Foreign Perspectives

Archive for the ‘Psychology’ Category

First words covers quite literally the first words as grammar is considered by a separate chapter. This might sound a little odd at first but considering that children only deal with isolated words to begin with and add the various bits of grammar around them later it’s not as un-natural a split as you might think.

Recognising speech is the first stage of acquiring language. Recognition and memory of speech sounds whilst still in the womb has been looked at via experiments by DeCasper & Spence among others who looked at the pre-birth understanding of words through having the mother read stories or rhymes before the birth and checking through dummies containing sensors and heart monitors that they remembered the words. That they still recognised these when someone else read the text suggests that they recognised the words. Distinguishing of languages by newborns has been looked at by Mehler et al and Christophe & Morton. Babies use of prosodic cues to identify word boundaries has also been looked by Johnson & Jusczyk who considered transitional probability (via nonsense words) and syllable stress.

Harris et al found that understanding first words is facilitied by mothers referred and especially when they pointed to the objects and that the age at which children point is strongly correlated with the age at which they show understanding of object names. Comprehension starts around 7 or 8 months and continues nicely to 12 months when there’s usually a vocabulary spurt. The possible reasons behind this spurt include naming insight, change in cognitive development and simply that it gets easier when you’ve reached a critical mass of words (eg the child can then ask).

Learning to say words occurs in parallel with neural maturation which enables the fine motor control required. Macarthur found that children couldn’t accurately reproduce all the sounds in their language until around age 5 or 6. The discrepancy between comprehension and production varies.

The meaning of children’s first words can be context bound (eg “cup” being used when asking for a drink) although some are contextually flexible; Harris et al found that this varied. Goldfield & Reznick and Nelson found that some children focused on gaining vocabulary whilst others went for verbs. Harris weighs in again in finding that usually the first use of a word is close to the mother’s use but later uses moved away from this. All this is highly dependant on the structure of the language obviously thus whilst in English the concentration is usually on nouns, in Korean it’s on verbs.

I felt that this chapter is possibly the closest to “where it’s at” in terms of child development for me. The downside is that it’s relatively short and doesn’t strike me as an easy chapter to answer a question from. I suspect that it’s easier to follow for those of us with a linguistic background.

Luckily the brain and cognitive development chapter isn’t on my list so it’s on to the companion to this chapter next: the development of children’s understanding of grammar which is, of course, another one for the linguists.

Copyright © 2004-2014 by Foreign Perspectives. All rights reserved.

Early category representation and concepts is a dreadful chapter as it’s all over the place but here goes…

We tend to group items into categories which eventually leads to developing concepts. The question is: how do children do this?

Using the familiarisation/novelty approach Younger & Gotlieb found that 3 to 7 month olds had developed a category representation through familiarisation of distorted exemplars. They went on to consider whether the children stored the information through holding every exemplar in their head or whether they used protype extraction and found, as you’d expect, that for small numbers they remembered all the exemplars whereas for large numbers they used prototype extraction. BUT, this used dot patterns and thus is outside the everyday experience. Other studies used more familiar items and went on to consider hierarchies eg furniture, chair, deckchair. How do they do it? Rakison & Butterworth looked at animals and found that the legs were a salient cue.

Developing the categorisations into concepts goes down either the single process route (essentially the categories are elaborated more and more) or the dual process one (perceptual schemas are initially developed but a separate deeper analysis is going on at the same time looking at things like movement, function and so on).

Levels of category were looked at by Quinn et al who looked at the above/below experiment (dots above/below a line). They found that 3 or 4 month olds couldn’t form the abstract concept but that by 6 or 7 months they could. These guys also found that bottom up processing was being used.

Gopnik & Meltzoff looked at the development of categorisation and the vocabulary spurt and found a strong link.

Overall, a dreadful chapter to revise as it seems all over the place with loads of different researchers working in this field. Anyway, it’s on to first words next.

Copyright © 2004-2014 by Foreign Perspectives. All rights reserved.

Young consumers seems a rather short chapter in terms of actual content if you go by the Erika Cox notes. It’s the third of the identity chapters that I plan to go over for the revision and links back to the other two extensively in parts.

The chapter kicks off with what seems basically waffle to the effect that younger children value objects that give comfort and security, older ones value things that can be used in activities and the adolescents valued things associated with identity such as music and jewellery [Kamptner]. Common themes across cultures were control, emotional attachment and utility. The possibility of generational and historical differences makes cross-sectional studies difficult.

Constructing identities through consumption runs through a number of different aspects of identity:

• maintaining status eg through dress and music (Milner)
• using brands as symbols of high-status identities (Anderson)
• solidarity & conflict in consumption and identities eg need to change style constantly to exclude others (Milner)
• societal differences and style identities: gender, ethnicity & class

Theories of identity & young people’s consumption:

• Erikson’s ego identity theory: over identification with groups to avoid losing their identity
• social identity theory (SIT) and self-categorisation theory (SCT): group membership is part of the self-concept (see national identity)
• positioning theory: social constructivist approach (Davies & Harre)

Not too bad a chapter to revise but it seems a bit thin on the ground to me as you’ll have gathered by the length of these notes. Next up is book 3 and early category representation. In theory the chapters of the final book that I’m doing should be easy for me as I covered some of that in the Exploring English course last year.

Copyright © 2004-2014 by Foreign Perspectives. All rights reserved.

National identities in children and young people is quite a well structured chapter with relatively few theorists mentioned so, in principle, an easier one to revise than most.

The chapter starts off with basic definitions of ingroup (ie your own national grouping) and outgroup (everyone else) before moving on to cover some quite basic aspects such as categorisation (eg French people or British people), stereotypes (acquired by age 5), emblems and so on.

Piaget’s open-ended interviews showed the development of national self-categorisation with children from age 5 knowing that they lived in Geneva, that they lived in Switzerland but not that they were Swiss. However, open-ended interviews are tough going when you’re 5 so Barrett used labelled cards instead and found that most children knew they were Swiss by age 6. The factors Barrett found going into the importance of national identity were age (things rated important at 6 were still important at 15, things not so important at 6 tended to be more important at 15), geographic location (more important in national capitals), ethnicity (while London born adolescents rated being British/English more important than those from ethnic minorities and language (generally related to the parents’ politics eg Catalan). This variability challenges Piaget’s ideas.

We then move on to children’s views about members of other national groups. Carrington & Short found that their criteria for labelling someone as a member of a given group included birthplace, English as a first language (British kids) and place of residence; notably ethnicity and race weren’t included. Barrett & Short found that stereotypes began to emerge at age 5. They found that ingroup favouritism existed but that negative feelings were reserved for historic enemies; in general both attitudes were moderated by age. Barrett found that there was no relationship between strength of national identity and attitudes/feelings towards in or out groups. The sources of all these attitudes were the usual culprits ie TV, books, holidays, etc. Notably a lot of this research is quite dated (c1960s) and doesn’t take account of foreign travel nor indeed changes in national boundaries.

The explanations for the development of national identity include cognitive development theory (Piaget). Aboud attributes the reduction of ingroup favouritism from 6 to 12 to underlying domain-general cognitive change (no way will I remember that phrase in an exam!) and in particular: the onset of conservation, multiple classifications, ability to judge deep similarities and the ability to attend to individual differences. This explains the reduction in ingroup favouritism but doesn’t explain differences between countries, attitudes towards historical enemies nor why everyone isn’t the same. Tajfel & Turner’s Social Identity Theory considers membership of social groups as part of our self-concept. Sounds good but the research doesn’t support it.

Overall, a reasonable chapter to revise with the potential for cross-linking to some issues in the gender identity chapter ie ’tis worthwhile doing the two as a pair. It’s on to young consumers next.

Gender identity and the development of gender roles is a very structured chapter which has a number of quite disctinct sections each with their own crop of researchers.

Concepts include gender itself which is generally considered as pertaining to the social characteristics whilst sex is used for biological characteristics although both terms are used pretty much interchangeably by many researchers in the field. Moving on we have gender identity (the persons sense of being male or female), gender role, gender stereotype and gender typed (people conforming to their gender roles). As always, there are wide cultural variations with, as usual, Papua New Guinea turning up many peculiarities such as tribes where everyone is stereotypically female or male.

Research methods are complicated as, for example, Bem’s Sex Role Inventory is mainly for adults whilst toy sorting methods are geared to younger children.

There are loads of different approaches to looking at the field:

• Psychoanalyitical perspectives (Freud: Oedipus Complex, Gilligan: early childhood)

• Social Learning processes (Mischel: conditioning, Maccoby & Jacklin: nothing [but only looked at mothers], Lytton & Rommney and Langlois & Downs: it’s the fathers that do it, Bandura: learned by observation & imitation)

• Cognitive processes

• Social cognitive theory (Bandura: person, behaviour and environment active role, Bussey & Bandura: self-regulation develops with age: younger kids only disapproved of others breaking stereotype)
• Cognitive development theory (Kohlberg: gender labelling, gender stability, gender constancy cf Piaget’s conservation). Overall not very strong evidence.
• Gender schema theory (Martin & Halverston: stereotyping simply used to simplify the information processing). Main difference from Kohlberg is that it happens from the labelling stage

An integration of gender development considers the relative emphasis between social factors and cognition. Whilst both are important there seems to be a reciprocal relationship between social experience and gender conceptions ie more social experience leads to lower gender stereotyping thus girls don’t do it as much as boys due to their generally greater social experience (Banerjee & Linton).

Finally, putting gender in context there are the areas of play interaction & friendship (Benenson: boys have more but shorter play interactions than girls, Lansford & Parker: girls relationships are characterised by more intimacy and self-disclosure) and academic development (Stipek & Gralinski: boys attribute success to ability, failure to luck whilst girls attribute failure to low ability). Teacher feedback in boys concentrates on misbehaviour and lack of motivation whilst in girls concentrates on lack of ability (Dweck et al).

Aside from the sheer number of researchers mentioned, this isn’t a bad chapter to revise and since identity generally comes up it’s probably a worthwhile one to look at. Anyway, ’tis on to national identities next.