1
Q
romantic relationships
A
dyads that take place in peer settings
2
Q
initial romantic involvement- suleiman and deardorff, 2015
A
- friends serve as matchmakers/ facilitators
- implicit and explicitly pressured to engage even if unsure
- young teens agree to start and cont relationship in spite of reluctance
- difficult to end relationship b/c of partner’s well-being -> relationship becomes stressor
3
Q
romantic relationships in middle school
A
- 30% involved
2. done to elevate status
4
Q
romantic relationships in high school
A
- about 50% 9th gr and 70% 11th gr involved
2. time spent with romantic partner > friends and family
5
Q
supportiveness of partners inc with age
A
- by 10th gr romantic partner 2nd best to mom
2. by college romantic partner best for males, among the most supportive for women
6
Q
romantic involvement and depression (joyner and udry, 2000)
A
- 2 waves of data
- longitudinal 1 yr
- main findings:
a. ) boys and girls who became romantically involved b/w the interviews experienced a sig inc in depression
b. ) girls’ greater vulnerability to romantic involvement explained 2/5 of the gender gap changes in depression
7
Q
although romantic relationships can be supportive
A
they inc risk of depression due to relationship problems or dissolution of relationship or effects more b/c of limbic system
8
Q
gender differences in romantic relationships
A
- girls get romantically invested in romantic relationships earlier than boys b/c involved with older boys and have changes 1st
- asynchrony problem
9
Q
relationship problems
A
- aggression in romantic relationships
(a) 10-50% of adolescents report experiencing physical aggression
(b) 25-50% report experiencing psychological aggression
10
Q
summary: romantic involvement in adolescence
A
- inc risk of interpersonal distress due to unwanted/ hard to end or conflict relationships
- inc risk of depression (among girls) due to break-ups
- inc risk of physical and psych violence and also sexual pressure
11
Q
precipitating events
A
unexpected/ sudden life events that change the developmental trajectory
-> change substantially
12
Q
turning points in life
A
a time at which a decisive change in a situation occurs specially one with beneficial results
13
Q
UCLA quasi study on preg teens
A
- examined:
(a) girls who gave birth during teen yrs
(b) girls who got pregnant but miscarried - findings: it wasn’t baby that kept them from excelling at life financially
- possible confounds: PPD
14
Q
sexuality
A
puberty
- > sexual maturity
- > one of end goals of adolescence
15
Q
endogenous
A
internal
16
Q
exogenous
A
external
17
Q
views on teen sexuality
A
- sexuality: behaviors that are risky
- teens can’t handle having sex yet, therefore they should not have sex
- providing info about sex encourages teens to have sex
18
Q
deficit focused approach to sex
A
- deficit focused: “sickness best prevented”
- sex = intercourse (PVI)
- we know more about neg consequences than about normative dev
19
Q
what do we know about PVI?
A
- by 18/19 yrs old, 70% of adolescents have had sex
2. americans have 8x as many teen preg rate
20
Q
STIs
A
- teens and young adults account for about 50% of annual STIs in the US
- odds of STIs 75x lower in Netherlansd
(a) condom cultures: in many European countries they’re regularly available and used
21
Q
psychological effects of early sex
A
- selection effects: there are some kids who choose to have sex and others who choose not to
- 3rd var accounts: SES/ asynchrony/ sex and depression each linked with pubertal timing
- direcitonality effects: sex -> depression vs depression -> sex
22
Q
sexual health involves…
A
- sex behav as expression of love
- respectful and caring relationships
- body satisfaction/ physical pleasure
23
Q
views of sexuality (hetero)= gendered
A
- assumptions: heteronormative
2. tolman: gender complimentary norms (men preditors/ women hunted)
24
Q
perceived norms and pressures
A
- undermine sexual health
- constrain sexual behaviors and formation of romantic relationships
- constrain development of pos sexual ID
25
Page et al., 2013
1. sexual ID (SI) of 14-24 yr old LGBT youth
2. pressure -> stress -> neg SI -> MH Problems
(a) gay related stress
(b) religious stress (faith conflict)
(c) pathologized
26
savin-williams
1. prevalence rates vary
2. identity: lowest rates (are you straight or LGBT)
3. most youth who engage in same-sex behaviors do NOT identify as homosexuals
4. what we are tapping onto is there's much more variability on how adolescents think about heir identities
5. risky behaviors:
(a) unprotected sex: teen preg 2x up for LB than straight fems
(b) could be b/c they feel need to be straight
27
Sex Ed
1. determined by state laws
2. 24 states and DC mandate sex ed (parental notification required in 22)
3. 18 states and DC require info about contraceptives to be included
4. 13 states mandate Sex Ed is medically valid
5. 7 states prohibit education on homosexuality
28
politics -> policies
1. GLSEN report: state political learning -> HS climate for LGBT youth
2. public attitudes based on political ideology dictate laws that fail to provide support for LGBT youth
29
most effective sex ed
1. COMPREHENSIVE!
- sex activities
- # of partners
- unprotected sex
- STIs
2. ABSTINENCE ONLY: mixed evidence on reduc in sex act; greater for untreated STIs
30
protective factors to delay sex debut
1. family connectedness
2. parental disapproval of sex
3. religiousness
4. future aspirations
31
protective factors to use contraceptives
1. access and knowledge
2. family communication
3. peer role models
32
risk factors for early sex debut (early = <16)
1. parent- adolescent conflict
2. parental permissiveness
3. sexual active friends
4. media: influence vs selection
33
2018: most popular online platforms among teens
1. youtube top
2. snapchat and insta in 2016
3. facebook 2012
34
time spent "plugged in"
45% of teens says they're online almost constantly
35
too much time spent online?
1. teens hold mixed opinions about whether they spend too much time in front of screens
(a) on their phones: too much time 54%
(b) on social media: 41%
2. but half or more have cut back on the time they spend using various tech
(a) on their phone: 52%
(b) on social media: 57%
(c) playing vid games: 58%
36
when kids are without their phones
1. girls are more likely than boys to feel anxious or lonely without their phone
2. fear of missing out and actually missing out
(a) confound: scared of being alone at night
3. results: females more likely to be anxious and lonely without phone those who are relieved or happy are strange and a little sad she said
37
Best, Mantelow, and Taylor (2014)
1. longitudinal study ('03-13)
2. online communication, social media and well-being: a systematic narrative review
3. the majority of studies reported either mixed or no effects of online social tech and adolescent well being
38
displacement hyp
1. online communication -> social issolation
(a) displacing irl interactions
(b) over time little evidence for this
39
social compensation hyp
1. social isolation -> online communications
(a) maybe those who ARE isolated go online
(b) those w/o connections go online to find them
(c) SOME EVIDENCE BUT SPECIFIC TO CERTAIN GROUPS NOT GENERALIZABLE
40
"rich get richer" hyp
1. offline social connectedness -> online social connectedness
2. more friends irl -> greatest social networks online
IMPLIES INVERSE IS TRUE, but less clear and more complicated
41
why do findings differe across time
1. access has changed
2. type of tech changed
(a) chat rooms -> IM/ cell -> SNS -> Insta/Snap/ Youtube
SIGNIFICANT COHORT EFFECTS
42
Differentiation of tech and types of activities
1. tech/ mode of communication confounded by "with who" teens communicate
2. behaviors (e.g. browsing v posting; social comp v feedback seeking) within types of tech
43
effects of online behav and depression
1. substantial inc over time
2. prevalence of 12 mons MDD eps inc among adolescents
(a) about 40% of 3.1 mil teens who exp dep within last yr received treatment
(b) inc in need doesn't get met for rest of them
(c) sig inc in depression
44
Frison & Eggermont, 2017
1. cross-lack panels
2. why bother getting data on all these things twice?
(a) to determine directionality in correlational, longitudinal research
3. what they found:
(a) how do you summarize based on graph?
(b) Depression predicts posting
(c) Browsing/liking predicts depression
(d) Posting predicts depression but not browsing or liking
45
moderation
the strength of the assoc b/w two variables varies across groups- varies as function of some other variable
46
mediation
the assoc b/w 2 var is (in prt) explained by another var
| -> trying to account for or explain relationship b/w 2 var
47
gender and popularity moderate assoc w/ dep symptoms
1. example of moderation: strength of assoc b/w 2 vars
| 2. gender mod says stronger assoc b/w what kids do online and their depressed symptoms but stronger for girls than boys
48
popularity mediates depressive symptoms
1. 1 stand dev above mean: popular
2. 1 stand dev below mean: not popular
3. at mean: average
4. strong assoc b/w x and y on graph for LEAST POP KIDS
49
social comp and competition
1. parties and sexy pics -> pop contest
2. postings = pop contest
- > linked to socio emo system
- > sensitized for feedback
* *teens seek validation from the pics they post and number of likes they receive
50
inc self promotion and narcissism
1. some driven by individual diff
2. 100 students: webages rated for self-promotion; measure of narcissism and self-esteem
3. high nar -> high self promo
51
posting privately: sexting
1. 16 yr old from TX long study 1 yr
2. sending a sext predicted sex act 1 yr later but didnt predict risky (unprotected, multiple partner, aolchol related) sex
52
online sex exposure
1. more common among males
2. frequency of sex visiting sites -> perceived realism of online sex -> sex attitudes
3. pornos seen as equivalent to real life and sex attitudes suck.
53
social media concerns
1. 1/4 of US teens think social media has mainly neg effects
| 2. #1 problem to youth is bullying/ rumor spreading
54
netiquette:
1. implicit norms of appropriate sharing online
| 2. punishments/ consequences if you overshare
55
victim blame (Schacter, Greeberg and Juvonen, 2016)
1. varied amt of disclosure
2. response was always "who care! This is why nobody likes you..."
3. valence didn't make a difference
4. if someone says something really nasty you'd think others would stick up for you but when it's personal they don't.
5. significantly more victim blaming in high disclosure condition
6. high disclosure -> victim blame .344
7. victim blame -> intention to intervene -0.226
8. more likely to blame kate -> more likely to victim blame
56
indirect health effects of tech and sleep
1. related to lack of sleep
2. more tech in room where they sleep -> less sleep gotten and poorer quality of sleep
(a) 4+ tech devices in bedroom => having more sleeping issues
3. using comp or phones late at night also related to less total sleep
4. among young adults 'heavy users' of tech experience more academic difficulties
57
PXE of sleep and tech
biological changes with melatonin level X stay up later -> less sleep & irritable in morning
58
unique features of online environment
1. lack of social cues -> inc disinhibition -> inc self disclosure
2. greater ambiguity (extenuating differences) -> amplifies individual differences in intent
3. easier to be mean and easier to remain as a passive bystander due to lack of emotional cues
59
warranted worries about teens online
1. too much screen time -> less sleep
2. promoting self-focus -> preoccupation with ideal self -> competition
3. not understanding risks assoc with electronic footprint and misuse of info
4. not seeking help for cyberbullying
60
benefits for being online
1. online behaviors that are useful:
(a) keeping contact with peers
(b) identity development
2. health-related information
(a) info seeking
(b) help seeking - anonymity
(c) potentially embarrassing topics
61
friendship
1. dyadic, close and mutual relationship with similar age peer
2. varies across development
3. voluntary/ horizontal
62
developmental change in friendship 4-7
1. friendship as a playmate
2. momentary
3. physical playmates
63
developmental changes in friendship 8-10
1. friendship as cooperation and assistance
2. begin to coordinate actions
3. still physical level
64
developmental changes in friendship 11-15
1. friendship as emotionally intimate
2. coordination at emotional level
3. can figure out how friend feels and soothe them
4. loyalty
65
homophily
1. similarity
2. demographic characteristics easiest to see
3. personality
4. educational orientation
5. risk behaviors
66
similarity attraction model
1. homophily to maintain relationships
2. similar individuals have more in common and find it easier to get along
3. compatibility -> cooperation -> rewarding interactions
4. over time friends influence one another to become even more similar through reward and stimulation
5. friends who differ most likely to dissolution over time
6. reference group likelihood of dissolution 50%
67
propinquity (proximity and availability)
1. 2nd critical factor
2. context influences opp to form and maintain friends
(a) school
(b) neighborhoods
68
friendlessness
1. lower affective perspective taking and problem solving skills
- > b/c no back and forth
- > b/c no conflict resolution skills
2. victimization
- > b/c no one to save them
3. lower academic achievement
- > because lack of motivation and assistance
4. more internalizing problems
- > b/c models of ev psych: heightened alert
69
heightened perception of social threat
1. feelings of unsafety
2. perceptions of victimization
3. student misconduct
BROUGHT ABOUT BY FRIENDLESSNESS
70
most likely to stay friendless?
broadly:
1. those who lack of have under dev social skills
2. those who are aggressive
overall:
-> it depends on context
71
features of friendship
1. companionship
2. instrumental aid
3. emotional intimacy
72
companionship
1. appears prior to adolescence
2. change to autonomy and independence
3. time with parents dec
4. time with friends inc
5. alone time is now actually time with friends b/c of electronics
73
instrumental aid
1. interpersonal
| 2. academic
74
interpersonal aid
1. reduce vulnerability to victimization
| 2. feature: to know that someone is always there
75
academic aid
1. frequent sources of academic help *study buddies*
| 2. direct instruction and modeling of skills
76
emotional intimacy
1. emerges in early adolescence
2. friends engage in greater self-disclosure, secret sharing and loyalty
3. more likely to try to work it out or forgive b/c they know what you've disclosed
77
Friendships and social dev
1. prosocial behavior
2. conflict resolution
3. buffer distress following neg social experiences
78
prosocial behavior
cooperation, generosity, mutual affirmation
79
conflict resolution friendship
1. friends disagree and compete with each other more than non friends cause you care
2. self-disclosure: learning when and how best to share personal details; provide a foundation for future intimate relations
80
friends as academic resources
1. working with friends -> better soln to cog prob-solving tasks than working with non-friends
2. friends are more effective communicators
3. beneficial for both tutor and tutee
81
dissimilar friends benefits
1. cross-ethnic friends: more pos ingroup attitudes b/c you can't apply group stereotypes if you know someone in the group
2. cross- class friendship: academic achievement for lower SES b/c opp to gain social capital in terms of social outcomes and can provide aids and boost confidence
3. overall inc perspective taking
82
optimal intergroup contact
1. regular, sustained interaction
2. cooperation
3. equal status
83
social capital
1. academic know-how
| 2. confidence
84
adolescence
period of heightened concern for peer approval
85
cyber ball exp
as young adolescence huge drop in overall mood when excluded
86
bullying
1. targeted aggression
2. all about power imbalance
3. bullies don't lack self esteem
87
forms of bullying
1. physical
2. name calling (gender policing)
3. relational aggression
4. cyber bullying
88
bullying and social status
1. power imbalance reflected in social status
| 2. not cool in primary but cool in middle school
89
coolness of bullying
1. looked at who kids nominated as bullies and who are cool separately
2. pos sig assoc from spring 6th gr to 8th grade of bullying and coolness
90
coolness of defending
1. studies have shown when ppl do intervene, bullying stops asap
2. IMPORTANT b/c bullying needs an audience
91
hierarchy and bullying
correlation found between hierarchical classes and bullying; pos association
92
motivations underlying bullying theories
1. during times of uncertainty (kids don't know where they belong so they want to structure environ themselves)
2. when kids dont feel they have control and wanna exp it the primitive way is to instill fear
93
best victims to target for bullies
1. ppl with less or no friends
2. under dev kids
3. those who dont fit norms
4. shy ppl
5. ppl who others dislike/ envy
94
rxn to bullying predicts duration
1. rewarding responses
(a) strong emo rxns
(b) ineffective retaliators
95
to stop bullying:
1. indifference
| 2. self-depreciating humor most effective b/c takes power away
96
effects of bullying on victims
1. silent symptoms mistaken for teen stereotypes:
(a) internalizing behav
(b) psychosomatic behav
(c) disengaged in school
(d) inc irritability
(e) lack of interest in social events
97
bystanders
1. most of time disapprove but don't interevene
| 2. pluralistic ignorance -> false social norm
98
pluralistic ignorance -> false social norm
1. pluralistic ignorance: although you know there's difference b/w your private beliefs and public behav you read the situation as everyone else accepts bullying and you're alone
2. false social norm: overestimations of bystander approval of bullying -> compliance with bullying as a norm
99
bystander vulnerability
1. boosts power of bullies
| 2. prevents witnesses intervening
100
how to make students feel safe
1. diversity in schools
| 2. ethnic diversity specifically
101
how do victims construe bullying?
1. characterological self-blame
| 2. cycle of self blame
102
characterological self-blame
why is this happening only to me and not to other kids"
103
variations in the intensity of emotional rxns to bullying
1. strongest correlation is if you're in majority (e.g. homophily) and you're still a victim -> most likely to self-blame
2. if you're in the minority -> prejudice is blamed
3. smallest correlation -> diverse victim self-blame, mal adjust
104
cycle of self blame
1. bullied
2. self-blame
3. depression
4. repeat
105
healthy school paradox
1. 1) The conditions that are safe for MOST may be the worst for the bullied (greater depression and inc self blame)
2. Homogeneous schools may not be best for kiddos
106
what helps alleviate the distress of victims
1. bystander support
2. victims realization that it's not just them
3. supportive friendships
107
to reduce neg effects of bullying on others
1. make sure bullying doesn't go undetected
2. reduce the coolness of bullying
3. prevent victims from self-blaming and feeling helpless/hopeless
4. encourage bystanders to side with and support victims
psych 133a
flashcards
Decks in class (4)
# Cards
