1 / 30

Who are Pollyanna Preschoolers? Developing a “benign attribution bias”

Who are Pollyanna Preschoolers? Developing a “benign attribution bias”. Dr Kevin Runions School Of Psychology Edith Cowan University [k.runions@ecu.edu.au]. Research Traditions: Antisocial Vs. Prosocial Development.

thaddeus
Télécharger la présentation

Who are Pollyanna Preschoolers? Developing a “benign attribution bias”

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

  1. Who are Pollyanna Preschoolers? Developing a “benign attribution bias” Dr Kevin Runions School Of Psychology Edith Cowan University [k.runions@ecu.edu.au]

  2. Research Traditions: Antisocial Vs. Prosocial Development • Although normative processes have been the focus of attention in many aspects of developmental psychology, social developmental research has focused a lot of energy on studying antisocial, aggressive and disruptive developmental pathways • Much less focus on prosocial development • Can research on prosocial development give us clues on how to reduce antisocial development?

  3. Prosocial Development “Behaviours that are positively responsive to others’ needs and welfare…that are helpful and affiliative responses to others…such as assisting, sharing, being kind and considerate, comforting, cooperating, protecting someone from harm, rescuing someone from danger, and feeling empathy and sympathy” Radke-Yarrow & Zahn-Waxler, 1986, p. 208 • Research has focused on psychological emotion processes related to prosocial development, but little connection to children’s social information processes

  4. Crick and Dodge (1994) Social Information Processing Model Kenneth Dodge’s Social Information Processing Model (Crick & Dodge, 1994) How do aggressive versus non-aggressive children 1. Encode information? “Hostile attribution bias” 2. Represent or interpret this information? 3. Clarify the goals that are important to them? 4. Generate or plan responses? 5. Select or enact those responses?

  5. The Current Study • The current study set out to study family antecedents of social information processes measured in preschool and Year 1 involved in antisocial behaviour in Year 1 • But it may have unveiled something more interesting about prosocial development

  6. Participants • U.S. NICHD Study of Early Child Care • 1364 recruited • 10 communities • followed from birth to Grade 1 (1, 6, 15, 24, 36 & 54 months, and again in Year 1) • Selective attrition • N = 896

  7. Preschool Hostile Attributions of Intent (HAI) • 4 forced-choice Qs • “Pretend that you are playing catch with a ball. A boy named Tim throws the ball and it hits you in the back. What do you think happened?” • 1. Did Tim hit you in the back by accident? • 2. Did Tim want to hit you in the back? • M = 1.65 (SD = 1.34) α = .65

  8. Measures: SES and Maternal Predictors • Maternal Education (Years) • Family Income (1 – 36 mo.) • Maternal Authoritarian Attitudes (1 mo.) • Maternal Negative Control (6 – 36 mo.) • Maternal Depression (1 – 36 mo.)

  9. Measures: Child Antecedent Predictors • Child Temperament -- 6 mo. Infancy Temperament Questionnaire, Carey and McDevitt (1978). Factor Analyzed: • Behavioural Inhibition (distress at novel situations e.g., “pleasant in unfamiliar place” and “rejects new babysitter” ) • Behavioural Activation (surgency toward rewarding activities (e.g., “active during diapering/dressing”, “reacts strongly to foods”) • Child Cognitive Functioning (36 mo.) alpha = .77. • Bracken Scale of Basic Concepts’ (School Readiness subscale) • Reynell Language Scales (verbal comp and expressive language).

  10. Distribution of Preschool HAI (n = 896) % Total Hostile Attributions of Intent

  11. Distribution of Preschool HAI by Gender N χ2 = 8.3, p < .10 Total Hostile Attributions of Intent

  12. Preschool HAI: Bivariate Relations with Family Income (1 – 36 mo.) High Always “Accidental” Low for Dichotomized DV (0 vs. 1-4) t (894)= 2.27, p < .05 Family Income 0 1 2 3 4 Total Preschool HAI

  13. Preschool HAI: Bivariate Relation with Maternal Education High Always Accidental Maternal Education Low 0 1 2 3 4 Total Preschool HAI t (894)= 3.96, p < .001 0 1 2 3 4

  14. Preschool HAI: Bivariate Relations with Maternal Depression (1 – 36 mo.) High Low Maternal Depression t (894)= -1.27, n.s. 0 1 2 3 4 0 1 2 3 4 Total Preschool HAI

  15. Preschool HAI: Bivariate Relations with Maternal Authoritarian Attitudes High Always Accidental Low Authoritarian Attitudes t (894)= -3.91, p < .001 0 1 2 3 4 Total Preschool HAI

  16. Preschool HAI: Bivariate Relations with Maternal Negative Control (6 – 36 mo.) High Always Accidental Low Negative Control t (894)= -3.35, p = .001 0 1 2 3 4 Total Preschool HAI

  17. Preschool HAI: Bivariate Relations with Infant Behavioral Inhibition(6 mo. Mat Report) High Low Infant Inhibition t (894)= -.33, n.s. 0 1 2 3 4 Total Preschool HAI

  18. Preschool HAI: Bivariate Relations with Infant Behavioural Activation(6mo. mat report) High Low Infant Surgency t (894)= -2.02, p < .05 0 1 2 3 4 Total Preschool HAI

  19. Preschool HAI: Bivariate Relations with Child Cognitive Functioning at 36 Months High Always Accidental Low Cognitive Scores at 36 months t (894)= 4.82, p < .001 0 1 2 3 4 Total Preschool HAI

  20. Pollyanna Preschoolers? “Hold on! Those aren’t preschoolers!” Children who report only benign intentions or accidental causes, even if actions harmful to the child

  21. Measures: Year 1 Social Information Processing • 8 Qs: Social and Physical “harm” • “Pretend that you see some kids playing on the playground. You would really like to play with them, so you go over and ask one of them, a kid named Susan, if you can play. Susan says no.” • Why do you think? M = 4.65 (SD = 2.05) α= .65 • What would you do? Count of “retaliate” code Range 0 - 8, M = .54 (SD = 1.29)

  22. High Year One HAI Pollyanna Preschoolers Low Relationship of Preschool and Year One HAI F (1, 894)= 14.85, p < .001 0 1 2 3 4 Preschool HAI

  23. High Year One ARG Pollyanna Preschoolers Low Relationship of Preschool and Year One Aggressive Response Planning F (1, 894)= 2.24, n.s. 0 1 2 3 4 Preschool HAI

  24. Pollyanna Preschoolers Relationship of Preschool HAI and Year One Teacher Reported Externalizing Outcomes F (1, 894)= 23.83, p < .001 High Low Externalizing 0 1 2 3 4 Preschool HAI

  25. Relationship of Preschool HAI and Year One Mother Reported Externalizing Outcomes High Pollyanna Preschoolers Low F (1, 894)= 18.34, p < .001 Externalizing 0 1 2 3 4 0 1 2 3 4 Preschool HAI

  26. Relationship of Preschool HAI and Year One Mother Reported Internalizing Outcomes High Low F (1, 894)= .69, n.s. Internalizing 0 1 2 3 4 0 1 2 3 4 Preschool HAI

  27. Pollyanna Preschoolers Relationship of Preschool HAI and Year One Teacher Reported Internalizing Outcomes F (1, 894)= 8.95, p < .01 High Low Internalizing 0 1 2 3 4 Preschool HAI

  28. Conclusions: Early attributions of intention • Some hostile attributions of intent: common response at both preschool and school age • “Pollyanna” Preschool “bias” toward benign interpretations of social misfortune • Pollyanna Preschoolers show fewer hostile attributions and fewer externalizing behaviours in early childhood; mixed results re. internalizing

  29. Understanding Pollyanna Preschoolers • High IQ? • Emotional IQ? • Precocious Empathy? • Sheltered? • Naïve? • Future victims? • Optimist Bias? • Rose-coloured glasses?

  30. Thank You Dan Keating Jenny Jenkins Katreena Scott Daniel Shaw Michel Ferrari Keith Stanovich Janet Astington

More Related