructivist perspectives dominated research on self-concept and, for the most part, investigators examined stability and change children’s self-construals using self-descriptive tools and methodologies. Principal findings implied that children’s self-theories become more complex and abstract as they are shaped by age-, gender-, and context-related experiences (Harter, 2012).
Self-esteem was investigated for scientific purposes and to address the popularized assumption that high self-esteem is a prerequisite for children’s achievement and wellbeing. Discoveries illuminated developmental shifts in children’s self-evaluations, suggesting a progression from global and unrealistic appraisals during early childhood to more domain-specific (i.e., ability-based) and accurate appraisals during middle childhood and thereafter. Findings also revealed that children’s overall sense of self-worth varied as a function of their perceived competence within multiple, specific domains (e.g., social, scholastic, athletic; Harter, 2012).
Potential causes and consequences of self- esteem were explored by examining dimensions of children’s social relations and experiences. Evidence indicated, for example, that self- esteem correlated positively with warm, affectionate parent–child relations (Ojanen & Perry, 2007), and negatively with parental abuse (Cicchetti & Toth, 2006). Likewise, children were found to have higher self- esteem when their peer relationships were supportive as opposed to abusive (e.g., friendships vs. peer victimization; Hodges et al., 1999). Decrements in self- esteem were documented following school transitions (Wigfield & Eccles, 1994) and parental divorce (Bynum & Durm, 1996). The premise that self- esteem is a precondition for healthy development received mixed support in that higher levels of this construct were linked with positive as well as negative outcomes (e.g., happiness, lower internalizing problems vs. drug use, prejudice; Baumeister et al., 2003).
Social-cognition
In addition to the self, investigators explored children’s cognitions about others. Principal foci included research on children’s inferences about others’ mental states and psychological traits (e.g., intentions, personalities), and their ability to use these and other insights to negotiate interactions and solve social problems.
Research on theory of mind helped to clarify when children begin to draw inferences about others’ thoughts and beliefs, and how they utilize these conjectures to forecast their own and others’ social behavior. Evidence suggested that abilities such as these emerged during early childhood, were refined throughout middle childhood, and were instrumental in the development of social competence (Harris, 2006).
Investigators also studied children’s inferences about others’ psychological characteristics and traits. Findings implied that children begin to make trait attributions during early childhood and differentiate among people on this basis about the time they enter school. Studies of older age groups suggested that children increasingly regard others’ traits as stable, and utilize these attributions to interpret others’ motives and behaviors (Flavell et al., 2002).
Broader, more dynamic frameworks were developed and tested as a means of explicating the combination of social-cognitive processes that enabled children to cope with complex interpersonal tasks, such as provocations and conflict. The dominant models developed for this purpose were based on information processing and social learning theories (Dodge, 1986).
Among the constructs postulated within these models were those representing operations deemed essential for gathering, interpreting, and storing social information, and for retrieving and utilizing social information to guide social behavior. These models spurred investigation and findings linked the hypothesized social-cognitive processes with numerous indicators of children’s social behavior (e.g., aggression; Gifford-Smith & Rabiner, 2004).
Moral development
Children’s moral reasoning, emotions, and behavior were at the forefront of investigation during this era. Research on moral reasoning, arising from constructivist perspectives, outstripped that conducted on other aspects of moral development, including children’s moral emotions (e.g., guilt) and moral behavior. Conceptual propositions (e.g., stage theory; Kohlberg, 1969) spurred investigation and led to discoveries that extended knowledge about continuities and change in children’s moral reasoning. Eventually, claims about the cognitive bases and universality of stage progressions were tempered by evidence suggesting that moral deliberations were shaped by situational factors (e.g., form, context, realism of ethical quandaries) as well as by culture, cohort, and personal experience (Nucci, & Gingo, 2011).
Another impetus for inquiry was social domain theory (Smetana et al., 2014) and, in particular, the premise that morality constitutes one domain of social knowledge, among others (e.g., knowledge about social norms and conventions), that children construct and utilize as they mature. Empirical findings implied that children recognize domain differences, develop more mature reasoning patterns within domains with age, and judge infractions differentially, depending on the domain (Smetana et al., 2014).
Moral behavior was investigated primarily by examining children’s developing capacity to refrain from rule-breaking and their ability to conform to moral standards (e.g., parents’ rules, values). Key objectives were to determine how and when children internalized moral rules (i.e., growth of conscience; Kochanska et al., 2010) and developed the ability to follow internalized rules, even in the absence of parental control. Other focal constructs included self-control, self-regulation, and delay of gratification. Evidence gathered on delay of gratification tasks, for example, indicated that children’s self-control increased dramatically from the toddler through the preschool years (Cole et al., 2011), and correlated positively with brain maturation and maternal support (Bernier et al., 2010).
Investigators who studied moral emotions primarily focused on the development and determinants of guilt and shame. Such emotions were found to emerge in 2- and 3-year-olds, and correlated positively with both child factors (e.g., inhibited, fearful temperaments; female gender) and parenting practices (e.g., provision of support vs. anger following transgressions; Kochanska et al., 2002). Other findings suggested that children who manifested stronger expressions of guilt and remorse at early ages exhibited greater rule adherence and fewer moral transgressions at later ages (Tangney & Dearing, 2002).
Emotional development
Advances in this domain stemmed partly from the creation of coding schemes that reliably differentiated infants’ and children’s emotional expressions, and from the implementation of technologies that indexed emotion’s physiological referents (e.g., heart, brain, and CNS monitoring instruments). These innovations paved the way for researchers to distinguish among basic emotions (e.g., joy, fear, sadness) and self-conscious emotions (e.g., pride, guilt), and to chart developmental milestones (e.g., emergence, stability) and gauge individual differences in emotional reactivity (Lewis, 2014).
Efforts to define and measure individual differences in emotions (e.g., forms expressed, intensity, regulation) and relate them to other aspects of children’s development produced important discoveries. Associations were found between the emotions children frequently expressed and their temperament and adjustment. Children prone to express positive affect, for example, were found to have outgoing temperaments and manifested better adjustment outcomes (e.g., higher self-esteem, social competence). In contrast, negative affectivity was linked with inhibited and difficult temperaments and a range of adjustment problems (Rothbart, 2007). Similar differences in temperament and adjustment were found for children who evidenced greater as opposed to lesser ability to manage their emotions (e.g., self-regulation, effortful control; Denham et al., 2011).
Aim 4: Identify the forms of socialization and the bio/psycho/social developments in children that predict adverse outcomes
Principal research aims included examining the effects of nonoptimal or aberrant socialization practices and rearing conditions, and ascertaining the sequela of risky child characteristics and maladies. Scientists who addressed these aims often did so in the context of short- and long-term longitudinal investigations.
