final for chad 268

docx

School

San Jose State University *

*We aren’t endorsed by this school

Course

268

Subject

Sociology

Date

Apr 3, 2024

Type

docx

Pages

Uploaded by SuperFangSquirrel43

Final Take Home Exam Chad 268 Lorrynn Bredahl-Kent San Jose State University

Q2 Responses to Bullying Scenario of a child being bullied and how a bystander may interact in the situation. A female adolescent age 11 is at school and has been a target of a bully and her group of friends. On this day in the halls the group of girls run into the girl (victim) and start to tease her about her clothes. The victim comes from a lower SES than the bully and her group of friends. Using the model from Lemerise and Arsenio (2000) showing the social information processing explains how a person interprets information in a social setting. There are six steps a person goes through in making a decision as to how to respond to witnessing a bully’s action with a peer. At the core of the six steps is a person’s data base of past experiences, knowledge of rules, social norms and schemas. In addition, you have the persons temperament, emotional regulation and moods/ background emotions that play into how they interact with the situation and determine their responses. The six steps are encoding of cues, interpretation of cues, clarification of goals, response access, response decision, and behavior enactment. I will explain these steps further in discussion of how the bystander response to the bully. To understand why a bystander may stand up to a bully and protect the victim first we should look at what the bystander is feeling about the initial encounter, encoding of cues. The bystander may have empathy for the victim due to past experience they have dealt with being bullied. They interpret the bully action as not part of proper social rules and that reacts to their clarification of how they want the victim to interpret their relationship. The bystander then brings in their own emotions, mood, and social knowledge to construct how they will respond. When deciding how to respond they consider outcome expectations. If they evaluate the outcome of standing up to the bully as beneficial to both them and the victim they are more likely to defend

the victim plus they expect the victim to feel better (Poyhonen, Juvonen, & Salmivalli, 2012), which is the final step of behavior enactment. When a bystander remains passive or reinforces the bully by encouraging the actions such as laughing, or adding to the teasing they also go through the same six steps. One of the main differences is that the response step may be decided due to the bystander feeling that not reinforcing the bully could have negative outcome for them self and also not having empathy towards the victim (Poyhonen, Juvonen, & Salmivalli, 2012). In addition, they do not want to be excluded from the group. During the social processing model the bystander may be dealing with their own mood or bad day that could result in them not wanting to be a part of the situation and then becoming passive (Lemerise & Arsenio, 2000). Much of what regulates reactions to bullying has to do with an emotional process. Their emotional regulation, empathy, and their own temperament, along with their own background and past experiences. The main determination for most students is if they stand up is it going to have a positive outcome for either the victim or for themselves and how they would feel by standing up. Motivation for students often has to do with peer expectations and their social status.

Your preview ends here

Eager to read complete document? Join bartleby learn and gain access to the full version

Access to all documents
Unlimited textbook solutions
24/7 expert homework help

Q3 Temperament and Social Skills Key findings from Acar, et. al., (2015), reveals that preschool children that show low attentional focusing; meaning that they lack the ability to control, regulate, sustain and shift their attention when needed during social situations (Posner & Rothbart, 2000; Rueda et al., 2004 as cited in Acar, et. al., 2015), and are high in shyness have less peer communication. However, if they are high in shyness and show high levels of attentional focusing they are about equal to less shy children. This reveals that children that have learned to adapt to social situations and have figured out ways to control, regulate, and sustain their attention with peers can effectively create relationships and function in social settings. Peer conflict was also measured in Acar, et. al., (2015) using shyness and attentional focusing as variables. What they discovered is that was no difference between the two groups in high and low shyness if they were high in attentional focusing. The high attentional focusing groups were stable with peer conflicts since they were able to regulate and control their behavior when possible conflict arouse and did not seek or hide from conflict. The group that showed lower attentional focusing revealed that children that were not shy increased in peer conflict and high shy group were much lower in peer conflict. This would mean that the lower shy group lack the ability to self-regulate possible have less attention span and would intervene in others play or lack control to work with other children creating more conflict in the group. Children that exhibit high shyness and low attentional focusing would with draw from peers become passive not knowing how regulate the social situation. Their way of dealing with conflict is to pull away and not engage. Children displaying shy temperament can be both at risk of having problems with peers and not. What this means is that depending on their adaptability of regulation and learning how

to deal with social situations they may be quite capable of connecting with peers and dealing with conflicts but if they are lacking the tools to deal with the situation and have not learned to deal with anxiety, self-regulation etc they could be at risk for not making friends and social isolation and conflict management. Even though Acar’s study showed low conflict for high AF and high shyness the problem is that they could be internalizing the problem or since they are not dealing with the conflict they may be less likely to engage with the child. At the same time similar to Mastens’s argument high shyness can be protective from peer conflict yet detrimental to peer communication. Cultural values on shy temperament reveal that in other cultures shyness is valued and is beneficial to social adaptation. In China this trait is valued and revered and children that display this trait are more accepted by peers. The Chinese culture see shyness as positive and promotes more warmth and acceptance from peers and mothers. In cultures that revere independence as in the United States we see shyness as being difficult less socially acceptable and these children are more at risk for depression and social isolation (Rothbart, 2011).

Q4: Support from Non-Parental Adults The key findings from Shakya, Christakis, and Fowler (2012), show that authoritative parenting styles; parents that show warmth, support, and use of monitoring over their children do influence their children and children’s friends when it relates to drinking and marijuana smoking. Peers relationship has been shown to have a significant relationship towards at risk behaviors such as smoking, drinking, and use of marijuana. The significance of peers influence is seen with their stats they received, showing if a friend drinks to the point of being drunk it increases the probability by 32% of the friend doing the same. Smoking was increased by 90%, and marijuana use was increased by 146%. The study also looked at how parents influenced their children. Parents that were either authoritative or authoritarian both had an almost 50% reduced chance of their child smoking or drinking. Looking at these two outcomes (influence of peers and influence of parent and child) it is not surprising that having a friend’s parent that is authoritative would exhibit influence on the friend of the child. The study showed that after accounting for other variables the friend’s mother influence was 7.7% on the use of alcohol, 8.9% for marijuana, and 7.0% for binge drinking. Cigarette smoking showed insignificant influence on the adolescent. Overall the association of the friend’s parents style of parenting and peer relationship were significant in predicting behavior of the friend and adolescent. Non-parental adults can have significant influence on adolescents and their behaviors and substance abuse behaviors. Having a friend that has a parent that is involved in their child’s life would also have those same effects run on to them. Often authoritative parents know their children’s peers and have interactions with them. Having that child’s friend over for dinner, family events and outings allows for the parent to have some influence on the child’s friends,

Your preview ends here

Eager to read complete document? Join bartleby learn and gain access to the full version

Access to all documents
Unlimited textbook solutions
24/7 expert homework help

especially if that child comes from a neglectful family home life. They adolescent has the chance to see adult modeling of proper relationship interactions, care, support, and warmth and this is often displayed towards the child’s friends. At the same time having a friend that has a parent that monitors and is engaged in their child’s life would affect what the two friends can or will do that could be seen as deviant. Since the peer relationship has influence on each others behavior having a friend that does not want to get into trouble or disappoint their parent would hinder negative behavior on all parties. The list of external assets from Search mentions support which I spoke of earlier. Having an adolescent see that adults can value them and guide them allows for them to feel safe and secure, especially if they do not have that at home. Boundaries and expectations for a non parental adult from a friend as mentioned earlier are also set for a child’s peers when hanging out together. In addition having a family that welcomes in peers where there is constructive time spent at ones house allows for them to engage in positive family environment. All of these factors support both children in reduction of deviant behavior.

Q6: Communicating findings about adopted person The fact sheet has lots of details along with facts for a family that is interested in really learning about the impact that their adopted child may go through, where as the blog is very simple with generalized information on the subject of impact for adoptees. The blog feels more like a beginning to search about information that could impact a child of adoption and leaves more questions than answers. It does mention that it is based off of the child welfare report so they could search for it to find more in depth information to answer questions that arise from the blog. I feel that the fact sheet would be more useful especially with the citations so you could follow the research that they used to dive even more deeply into areas that may pertain to them. It also leads to more credibility to the information that they are giving. The fact sheet is also set up simply to follow even through they cite research they put it in terms that are easy to understand leaving out wording that may not translate easily to the general population. One of the things I really liked about the article is that it gave examples or a narrative that a child might have such as when they are discussing identity for the individual it mentions questions of “Do I look like my biological parents” or “Do I have other family such as siblings, grandparents, or other members of family”. These are all components of our identity that we have as part of a family, yet an adopted child may feel they are lacking. Part 2 After reviewing the two articles I feel that Borders et. al., (2000) was translated well into the article but the other article by Sharma et al., (1996) did not seem to fit the findings that were being reported. It felt like they were trying to draw conclusions from the results that did not

translate to the same findings, lack the information showing similarities of the groups and they really did not seem to measure self-esteem but did show significant effect in adjustment and negative emotionality which could infer self-esteem. In addition Borders article were they did measure self-esteem even though it reported significant rate the actual difference was small but it could be due to the small sample size. Identity for an adopted person can be related to how they feel about them self which can impacted their self-esteem and adjustment in life. Children that have been adopted often report similar outcomes to those that have not been adopted but research has shown a difference in levels of self-esteem and relationship or attachment with parents (Borders, Penny, & Portnoy, 2000; Sharma, McGue, & Benson, 1996). Adoptees often find that they feel different or possibly do not fit in with their family lowering their identity. This can affect their confidence and their ability to attach with parents. Self-esteem is often related to how a child feels supported and in the research previous research adoptees rated lower support with their parents. Attachment and feeling secure has been reported to have an effect in self-esteem for all children even for non adopted children. Since adoptees often feel a loss of birth parents and a sense that they are different from the rest of the family it could contribute to there ability to attach with new parents.

Your preview ends here

Eager to read complete document? Join bartleby learn and gain access to the full version

Access to all documents
Unlimited textbook solutions
24/7 expert homework help

final for chad 268

Related Documents