Help
Options
Didn't know it?
click below
click below
Knew it?
click below
click below
Don't Know
Remaining cards (0)
Know
retry
shuffle
restart
0:00
Embed Code - If you would like this activity on your web page, copy the script below and paste it into your web page.
Normal Size Small Size show me how
Normal Size Small Size show me how
developmental 2A
| Term | Definition |
|---|---|
| morality | - systems of principles guifing behaviour (ours + percep of others) - honesty, justice, fairness, respect - early childhood = sharing, telling truth, apologising |
| theories of moral development | 1. Piaget's theory of moral dev 2. Kohlberg's Stages of moral dev 3. social cognitive domain theory |
| Piaget's theory of moral dev | 2 stages: heternomous and autonomous morality 2. autonomous mor |
| heteronomous morality (piaget) | - AKA moral realism - ages 4-7ish - morality sense governed forces (authority, rules) - immanent justice = bad actions always bring punish - consequences rather than intentions - rules must lways be followed (5 plates vs 1) |
| autonomous morality (piaget) | - AKA moral relativism - ages 8-12ish - sense of morality = self-governed - rules set by ppl, therefore can be changed to accomm needs - not governed by punishment, but right thing - harm can be accidental (not desrving of punishment) |
| kohlberg's stages of moral development | preconventional, conventional, postconventional - expansion of piaget - focus on moral judgement competence (ability to make moral decisions w conflicitng values/interests to consider) |
| preconventional (kohlberg, moral dev) | 1. infancy - obedience + punishment (moral reasoning = avoid punishment) 2. preschool - self interest (MR = get smthn out of moral actions) |
| conventional (kohlberg, moral dev) | school age 3. conformity + social relashes (mr = approval of others, authority figs) 4. law + order (mr = respect for law, solely) |
| post conventional (kohlberg, moral dev) | 5. adolescence - social contract (MR = adherence to social contract, contribu to society, unspoken rules of social order) 6. adulthood - universal principles (mr = it's the right thing, abstract thinking) *not everyone reaches postconventional |
| measuring morality according to kohlberg | story led interviews - posing moral dilemmas to all ages - qualitative analysis of reasoning (considerations when reasoning formed) cross sectional +longitudinal designs |
| heinz dilemma responses according to kohlberg's preconventional | - concerned w self interest - judgements formed by needs+ pov - self interst according to understanding of rules eg = heinz could go to jail, shouldnt steal. |
| heinz dilemma responses according to kohlberg's conventional | - conformity, social pressure - consequences of label as criminal eg: "was right to steal it, but needs to face up to actions", "what would ppl think?", "should steal because that's what good husband would do" |
| heinz dilemma responses according to kohlberg's postconventional | - considering differing values btwn ppl - abstract reasoning based on universal principles -eg: "Heinx right to steal bcuz ppl have right to live, surpasses legal norms" |
| further question = what if person dying was stranger preconventional (kohlberg, moral dev) | - less likely to steal as no personal benefit/significance |
| further question = what if person dying was stranger conventional (kohlberg, moral dev) | - more mixed - less pressure to steal for stranger, wrong no matter who you steal for |
| further question = what if person dying was stranger postconventional (kohlberg, moral dev) | - stranger's life = loved one's life |
| postive evaluation of kohlberg's stages | + biggest theory for long time + shift from behavioural learning to cog dev stage thory (focus on rationale, triggered research on reasoning) |
| critique of kohlberg's stage | - discrete stages - methodological concerns (ecological validity w hyps, sample = white, eu boys -> diff cults = diff moral standards) - lack of alignment w other aspects of dev (only cog), ignores personality, emotional reactivity, self regu, self ID |
| later developments of kohlberg | moral atmosphere = perceptions + influence of collective norms + shared beliefs on our decisions - incorp social/edu influences to capture relashe btwn judgement + behaviour |
| measuring moral development | moral judgement competence = story based int, multiple choice measures (rating/ranking imp) perceptions of moral atmosphere = questionnaires, dilemma-based ranking likelihood of peers' behaviours moral behav = obs |
| challenges of measuring moral dev | - intelligence/verbal ability confounds - ecological validity (across age groups) |
| gender diffs in moral dev | gilligan 1982 = points out kohlberg's all male sample, neglectss "female" moral principle = interpersonal realshes + care men = justice + rights (stg 4) women = welfare + care (stg 3) |
| jaffee + hyde (2000) - gender diffs in moral dev | - empirical evidence highly variable + inconsistent - negligible differences - no evidence of gender-based diffs, depends more on context of moral problem (relationsal considerations = personal scenarios, justice + law = abstract scenarios) |
| social-cognitive domain theory (moral dev) | - elliot turiel - moral development = one aspect of borader social reasoing system as part of devel - moral, conventional, personal judgements = results of interaction btwn individ + characteristics of situation |
| social cognitive domains (SCDT moral dev) | moral domain -> welfare, rights, justice -> authority independent, universal context social conventional domain -> social etiquette, social rules -> authority dependent, context specific personal domain -> personal choices -> personal jurisdiction |
| social cognitive domain theory linked to vygotsky + piaget (moral dev) | - scdt builds on piaget's constructivism (children = active scientists) - integrates vygotsky's social-cultural emph (context + comm shapes und) - not one logic but mult coexisting domains of reasoing (flexible system) |
| language | - system of comm using symbols (sounds, symbols, gestures) to convey meaning - requires knowledge of vocab, grammar, syntax |
| pragmatics | und of lang use in real world - meaning shaped by context, speakers intent vs listener's interp, social norms |
| key milestones of lang dev | 1. b4 birth 2. prelinguistic stage 3. gestures 4. two-word stage 5. preschool |
| lang before birth | - DeCasper + Spence (1986) = new borns prefer listening to story mum read before, language recognition starts before birth |
| prelinguistic stage | - practicing using vocal chords, how comm works - learning sounds, rhythm of lgan from caregiver - cooing --> babbling --> more complex babbling (mirrors speech) --> first words |
| gestures | - from 10ish months - pointing, headshaking/nodding, raising arms = picked up, showing objects - sharing attention, express desires, early social interactions - predicts later lang dev + problem solving |
| two word stage | - 18-20 months - simple sentences (more milk) inc. action sentences (peppa play) - understand instructions (show me...) rapic vocab spurt (arnd 300 wrds) |
| lang pre school age | - vocab = 1-2k wrds - tell simple stories, use pronouns, temporal lang (today, tomorrow, yesterday), tenses - understand writing = expresses lang - learn phonemes |
| theories of language acquisition | 1. learning theory 2. chomsky 3. piaget 4. social theorists |
| learning theory (lang) | - association, imitation, conditioning - parents create associations, helps kids learn (pointing + naming) - adding requirements to lang (milk please) -> expect more for reinforcement - neg reinfor = correcting mistakes |
| learning theory eval (lang) | - too simplistic - cant work out lang rules w imitation + reinforcement - disproven when kids say more than exposed to (poverty of stimulus) - doesn't explain crit period of lang acq |
| critical period of lang acquisition | case study = Genie found @ 13, exposed to abusive condishes, minimal input from parents, kept in basement alone started off being able to follow phases, pick up vocab, learn gestures prog stopped, nvr reached school lvl, unable to do grammar + syntax |
| chomsky (lang) | - universal grammar = underlying princips on struct common across langs - lang acq device = children born w innate ability to dev lang - infer linguistic rules from input received - explains pov of stim - LAD = crit period, explains Genie |
| chomsky eval (lang) | - not from psych perspec (didnt work with children to dev theory) - diversity of langs = question uni gram - neglects imp of inpit from others (caregivers, teachers, peers) |
| piaget (lang) | - orig theory applied to un lang, lang not special - lil scientists = learn from interactions w world - accomm + assim - cog dev b4 lang dev - egocentric speech (play = self-direc talk, no und others may share/comp thoughts) |
| piaget accommodation, assimilation (lang) | i goed to park = assimilation i went to park = accommodation (older child) child sees cat thinks dog = assim correction by caregiver = accommodating info, schema = have pets, diff from animals |
| piaget eval (lang) | - not complex enough to exp amnt learned during lang dev - sensorimotor = rapid changes, too simplistic (ages 0-2) - btwn + within subject diffs not exp (can do one thing not other) - minimizes role of social int - underestimates children |
| Information Processing Theory/approaches | - development = general process of maturation - continuous grad change, not discrete stages (piaget) - info dealt w in stages like comp |
| Maturation | improvements in efficiency of thought (brain maturation) |
| Myelination | - formation + development of myelin sheaths - peak in 20s, slow decline - beings in infancy |
| Executive Functions | - allows to execute approp behaviour, inhibit inapprop behave, meet novel/unexpected challenges, stay focused - Miyaki + Friedman = Ihibition, WM, cognitive flexibility ( - Preforntal areas of brain (PFC, ACC, DPFC, O) |
| Working Memory | - information that can be held in mind at any one time - short + small capacity |
| Inhibitory Control | - self control - ability to understand consequence - ability to delay or inhibit response to reach a goal - marshmellow experiment (delayed gratification) |
| Cognitive Flexibility | - switch btwn mental tasks/states - adapt to environmental demands - disengagement from response no longer relevant, engagement w new + relevant one |
| Case’s Neo-Piagetian Theory (info processsing theory) | - eg of info processing theory - mind's stair case (increasing w sophistication, sensorimotor ) - dev explained by devs in processing capacity, exec functs - individ diffs - HOW changes occur, not just what changes - number sense predicts later |
| 1. Sensorimotor Structures (Case's, info processing theory) | - learn environment - cause + effect - phys actions = effect on the world |
| 2. Interrelational Structures (Case's, info processing theory) | - internal representations - relative concepts - relational concepts |
| 3. Dimensional Structures (Case's, info processing theory) | - transformations of internal representations - conservation tasks (taller doesnt mean more water) - visualise + rotate 90 deg |
| 4. Vectorial Structures (Case's, info processing theory) | - complex transformations - philosophical, abstract moral reason - complicated mathermatics |
| Central Conceptual Structures (info processing theory) | - mental frameworks that help org info - diff domains: numerical, social, spatial - sep staircases = explain within subject diffs (succeed in one task not other) - social = mountain taks, othrs have diff vis perspec, false belief task becomes ToM |
| Horizontal Decalage (info processing) | - sometimes kids succeed in task sometimes dont - understanding appears at diff times - number cons = earlier than volume cons - diff insights = diff lvls of complexity, rely on diff processing demands (IPA = better accnt for unevenness) |
| Prefrontal cortex | - engages many diff areas in brain - air traffic control centre, command centre |
| social theorists (lang dev) | - vygotsky, Bruner - impact of social environ is key - lang imp = comm w others (scaffollding, modelling, ZPD) - relashe btwn dev of thoughts + lang = bidirectional - priv speech = vygotsky (key to problem solving, develops into inner speech) |
| social theorists eval (lang dev) | - too little emph on biopsych factors - no consid of individ factors (own motivation to learn), too focused on role of others |
| how lang supports social + emotional development | - enables expresh of emotion (link emosh exp w words of emotion, grow out of tantrum) - enhances social relashes (collaboration w others on playgrnd) - fosters understanidng of others (lang to dev empathy, perspective taking, being critical) |
| importance of baby talk (lang) | infant direct speech - exaggerated tone, pitch, rhythm - fosters social engagement (turn taking, eye contact, learning social cues) - strengthens emosh bonds - mum tlaking thorugh actions supports learning |
| Dorsolateral PFC (info processing) | - keep track of how things going - integration of info |
| anterior cingulate cortex (info processing) | - emotional/motivational experiences - modulate emosh response - rethink when make mistakes - primary emosh reaction |
| Orbitofrontal cortex (info processing) | - impulse control, monitoring behave - differing expections in diff environs - emotional response (as opposed to reaction) |
| exec functions from case's neopiagetian (info processing) | - cog process allow establish prob, come up w strats for solving, evaluate strats - friemdan + miyaki = WM,inhib control, cog flex (Ef as whole not just single process, subscales which interrelate) |
| mind's staircase (Case's, info processing theory) | 4 stage: 1. sensorimotor 2. interrelational structures 3. dimensional structures 4. vectorial structures |
| machanisms of change (Case's, info processing theory) | - icnrease proficiency, efficiency (speed of processing, phonetic sounds vs reading word) - brain maturation (neural connections more efficient, birth -> forever, 6 = peak, 14 = myelination/synaptic pruning) - practice w schemas (more automatic w use) |
| IPA strengths | + explain HOW develop (btwn subject diffs, why some children more skilled than others) + explicit, precise + precise mechanisms = more accurate testing (objective) + support children to develop processes (how to support, simons says = inhib ctrl) |
| IPA limitations | - going too dep, weaken overall und of how processes work togetg (case = best) - too reductivist, not accnt for influence of others on dev - cog heavy(social, moral?, how learn rules, not why or when use) - no bio expl (case = synaptic pruning) |
| exec functs: early childhood | - inib + WM = first to dev - big jump 3-5yrs old (maps onto piaget) - errors in cog flex, plannin, goal directed (but much work) |
| Ef: preadolescence | - WM cap increase (comprehension in reading, maths) - goal directed behaviour (saving money) - sitch app behav (class vs playground) - plan + org behav (HW) - inhib ctrl = not always reliably used |
| ef: adolesence | - peak integration period - influenced by peer presh, public image |
| EF: adulthood | - still developing (curve drops) - constant myelination, working to be peak efficiency - shifting 0 cog flex = more robust proc, dont lose as fast as WM |
| EFs + social interaction | - bidirectional, socialisation inf EFs (caretake infl impulse ctrl, perspec taking, overly punitive caretaker = lack of ic) - struggling w EFS = affect how socialisaiton occurs |
| research methods of dev psych | WATA - watching - asking - testing - analysing |
| watching | - structured + naturalistic observations |
| structured obs | - fairly uncontrolled environ - pro = controlledc environ set up[ tpo observe/analyse specific behav con = artificiality to child's behav, not accurate rep of irl sitch |
| unstructured/naturalistic obs | - observing partips in natural, real life environ - partips unknowing of being watched - pro = more rep dat, apply more generally - con = less internal ctrl, mor eextraneous var to be cautious of |
| asking | - flexible interviews - structured interviews - parent/teacher questionnaire - child questionnaire |
| flexible interviews | - like convo - may have planned topics, but not specific questions - partips = ctrl of discussion topic pro = depth of findings, partips = active role, ethical (disclosure) cons = subjective exp, apprch to topics = results harder to comp btwn pps |
| structured interviews | - set list of questions - ask is anything want to tell at end - pros = comparable results (easier for dat wrangling), efficiency - con = less insight into full exp of individs, honesty |
| parent/teacher questionnaire | pros - know child well, insight into children of smaller ages, dat from mult perspecs cons - honesty (wanting to seem good caregiver), not complete subjective insight of child (not active voice, not all nuances) |
| child questionnaire | pros - subjective exp, honesty cons - lower cog abilities, harder to comm, having to shape questions to cog abilities (creative approach to q's to allow kids a voice) |
| testing | - psychophysical - standardised/empirical |
| psychophysical testing | monitoring of phys aspects (heart rate, eye mvmnt) pro=insight into exp of children not yet verbal, generalisable + comp results con = diff w kids (must keep engaged, might have medical trauma), keeping conc mus be done compassionately |
| standardised/ empirical testing | - test intelligence/cog abil - all measured + compd against average - pros = stndrdisation, measure impact/effects of certain diagnoses, tool to support + evaluate where smn at - con = no subjective diffs |
| analysing | - case study - ethnography - database/archival |
| case study | - in dt investig of indvd or grp w common trait/exp - pro = rich, multidimensh insights, time/cost effective, provide reference of comp - cons = lack of gen, biased (researcher bias, investigating one person due to signif trait) |
| ethnography | - immersion/in depth research of certain cultural/social group pro = und cultural impact con = group wanting to present certain way, aware of being watched + analysed, bias from research, nongeneralisability |
| database/archival | - use of existing dat pro = large mants of dat (large sample, investigate using many methods), comparable easy to wrangle/vis, cheap con = unaware of study's actual method/execution, lack of ctrl, can be incomplete, historical = outdated methods/e |
| research designs | longitudinal cross sectional (cross) sequential microgenetic |
| longitudinal | - one group/individ over extended period pro = individ diffs, depth, analyse common patterns of change, growth, stability, stagnation etc con = attrition, sample bias (one type of pers represented, those who commit to LT study), cohort + practice |
| cross sectional | analyse diff age groups at one time pro = time efficient (less attrition), range of insight @ 1 time con = cohort effects (generational diffs), no trend over dev |
| cross sequential | combo of longitudinal + cross sectional pro = indvd diffs + common patterns , monitor cohort effects con = both cons from longit + cross sectional |
| microgenetic | - monitoring spec task perfor, dev, levels b4 during + after - examine change as it occurs, und how/why pro = close succession of tests, exp reasons for chnge, task specific proce con = unexplored method, non-reandom samp, practice effect, intensi |
| internal validity | extent to which study measures effect of IV on DV - reliability, research control |
| external validity | extent to which study is representative of real life/can be applied to larger pop - generalisability, applicability |
| ethics | - avoidance of hamr (childrne more vuln, must take resp + eval riskj, ask parents to avoid involving children unnecessarily) - eval consent/assent (ensure childrengs engagement + enthus) - right to withdraw |
| participatory research | nothing about us without us value of empathy, understanidng, communicate lived exp, shared exp w cohort/sample partips w active voice in study method + design = better research + dat (smooth, accurate, honest, easier dat collec) |
| cog development | - many processes (info processing, conceptual reasoning, percep skills, lang, socioemot dev) - qual diffs btwn adult + child (diff think process, begins trial + error then strategic) |
| types of ways to define change + growth | continuous vs discontinuous |
| continuous | - no clear line btwn diff stages of prog - steady change - eg: lang |
| discontinuous | - abrupt change btwn stages - step cange - eg: walking |
| Piaget overview | - worked w Binet = psychometric assesments of intellig on kids (consistent errors) - theorised = kids hv diff thot proc to adults (not smaller, slower vers) - children = active scientists (NOT passiv observ) |
| active scientists | - engaging w environ to learn more - new info assimilated + accomm - development leads to learning |
| piagetian schools of thought (general dev) | 1. general theory of dev (applies to all cog) 2. stages are invariant (fixed ordr, built upon eo, none skipped) 3. stages = universal (characterises children globally, may prog at diff rates and not complete all stages) |
| piaget's stages of dev | 1. sensorimotor stage (0-2) 2. preoperational tage (2-7) 3. concrete operational (7-11) 4. formal operational stage (12+) - as prog, dev in abstraction, logic, mental rep skills |
| mechanisms of change according to piaget | schemas - building block of knwldge - mental template = organise exp - inc cog info (dog, bday party) + behav info (grab pen, shake hand) - learn = continuously build, refine, reorganise schema thru exp (early ch = lrn thru snsry abil + mtr rflxs) |
| assimilation | - interpreting info along what is already known |
| accommodation | adapting existing shcema w new info |
| disequilibrium | caused by new info that does match/assimiate with existing schema - motivates learning |
| process of schema change | new sitch > disequilibrium > accommodation > assimilation > equilibrium |
| Piaget clinical experiments | - observational (initially) = deferred imitation (recreate things seen b4), playing w car - experimental = 3 mts task (perspec taking), conservation task (clay, wtr glasses) |
| support for piaget | - partic impact on edu + support strats (understanding child diff cog) - systematic mths fo studying behav + dev (3 mts, obje perm experiments) - emoh on agency + role of child (active lrning more effective, hlping explore world ind) |
| usual criticism for piaget | - selective sample bias = lack of generalisability (WEIRD, own children) - lack of individ diffs ages which children SHOULD reach stgs) - tasks too hard/irrelevant (not select 1 cog abi from 1 experiment) - ignores stages after pre adolescence |
| additional criticism for piaget | - understimates children (focus what cant do) - ages dont match dat (trustworthiness of studies, theories) - ignores role of social enviorn (all learning = interact w environ, yet ignrs social role) - descrip, not expl (what changes, when not HOW) |
| vygotsky | - emph on cult ast tool (cult variance rather than universality) - emph on social environ (imp of social interacs, guided lrning, internalising of lang lds to/rflct cog dev >allws to org, plan, regulate behav) - MKO |
| vygotsky model | - Zone of Proximal Dev (ZPD) - emph on social components (cares provide modelling + scaffolding) - sweet spot - beyond what can learn ind, not beyond reach. btwn what can be learned w help - learning = eventually m+m ind |
| scaffolding | - support gradually removed to help ZPD |
| MKO | More knowledgeable other - smn more knowledgeable in specific task @ hand - parents, teachers, sibs, peers |
| mechanisms of change according to vygotsky | elementary mental functions become higher mental functions through cultural mediation |
| elementary mental functions (vygotsky) | - innate, biological - atten, sensation, percep, mem |
| higher mental functions (vygotsky) | - culturally shaped, conscious, strategic - selective atten, mnemonics, reasoning |
| cultural mediation (vygotsky) | - cultural factors, social interaction, language |
| strengths of vygotsky | - emph on role of lang as tool for thinking, priv speech - practical applications (pper workd, activ lrning vs passive learning = pushing bynd what child can learn ind - acknowledgement of cult variations - lrning + dev as continuous + ongoing |
| priv speech | - child playing talk out loud abt wht soing - priv, not intended for anyone - learning from caregiver - piaget = egocentrism, lack of outside perspec taking - vygtosky = tool for planning, problem solving |
| challenges of vygotsky | - concepts (ZPD, MKO) = too broad to meas - focus on cult downplays bio processes involved - practical constraints of finding ZPD (ubjective dev, to challenge all kids approp = diff demands) |
| empathy | - prerequisite for sympathy - hard to define - freud def = intuitive perspective taking |
| 3 components of empathy | - emotional - cognitive - motivational |
| emotional component of empathy | - emotional/affective empathy (vicarious active response to another) - approp emosh resp (matching or responsive, fear cuz others fright or compassion) - response directed twrd other, not self (NOT schadenfreude) |
| cognitive component of empathy | - intellectual/imaginative appreciation of mental state of another - aka affeective perspec taking, mentalising, ToM (bad implies cannot have emph b4 ToM) |
| motivational component of empathy | - not just ability, have inherent drive to emosh connct w others - motivated + goal directed behav - ID = diff lvls of emp in diff ppl |
| meffert et al 2013 (motivational component of empathy) | - ppl high in psychopathy can display emp, just reduced - same pattern in ppl w bilateral amygdala damage (adolphs ea, 2005) |
| empathy across lifespan | cheng, cheng, decetym (2014) stages of empathic dev - empathic arousal, self vs other, self regulation, prosocial behav - as age increase, increase in visceral emotional resp to cog appraisal of others |
| rochat 2002 | - empathy def from birth to early CH - 6 stages: 1. birth 2. 2mths + 3. 6-9 mths 4. 14 mnths + 5. 24 mths 6. 4-6 yrs |
| rochat stg 1 | - infants = passive + obligatory emosh resonance - sagi + hoffman, 1976 = 2 day infant know synthetic crying from real cry - borthers 1989 = imit is precursor to emp - IDs in early stage = attend to emosh sigs, arousal + reg - Connellan et al 2000 |
| Connellan et al 2000 - sex diffs in emp precursors in infants | - face tracking study - sex diffs/IDs within social perception + responsivity evident within 1st 24hrs - female neonates = more interest in face - male neonates = more interested in mobile (jumbled facial traits) |
| rochat stg 2 | emergence of active recip - social smiling - complex dialogical eng (eye cntct) - f2f exchng w caretkrs - begin cocunstruct shrd exp via imitation + reciprocal games - frith + frith 2003 = smile more twrd ppl than obj, react reflex to gaze mvmnt |
| rochat stg 3 | 6 mths = surpirsed if object moves on own but not prsn 9 mths = attempt to share atten w others, developing secondary intersubjectivity, beyond f2f exchanges |
| secondary inetersubjectivity | - learning abt world thru shared attention btwn caregiver and child - primary subjectivity = infant and caregiver learn abt each other |
| rochat stg 4 | - mirror recog, identify selves as unique - projective mp = identify w or project selves onto others - discriminating imitators (adult vs object, becoming aware of being imitated) - 18 mths = joint atten fullly emerged, geinning of mentalising |
| mentalising | - beginning to understand mental states that underlie outward behaviour |
| self recognition key to emp? | bischof-kohler (1994) - self objectification (distinct btwn self + others) = only essental precond of emp ctrl milestone 15-18mths = ind emrgnce of consc + meta rep of self - mirror recog - prsnl prns (me, mine) - distress resp comforting beh |
| rochat stg 5 | - self consc emoshes - systematic coomps/catego/conceptualisation of self vs othrs - dev of embarrassmnt, self consc moral emoshes (shame, guilt, pride) |
| rochat stg 6 | - milestone of ToM - capble of adopting theoretical stance twrd how othrs may feel + exp wrld - complx + dvlpd awareness of other mental states - predict others behavs + emosh (how othrs may respond in certain sitches) |
| ToM criticism | - prev seen as emp magic key, better und as advance in meta rep (3 mts task) - wrongly used in und of autism (not lack of emp, autistic = seek emosh connection + relashes) |
| teeange emp | - defs of kindess + prosocial behav = closer to adults - justify prosocial behav w variety of reason - empathic concerns = salient aspect of ado reasoning |
| adult emp + emosh regulation | - older adults = diff emosh reg (passive emosh reg strats) - decreased abil to integrate emosh + cog - prioritisation of emosh reg goals -0 decreased tendency to express anger |
| atypical empathy | - disrupted dev (severe abuse, extreme neglect) - disturbed presentations = serial killers, psychopaths, dark emp |
| dysfunctional socialisation | - infancy + Ch = crot period for form of neural pthwys essensh for emp dev - brain mat = genes + highly sens to environ - 1st 2 yrs = synapses formed for emosh + mem funct - dysfunct sociali = modify brain phy + behav, affect emosh dev + funct |
| caregiver psych neglect | - absence of imp dev stimuli - ST and LT cog and emosh deficits - weakening / atrophy of neural pathways serotonin based meds help but not fix, shows perm change in brain function due to neglect |
| ST and LT cog and emosh deficits of caregiver psych neglect | Egeland + Sroufe. 1981 - cog delay during infancy - attachment probs + social withdrawal - as children = isolated/withdrawn, lower self esteem, more neg and less pos affect pollack et al 2000 - probs in emosh reg and discrim |
| caregiver abuse | - presence of wrong stim - not atrophy of pathways but aberrant pathways built - more likely aggro show less emp - bheavioural + attachment issues - incr incidence of psych disorders - juvenile delinq + adult crim behav |
| disruption in HPA axis | - abuse = HPA axis dysreg + reduced hippocampal vol - hypothalamis - pituitary- adrenal - imp for regulation |
| neurodiversity + empathy | - diagnoses often associated w atypical presentation of emp - not all think/feel same way - emph on difference rather than dysfunction, disorder, deficit |
| autism | neurotype w unique strengths + challenges - social comm +interaction - restricted/repetitive behavs - sensory diffs (hyper/o) - focused interests - anxiety - melt/shutdowns - delayed dev, intellectual disability |
| autism + empathy | - historically typified as lack of emp + ToM. ableist dehumanising narrative of autistic - research = inconsistent (experimental task not approp, interp applied inapprop, meas tools used asses stereotypic rep of autism) |
| meta analysis Song et al 2019 - autism + emp | trait empathy = emp as trait, ability, personality tendency state emp = instant psych state/process induced by stim, context dependent trait effective emp of aut = intact - trait empathic concern = impaired - trait empathic accuracy = superior |
| autism and ToM | constant finding = difficulties w ToM - burling et al 2019 -higher aut traits = diff reog own body mvmnts - range of diffs in self processing (keeping boundaries, regulating when showing emp + sharing emosh exp |
| evolved def of emp | fletcher-watson + bird (2019) 1. noticing someone else's behav 2. correctly interp behav/emosh 3. affinity for/resonate/mirror how pers feels 4. deciding upon + expressing resp |
| masking + camouflage | - more common in aut but not unique to aut exp - assoc w threat, extreme fatigue, dep. anx, suicidal thots - limit acces to diagnoses + suport - some interv may unknowingly teach or encourage |
| not autistic atypial emp | - hyper empathy - dark empathy |
| hyper empathy | - hyper arousal of emp system - mirror touch synesthesia (increased emosh resp, better abil to read facial expresh of emosh) - dep/bipolar/brdrline (extreme female brain) |
| dep/bipolar/brdrline (extreme female brain) | - some aspects of social cog hyper developed - hypermentalising, higher sens to socioemosh cues, overactive social imagination, relaxation of neg feedbacks |
| `dark empathy | heym et al 2021 - dark triad (machiavellieanism, narcissism, psychopathy) - cog + affective emp - big 5 - indirect relashe studies in partips to ceate 4 grps - high dt low emp - low dt av emp - low dt high emp - high dt high emp |
| dark empaths | - high dt high emp group - higher extraversion - normal ? agreeableness - more indirect aggr, not as high as DT group |
| narcissitic personality disorder | - grandiose self imp - fantasies of unlimited success, power, brilliance, beauty - believes special, only ot be understood or associated w high status ppl or orgs - sense of entitlement - interpersonally exploitative |
| narcissitic personality disorder + emp | - typ = deficits in emp, tho NPD = highly variable - dysfunctional cog emp+? |
| antisocial personality disorder | - associated w psychopathy, not fully capture - disinhibition (impulsiveness, irresp, diff reg own emosh + behav, mistrust) - meanness (defs in emp,, contempt twrd + inab to bond w othrs, predatory exploitativeness) - boldness (dom, assured, emosh re |
| Gender identity | - resides within individ - formed by multidimensh const of factors, weighted diff in diff ppl (bio, societal structures, cult exp, personal exps) |
| Gender expression | - way person acts to comm gender within given culture eg clothing, interests. comm patterns - gender expression not always conform to gender identity, social/cult perscriped gender roles |
| Kohlberg’s Gender Schema | - exclude genderfluid + trans, conting on cog dev age 3: gender labelling (labelling self/othrs by gend accurat) age 5: gender stabil (aware girls .women, boys > men) age 7: bio sex is "perm", cant be changed by appearances/clothing |
| Gender Schema Theory | Bem 1981 - chil build scehmas as lens to view wrld - adjust behav to align w gend norms of cult - sex typed (align w bio sex) - cross typed (opp) - androgynous (flip btwn both) - undifferentiated (gndr not big part of ident) |
| Gender dysphoria | - signif discontent/distress w assigned sex +/or gender roles associated w that sex - discordance btwn anatomical sex + brain's coding of gender - may first expressed v young (3-5 yrs) or around puberty |
| sex/gender assignment | classification at birth as either male/female |
| sexual orientation | - enduring attraction to certain partners based on gender expression |
| bio contributions to gender | - strict bio approach = hormones (testosterone), chromosomes (atypical chromosome combos may dev diff social, phys, cog) |
| neurobiology of gender | - prenatal hormones + genes infl gender identification (Bae + Swaab, 2011) - sex diff of gentials + brain take place at diff times - puberty = hormones activated already-there brain diffs (Steensma et al. 2013) - some med/environ fact disr horm sens |
| experiential contribs of gender | - byproduct of differential treatment of child during socialisation + stereotypes exposed to in environ (family, school, wider culture like peers, media, religion) |
| traditional theories of gender dev | - bio, social, cog influences differently emphed |
| bio theories of gender dev | - reprod success dirves sex-typed behavs (mate prefs + reprod behav, play prefs, cog abils) = untestable - y chrom + infl of testosterone = untestable, cannot ethically manip |
| socially focused theories | - gender = differential trtment of chil during sociali + stereotypes exposed 2in environ - social learning theory = imitat and modeling to vicariously lrn approp gndr role behavs (Bandura) - Bussey + Bandura 1999 = chil activ agents in gndr dev |
| cog focused theories | - kohlberg's gender schema, gender constancy - gender schema theory - dual pathway theory |
| dual pathway theory | Liben + Bigler - attitudinal pathway = gender atts predict behavs - personal pathway = interests can affect attitudes and behavs expecs of what behav may look like but based on personal interests |
| gender iden in infacy | - 3-4 mths can distinguish btwn male/female faces ]- 6 mths = discrim faces and voices by sex - 10 mths = stereotyp assoc btwn women/men + gndr types objects |
| developmental trajectories of gender identity + typing | 18-24mths - chil can label gndr, categorise slvs and othrs accurat ( seeking what things mean + how shld behav) 2-4 yrs - recog of gndr diffs. use of gndrd pronouns, stereotyps 5-6 yrs - explicit decl of gndr, stereotypes solidified |
| developmental trajectories of gender - stereotypes | - stereotypes become rigid before becoming more flex, nuanced and associated more sophis (Signorella et al 1993) - same trajec for all regardless of when or how intesely bcome rigid 5-6 = peak rigidity 8 = flex incr |
| gender exploration within trajectory of dev | - cross gender play and dress = NORMAL - persistent, insistent nonconfirming behavs = sign of fluidity, even dysphoria |
| influence of child on parents Mascaro et al 2017 | - greater neural resp to daughter's emosh facial expresh comp to son's - father#s brain resp diff to daughters vs sons, strong resp to happy expresh - greater resp in region of lateral OFC (emosh reg) |
| resilience | - cap for success adaptation and recov in resp to stressful life events - first def = personal trait, now = dynamic process incl contrib of systs (family, services, social groups, wider commun) |
| sources of resilience | - personal factors - biological - environmental - interactions btwn all |
| personal factors of resil | - locus of control, self efficacy, esteem, optimism - intellect, cog flex, attachment, emosh reg - some factors = life-stage specifc, or operate across lifespan |
| bio factors of resil | moderate neg emosh - brain size (nutrition in dev) - neural ntwrks - neurotrans activ - sens of receptors - early input during sense period = protec fact - maternal = oxytocin, suppresses HPA axis - spec gene = higher risk of PTSD rwanda genoc |
| environmental-systematic factors of resil | microenvironmental = numb + qual of interpersonal relashes (single [pos adult relashe) macrosystematic = communities, cult factors, spirtiuality + relig, consider world + how fit within |
| interaction of sources of resil | gene x environ = social exp alter gene expresh gene x gene x environment = neurotrophic fact x serotonin x abuse > dep gene x gene x environ x environ = pos soc support reduces risk high MAOA gene = less antisoc behav in abused children |
| Averse Childhood Experiences (ACEs) | - acute, chronic stress event may be bio or psych in nature, occurring in ch > bio/psych stress resp (Gershon, 2013) |
| impact of adversity | - little can be good, lot = disruptive to brain, body - affect heath cumulatively or sharply in sens dev periods (Kalmakis + chandler) - environ infl adver exp (low SES = more risk dep disord) - ID = magn of imp of adver - resp to adver = norm dist |
| PERMA model - training resilience | - Seligman pos emosh (cog reappraisal, pos reframing) engagement (flow, mindfulness, activites give pos enggmnt) relashes (reaching out, qual over quant) meaning (engage activs find meaningful) accomplishment (celeb wins, self praise) |
| PI-PE model - resilience ability | IJntema et al 2021 - Psychological Immunity-Psychological Elasticity stressor > in/tolerance to stressor > narrative construction > mal/adaptation to stressor > psych immun + elast or susceptibility pre-stressor adjust, stressor, pers + environ |
| post traumatic growth | 1. resp to traum = norm 2.reducing anx by control intrus thots 3. constructive self-disclosure 4. create narr = traum is fork in road (hv ctrl) 5. artic life principles (what believe, value, want?) |
| neurobiology of resilience | stress = resp - distress = bad resp - eustress = pos - body responds to stress w allostasis (prolonged = allostatic load, neg imp) - resil = how adapt, return to homeostasis - rietveld and beest (2017) |
| intergenerational stress | survivors of hol - lowest levels of cortisol, children = lower cort levels if mother had ptsd - lower lvls of enzyme break down cort, chil = higher lvls (adapt to cort lvls in mother) - 3rd gen = lower ptsd + anx, possible higher resil |
| allostasis | - anticipate and adjust energy usage according to environmental demands - lter in ANS, SNS, HPA axis (autonomic +sympathetic nerv syst) |
| rietveld and bees (2017) - impact of pos forms of stress | rollercoasters to see impact of stress - astham partips = perceived shortness of breath moderated by pos stress, despite same physiological resp as neg stress |
Created by:
melissa.sjolin