PSY 620P January 15, 2015

 January 22 – Culture in Development (cont).  Lansford, J. E., Chang, L., Dodge, K. A., Malone, P. S., Oburu, P., Palmerus, K., Bacchini, D., Pastorelli, C., Bombi, A. S., Zelli, A., Tapanya, S., Chaudhary, N., Deater- Deckard, K., Manke, B., & Quinn, N. (2005). Physical discipline and children’s adjustment: Cultural normativeness as a moderator. Child Development, 76, Jaime1   Chen, X., Chen, H., Li, D., & Wang, L. (2009). Early childhood behavioral inhibition and social and school adjustment in Chinese children: A 5-year longitudinal study. Child Development, 80, Sarah1   Chen, X. (2012). Culture, peer interaction, and socioemotional development. Child Development Perspectives. Caroline1   Bulotsky‐Shearer, R. J., Manz, P. H., Mendez, J. L., McWayne, C. M., Sekino, Y., & Fantuzzo, J. W. (2012). Peer play interactions and readiness to learn: A protective influence for African American preschool children from low‐income households. Child Development Perspectives, 6(3), doi: /j x Liz1

BronfenbrennerThelen & Smith

 Multiple levels of organization  Fused, embedded, nested  Development can be seen across all units of time  ms  years  Development is adaptive and organized  Not just random change  Limits on possible outcomes, self-organization

Describe the level at which you are currently anchoring your own research and/or professional work? Describe a level you are not currently examining but are interested in?

 Social contextual effects  Notice the double- headed arrows within Bronfenbrenner’s mesosytem ▪ Interpretation?

 Focus on:  Multiple, mutual, continuous interaction of all components of developing system  Emergence of new forms of behavior  Development as an open system ▪ Self-organizing with relative plasticity

 Multiple levels of organization  Fused, embedded, nested  Development can be seen across all units of time  ms  years  Development is adaptive and organized  Not just random change  Limits on possible outcomes, self-organization

 Contexts are not fully independent ▪ Parenting is directly associated with the type of crowd adolescents choose to affiliate with (Brown et al., 1993)  Effects of contexts on individual can be altered by other contexts within the system ▪ Maladaptive adolescent crowd affiliation (vs. adaptive or neutral) increased adverse effects of poor parenting and diminished effects of positive parenting (Brown & Huang, 1995)

 Effects of contexts on individual can be altered by other contexts within the system  High levels of support from school personnel decreased levels of distress among young adolescents with low levels of parental support (but didn’t make a difference for kids with high levels of parental support) (Dubois et al., 1992) ▪ Restrictive and controlling parenting is adaptive in dangerous neighborhoods (e.g., Baldwin et al., 1990)

 Social Contexts are Themselves Dynamic ▪ Effects of poverty on development change depending on timing and duration ▪ Greatest effects on child if  (a) family in poverty for multiple years vs. shorter amounts of time, and  (b) poverty experienced early in life vs. adolescence (Brooks-Gunn & Duncan, 1997)

 Dynamic Systems Theory – Applications  Focus on change, emergence of new forms, self- organization ▪ Static System x t = f (a,b,c….)  vs. ▪ Dynamic System x t = f (x t-1,a,b,c….)  Dominant behaviors as attractors ▪ Arousal + negative emotional valence  ?

 Dynamic Systems Theory – Applications ▪ State Space Grid Analysis ▪ 2-dimensional grids reflecting co-occurrence of 2 or more variables  Strange Situation examples Strange Situation examples see Howe & Lewis, 2005; Martin et al., 2005 (and entire Developmental Review, 25 special section)

▪ State Space Grid analysis of dyadic interaction ▪ e.g., “Child 2 may have been goading the seemingly affable Child 1 through negative behavior. ▪ Eventually, Child 1 responds in kind and the interaction ends in mutually high negativity, indicating a conflict has ensued.” ▪ True? C. L. Martin et al. / Developmental Review 25 (2005), pp

Same sex peer proclivitiesOther sex peer proclivities How do these dyadic emotional dynamics differ?

▪ State Space Grid Analysis What brings young children together as play partners? Martin et al., 2005

▪ State Space Grid Analysis What features attract the target child in these 3 hypothetical plots of their successive interaction partners?

 Fig. 5. Examples of SSG using focal observations.  (A) Focal SSG for boys: Session 1 only. (B) Focal SSG for girls: Session 1 only

 Fig. 6. Examples of SSG using focal observations.  (A) Focal SSG for same-sex playing children.  (B) Focal SSGfor other-sex playing children

AUTHORS: SPENCER, PERONE, & BUSS, 2012 CASEY BURROWS, 1/16/14 20 YEARS OF DYNAMIC SYSTEMS THEORY

DYNAMIC SYSTEMS THEORY Emphasis on “how” of development Change occurs within complex systems that interact over time to contribute to produce change in behavior Unit of analysis: organism within a given context Systems are self-organizing Behavior as emergent Rejection of dichotomies Nature vs. nurture Qualitative vs. quantitative change

REMAINING CHALLENGES Formally connecting units of analysis Integrating time scales Empirical methods

Smile (sleep/drowsy) Attentive Brow (awake) Smile (awake) Real time  Developmental time Messinger,, et al., 2002; Dondi, et al., 2007 Messinger, Dondi, et al., 2002; Dondi, Messinger et al., 2007