Developmental Journal #10!

Stranger Anxiety

            Recently my 5-month-old niece has started to display stranger anxiety. I usually see her a couple times a month but last week when my brother and sister-in-law came over for dinner my niece would have nothing to do with me. Normally she will reach for me and let me hold her, but this past weekend every time anyone tried to hold her she would start to cry. She only wanted to be held by her mom and dad. This stranger anxiety developed in week. The previous weekend my niece was at the house and she was perfectly fine with everyone holding her. My sister-in-law said she started crying when someone else would hold her the following day and it has continued ever since. It amazed me how fast this change in development occurred. It literally happened overnight that she started having stranger anxiety. It just another example of how quickly babies can change during their first year of life I hope as quickly as this developed that she outgrows it just as quickly. I love snuggling up with her and don’t want to have to spend Christmas just looking at her.

Developmental Blog 9

Bullying

                When do kids start bullying? Well, if you look at my practicum site, its when they are four years old.While at my practicum site I sometimes sub for a four year old classroom of typically developing kids. One day while I was watching the kids play I observed an interaction between the girls of the classroom.  Apparently the new craze in kids shoes are these sparkly toed pink shoes that look like glitter was vomited all over them. A couple of the girls have these shoes and began to bully the ones that didn’t. They were not allowing the girls play with them because they didn’t have the sparkly shoes and they also stopped talking to them. As the adult in the room I stepped in and tried to explain to the girls that it doesn’t matter what type of shoes they have, they should all be friends. They shouldn’t tease the girls who don’t have the shoes because that hurts their feelings and it wasn’t being good friends. I don’t know how much this talking to and explaining helped with the bullying situation but I tried.

                After the day had ended and I was reflecting on the events it shocked me that four year olds could be bullies. These children at some point had been taught that it matters what kind of shoes you wear. It worries me that four year olds are aware of such things and that possibly parents are teaching their girls to be bullies at such a young age. If four year olds are bullying other girls now, what will they be doing to others when they are in middle and high school? The movie “Mean Girls” flashes into my head when I think about it. I certainly hope that someone pays attention to what they are teaching their children and that they learn that material things are not as important.

Developmental Journal 8

Body Image

                I think body image is something that everyone can relate to and occasionally struggles with. I started becoming aware of body image in high school and throughout my college years. I am conscious of what I eat and try to exercise to stay healthy. Every since I can remember my mother and aunts have always talked about how much they weigh, how much weight they need to loose, and what kind of diet they were on. Weight and diet talk was a constant subject growing up and it made me aware of the importance of weight at a young age.

                While sitting at Thanksgiving with my family, again the topic of weight came up. My aunt was discussing the new exercise class she was taking and my mother was complaining about how much she weighed. My 10 year old cousin then chimed in with the fact that she needed to lose one pound to maintain her goal weight. I am pretty confident that she said this for a reaction, but it struck me at what age we develop the idea that we need to weigh a certain amount. The idea that my 10 year old cousin thinks she has a goal weight and is already trying to lose the healthy weight she is gaining as she grows disturbs me. My family are naturally small people, but my aunts and mother do struggle with maintain a healthy body weight. My cousins and I have constantly be subjected to the idea that being thin is the ideal and that we always need to be on a diet. As much as I think my cousin said this statement for a reaction I am frustrated that she even knows the concept of a diet. Girls are bombarded by the media with ideas of the perfect body and having a family that feeds into this idea doesn’t help. In my opinion it is only a recipe for disaster, a sick social cycle. Instead of being taught about the gloriousness of being thin, parents and the media should be promoting being healthy. Thin is not always healthy, and I am not immune to the notion that we as a nation have a serious weight issue, but the goal should be being healthy, not underweight. I know about the pressure to be thin and I don’t want my cousins to have to feel that same pressure (high hopes I know). As confident as I am about my cousin’s statement, I am not inside her head and there is still the possibility that she already believes she weighs too much. I just wonder if my family realizes that when they discuss their weight and diets that it is having an impact on the children around them.

Developmental Blog 7

Categorical Self

Over the weekend I was riding in the car with my niece and nephew. My niece is 4 months old and my nephew is 3 years old. My mother was sitting next to my niece and nephew and talking to both of them. While carrying on a conversation with my nephew about his baby sister, my mother asked him “isn’t she pretty”? My nephew replied, “she is a girl” and “she is a baby”. As I sat in the back seat observing this conversation I thought this was funny because he described her with a physical characteristic of her sex and age instead of something such as being pretty. He was describing her with a category. After this he decided to start describing himself as a boy and as 3. I knew that we had discussed this type of description of self in class and it was interesting to watch my nephew do this. I am sure he refers to himself in categories; I just never paid close attention before.

Fantasy Period developmental Blog 6

Ms. Preteen Alexandria Fair

A few weeks ago my ten-year-old cousin competed in a statewide beauty pageant. No, she did not win but she is still the most beautiful girl in my book.  There were 57 girls ranging in age from 8 to 13 years old. During part of the pageant the girls walked down the stage while the MC announced a few things about each of them. Each girl was previously asked what she wanted to be when she grew up. As each girl came out and their biographies read, each one answered the what they wanted to be question with one of four things, a doctor, a nurse, a teacher, or Miss America. Every once in a while some girl’s biography said she wanted to be a pediatrician or a pediatric oncologist, still not an original answer. This amazed me as I listen to all the girls’ answers. When one differed, such as the pediatric oncologist, I couldn’t help but think that their mother had wrote that answer. Most girls were in the fantasy period of selecting their career. The girls likely understood the glamour of their choices or have been surrounded by families who have the careers they selected. It bothered me that every girl had the same idea about what they wanted to be when they grow up. After reading the Berk book and learning about the fantasy period, it makes a little sense why the girls chose what they did. Afterward, I asked my cousin why she wanted to be a doctor; her response was because I want to help people. I just let her know there are many careers out there that help people. I know, as she gets older she will figure all this out.

Developmental Blog 5: Sociodramatic Play

Recently at my practicum site I subbed for the playgroup teacher. The playgroup is made up of about 7-10 typical developing kids. I was in the gym observing them playing when a group of the girls started to make-believe play. They first started out playing house, one was the mom, one was the dad, and one was the baby. They acted out typical “house” situations and directed each other on what they were suppose to say and do. After playing house for a few minutes, the moved from being people to dogs and the play-scape became the doghouse. They were barking and chasing each other around the room. Finally, the girls began to pretend “jungle” each pretending to be a different animal and added to the play by making the animal noises. Watching all this take place, I was amazed at their imaginations and how quickly they could move from one instance of make-believe straight into another. It seemed like they didn’t have to think about what they were going to play, each instance flowed smoothly into the next. It seemed so obvious to the girls that this is how to play. I guess as an adult I have forgotten how easy it is to make-believe play.

Risk Taking in Adolescence New Perspectives From Brain and Behavioral Science By Laurence Steinberg

Trying to find out why adolescence take more risks than adults has plagued the research community for years. The common theory that adolescents engage in risky behavior because of irrationality, ignorance, and fantasies of immunity may not be true. This article examined the developmental neuroscience behind risk taking behavior.

            It is no secret that adolescents and college-age people take more risks than adults or children do, based on statistics about binge drinking, unprotected sex and automobile accidents. There are numerous theories as to why adolescent risk taking is so high compared to any other period of development. One theory that based on evidence from developmental neuroscience is that heightened risk taking behaviors is the result of an interaction between two brain networks.

            The first network, the socioemotional network of the brain is remolded during puberty and is sensitive to social and emotional stimuli. It also plays a role in forward processing. The second network, the cognitive-control network, develops overtime and plays a role in functions such as thinking ahead, planning, and self-regulation. These two networks of the brain compete when an adolescent is engaging in risk taking behavior.  The socioemotional network because more controlling when an individual reaches puberty and the cognitive-control network does not have as much power. When individuals are alone and the socioemotional network is not as stimulated the cognitive-control network can assert more control over things such as impulsive risk taking behavior.  Whereas when an individual is in the presence of peers and the socioemotional network is being stimulated the cognitive-control network can not be as effective in controlling impulsive risk taking behavior. As the individual matures from adolescence to adulthood this scenario tends to occur less because the cognitive-control network is also maturing.

            The increase is risk taking behavior in adolescence could be explained by the two networks in the brain based on the fact that most adolescents tend to spend most of their time with their peers which stimulate the socioemotional network. The presence of peers has no effect on adults when it comes to risk taking behavior and only moderately effects college-age individuals. When teenagers were studied using a video driving game to assess risk taking behavior, the number of risks and adolescent took doubled in the presence of peers, but had no effect on adults. The article suggested that adolescents tend to recruit the cognitive-control network less than adults and there is not as much cross talk between brain regions as there is in adults.  This results in adolescents acting without thinking or thinking too much when they should be relying on gut feeling.

            To help combat the increase risk taking behavior in adolescents the article suggests limiting adolescents’ opportunities for immature judgment that have harmful consequences. Instead of trying to change how adolescents view risky behavior, implementing strategies such as raising the driving age, increasing the tax on cigarettes, and vigilantly enforcing laws on the sale of alcohol. Increase risk taking during adolescents is going to happen, so limiting the opportunities for it to occur is the best way to deal with it.

            After reading this article I can see how the biological aspects of the brain can play a role in the increased risk taking behavior of adolescents. The article mentioned that providing teenagers with information about risky behavior changes their thinking, but rarely changes their behavior. Programs such as DARE and driver’s education classes have been around for decades but have yet to decrease adolescent risk taking behavior. The way to change adolescent behavior and behavior in general is to manipulate the environment in which the behavior occurs. If a teenage can’t get their driver license until a later age, the cognitive-control network has had time to mature and can help to better regulate risk taking behavior. Teenagers are aware of the risks when it comes to driving recklessly but have an inability to delay the reinforcement they get from taking that risk especially when peers are around. Peer pressure and the need to fit in during adolescents sets the ground work for an increase in risk taking behaviors.

Developmental Blog 4: Teaching Feelings.

           After last week’s discussion about whether or not you can teach emotion, I caught myself teaching emotion at my practicum site on Monday.  I was totally against the idea that feelings could be taught. As some people were voicing, everyone’s idea of a feeling is different therefore they can’t be taught.

            Monday morning while working at my practicum, I contradicted myself. I was trying to teach a child that he was feeling mad.  During playtime, a child was asked to place their feet on the ground. After a few requests, the child was physically prompted to place his feet on the ground.  At this point the child started to kick, slap, and throw things at his surrounding classmates and me. I took the child away from his classmates and tried to block the aggressive behavior. As the tantrum was unfolding I was instructed to tell him that his tantrum behavior was not an option and that he can say “I feel mad” along with signing “mad” to him. Totally contradicting myself, I was instructed to teach a child the feeling of mad.  Behaviorally, I can say I was trying to reinforce him saying or signing, “I feel mad” instead of using aggressive behavior. Either way I found it funny that I had contradicted myself.

            Once I looked closer at my everyday interactions at my practicum site the other teachers and myself are teaching children feelings all the time. We differentially reinforce one child for saying, “I feel happy” instead of screaming when he gets excited and teaching “I feel mad” instead of throwing a tantrum. Teaching feelings surrounds me everyday, but I still find it odd to teach feelings. 

Children’s Perception of Gap Affordances: Bicycling Across Traffic-Filled Intersections in an Immersive Virtual Environment. By Jodie M. Plumert, Joseph K. Kearney, and James F. Cremer

           This study investigated children and adult’s road-crossing behavior in an immersive virtual environment. With bicycle crashes among the most common severe injuries in childhood, the researchers wanted to investigate the why collisions between bicycles and cars. Sixty ten and 12 year olds and adult participated in this study. They rode a bicycle mounted on a stationary trainer through a virtual environment that consisted of 6 intersections.

            After the participants rode the bicycle through a 3-5 minute warm-up period they participated in a 10-minute test session, which had them riding on a street where they crossed six intersections. The intersections had continuous traffic moving through them. The temporal distance between the cars was stated as “the difference between the time which the rear of the first vehicle reached the crossing line and the time which the front of the second vehicle reached the crossing line.” The participants were randomly assigned to two groups. One group experienced cars travelling at 25mph for intersections 1-3, and then 35mph at intersections 4-6. The second group experienced cars traveling at 35mph for intersections 1-3 and 25mph for intersections 4-6.  The participants were given instructions to stop at each of the 6 intersections but cross when they felt ready.

            The results of the study examined five behaviors measured among the different age groups: stopping, waiting time, gap choice, time left to spare, and start-up time.  At the first intersection almost all of the participants came to a complete stop before crossing the intersection, but at the remaining intersection many did not come to a complete stop. The ten-year-olds in the 25mph first condition were less likely to stop at the intersections than the ten-year-olds in the 35mph first group. This result could suggest that starting out with slower moving vehicles led children not to be as cautious about stopping at the intersections. Participants in both conditions waited longer at intersection one than any of the other intersections. The waiting time behavior result suggested that participants were more cautious before crossing an intersection when the cars were going faster. The researchers came to this conclusion based on data that showed participants in the 35mph first condition waited for larger gaps than their counterparts in the 25mph first condition. The age difference had an effect only in how much time children and adults left to spare between themselves and the approaching car when they decided to cross the intersection. There was no age difference seen in the size of the gaps children and adults chose to cross.

             There are several reasons why children had less time to spare when crossing the gaps even though they chose the same gaps to cross as the adults. One reason may be that it takes children longer to start moving than an adult. The measurements for this theory were not significant. Another reason why children had less time to spare is that it may take children a longer period of time to bicycle from the starting point to the edge of the roadway, but the measurement of this theory show there was no effect with age. The final possible conclusion the researchers can make about why children have less time to spare than adults is that it is a combination of the two previous reasons, getting started and reaching the roadway.

            In conclusion the study noted that children have a harder time coordinating their body movements than adults, which is why they have left time to spare between cars than adults. The study also noted that because children and adults chose the exact same gaps to cross shows that children and adults do not vary in their opinion of the relevant visual information. A further area of study would look at whether children and adults act differently in a virtual situation than in a real life situation, but it is not ethical to perform this exact experiment in real life.

            The conclusions of this study about children not having great coordination to get the bicycle moving relates to what the Berk book is discussing as far as physical and mental development in children.  As children develop their coordination gets better and their motor skills improve, as they get stronger. As children perform more and more task that require them to use their visual perceptive skills, these skills will also improve. I found the result of this study surprising in that children and adults picked the same gaps to cross. I would have thought that children and adults would have varied because adults have experience with driving, they may have a better perception of how fast a car is moving and when a safe time to cross would occur. Also I would have thought age would have played a factor because they tested children who were at the age they start to develop the idea that they are invincible and bad things don’t happen to them. Obviously, my ideas are not right, and physical development and motor skills seem to play the biggest role.

Understanding Minds and Evidence for Belief: A Study of Mofu Children in Cameroon. Penelope G. Vinden

            This study looked at Mofu children’s ability to give evidence for a belief and their understanding of minds. The study participants were 154 schooled and nonschooled children who were given a novel evidence task and a series of theory-of-mind tasks. They ranged in age from 4 to 11 years of age and were tested by two native Mofu speakers.

            In the standard understanding of minds scenario, a series of three tasks were conducted. In the change of location task, a false belief was created by the child for another person. The child transferred objects from one location to another without the other person’s knowledge. Then the interviewer questioned the child about false belief. They were asked questions such as where would the other look for the object and where he would think it was?  These questions are designed to test a child’s ability to apply their knowledge about a situation in the area of emotion.

             The next scenario testing the understanding of minds was the change in contents tasks. The child removed matches from a matchbox and replaced them with small stones.  Then the child was questioned about what he thought was in the box and what another person would think was in the box before it was opened. Also the child was given a piece of wrapped candy that was actually piece of millet stalk when the child opened it. He was asks the same questions about what he thought was in the wrapper and what another person would think was in the wrapper.

            The final scenario was the surprising objects tasks. During this task a sponge rock and a rubber snake were placed in a box of leaves. The child was asked what the items looked like, what they were, and what another person would think the items were before they touched them.

            To examine a child’s understanding of evidence a scenario was conducted in which one experimenter asks the other to take a close cardboard outside. The experimenter tries to lift the box but can’t. He then says he is going to go find someone to help him because the box is too heavy. After the man leaves the other experimenter shows the child what is inside the box, bags of sand. Then the child is asked, “Whys is this box so heavy?” After this question is asked the experimenter suggest that they hide the bags of sand from the man as a trick. The bags are then hidden and the following questions are asked of the child, “When he comes back, but before he lifts it with his friend, will he think the box is heavy or light? How will he know it is heavy or light? When they come back, when they lift it, will they think the box is heavy or light? How will they know the box is heavy or light?”(p.175)

            The results show that at age 5, 75% of schooled and 45% of nonschooled children have an understanding of theory of mind. Nonschooled children have the opportunity to improve with age, but will never catch up to their schooled peers. The study also suggests that theory of mind may develop before children go to school, but a school setting helps to enhance their understanding of mind. For the evidence task, almost all the children answered the simple questions about evidence correctly (Why was the box heavy and would the man think the box is heavy or light when he returns?). There seemed to be an improvement with age but not with schooling for the children’s ability to give evidence for a false belief. The study also suggest that relying on real world experiences instead of schooling may give children a better understanding of evidence for beliefs. Overall the study concluded that understanding of minds may be universally developed, and understanding of evidence is acquired more gradual than understanding of minds.

            I found it interesting that the study suggested that school only promoted an understanding of minds but was not necessary. School may enhance the development of this type of understanding, but it is not completely responsible for the acquistion of this skill. Children who were nonschooled learned the idea of theory of mind from their parents and their surroundings. To me, this suggests a strong parental involvement and a nurturing environment can help a child to understand their world and schooling can promote the further understanding of the world. Parents can help to guide children when they make an illogical explanation for something just as school can guide them through logical reasoning.

Developmental Journal #3

            After reading chapter 8 and the books discussion on when children acquire writing skills, I started looking at my three-year-old nephew. I found an interesting contrast between what the book says and what is being played out in front of me.

            My nephew just turned three last week and has been writing his own name and a few other simple words for about 6 months now. Granted, he has a fairly simple name, its only three letters and they are all simple letters to reproduce. I found it unusual that the book said that children begin to copy letters around the age of 4-5 and copy simple words around age 5-6. As much as I would like to think that my nephew is a genius, I don’t think this is the case. My nephew’s preschool class, which is all three-year-olds, has a class goal of having them all be able to write their name by the end of the school year. I feel that this is an acceptable goal for three-year-olds and they should be capable of achieving it.  The contrast between the book and what I am seeing with my nephew had me wondering if schools are placing more emphasis on being able to write at a younger age?  With more children being placed in childcare systems, more emphasis is being placed on a classroom setting. Therefore, I feel that skills such as writing are being taught and mastered earlier. I also wonder if this will cause any long-term effects such as dislike for writing because it was being taught at an earlier age? 

            This is just an interesting contrast I have noticed in my own life. I’m curious to know if those people with children have seen any other contrast such as this?

            Here is a picture of my nephews attempt to write his own name. Like I said it is only three letters (Ari) but I feel like it is legible given his age. His handwriting is only going to get better as the years go by.

Developmental Journal #2

           Last weekend as I was babysitting the two little boys I routinely watch social referencing occurred. The boys are 5 and 3; the oldest one is a little anxious and needs a lot of reassuring and the youngest one is a wild child with no fear of anything.

            The boys and I were outside playing in their blow-up pool when the youngest one began to stand on the side of the pool and jumping into the water. He routinely does this type of acrobats so I wasn’t too worried about the consequences, as crazy as it looked. After he completed several flying leaps from the side of the pool into the water the oldest boy stood on the side of the pool and then glanced back at me for a reassurance. He was social referencing.  I chuckled to myself because this is something he often does I just never had a name for it before. He stands back and watches his youngest brother do crazy stunts a few times. Then after he sees that his brother is ok, he decides try it for himself. Then he looks to an adult to reassure him that it is ok to try. The smiling look on my face and my verbal assurance allowed him to know that it was ok for him to jump into the water, which he did. The acrobats continued the rest of the afternoon.

Article Summary: Event Categorization in Infancy: Renee Baillargeon, Su-hua Wang

            This article focuses on early infant cognition, mainly their ability to sort information about their physical world into categories.  The categories studied in this article were about things that can happen to objects such as containment and occlusion. Containment is described as an object being put inside another object and occlusion is described as an object being hidden by another object.  The article suggests that infants have certain expectations about physical events that occur.

            The first series of experiments that were conducted looked at height in occlusion and containment. An object was lowered behind and occluder and then behind a containment. In the expected event the occluder and container were as tall as the object, but in the unexpected event the occluder and container were only half as tall as the object.  The infants that witnessed each event, but they did not look as long at the expected event as they did the unexpected event in the occlusion trial. This suggests that the object not being hidden by the occluder surprised them.  Height occlusion and containment are two different categories and infants do not generalize across the two even though they look similar in physical characteristics. Similar experiments revealed that it is not until about 7.5 months in age when infants begin to consider height when they are predicting events. Also it is not until about 12 months that infants consider the height of an object and whether it can fully covered or not.

            Another experiment discussed in this article looked at transparency in occlusion and containment.  In this experiment infants looked at either a transparent occluder or a transparent container. A shorter object was lowered behind a screen into the container or behind the occluder. When the screen was dropped it revealed either the transparent container or the transparent occluder. In the expected event the object was visible through the transparent occluder or container. In the unexpected event the object was not visible. The results of this experiment showed that infants looked longer at the unexpected occlusion event. At 7.5 month of age infants realize than an object placed behind a transparent occluder should remain visible, but it is not until about 10 months of age to do they realize that an object should also remain visible in a container.

            Infants can also be primed to attend to relative heights and objects. The infants were first exposed to the event as an occlusion event where the occluder was slid in front of the objects. The occluder was removed and the object was covered with a container lowered over top of it. The infants looked longer at the unexpected event, which suggested that the priming of the infants to attend to height information helped them determine the violation in the unexpected. When reviewing an event infant will place their knowledge of what is happening into a category and then review the information in the categories.

            This article brings up an interesting idea that infants sort information about their world into categories.  I wonder if the categories develop as an infant becomes habituated to an event occurring in their physical world? If an infant can consistently see and object through a transparent occluder then they become habituated to the object always being there. As the experiment is being conducted the infant does not attend to the event as long because they have been habituated to objects being visible in their physical world. It is not something new. When the object fails to be visible behind a transparent occluder they attend longer because it is an unexpected event. They haven’t been habituated to this event.

Developmental Journal 1

           This past holiday weekend, I spent a lot of time with family. I have two nephews, one is 3 and the other is 9. I also have a niece that is 8 weeks old. The entire weekend I watched them play and tried to look at what they were doing so that I could write a developmental blog post about something. I don’t normally blog because I don’t really think I have much to say, but I thought watching my family might give me a good topic. There is nothing like using family as study subjects.  With my Berk book in hand I watched their every move.

After watching their actions all weekend I decided to write about something very basic that can be found in the first few chapters of Infants, Children. and Adolescents. Operant conditioning of my niece’s smiling.  Since this weekend was the first time I had seen her in a few weeks, it was my first opportunity to see all the new additions to her repertoire of things she does. Not that there are that many because she is only 8 weeks old, but social smiling is always a pleasurable addition. As I laid her on the floor and began to make eye contact and smile and talk to her, she smiled back. We played this smiling game back and forth for a few minutes until she began distracted by something else. The stimulus of each of us smiling has reinforced the other to smile back. 

This addition of social smiling shows me that her development is moving along. As much as I love her being the cute little baby that she is, I can’t wait to see how else she develops.

First post

I think I have finally figured all this out. Im new to blogging so please be patient.