The Social Cognitive Preschooler A Comprehensive Study of

The Social Cognitive Preschooler: A Comprehensive Study of Children Luke Remy & Dr. Jeff Cookston Department of Psychology, San Francisco State University, San Francisco CA lremy@mail. sfsu. edu Introduction to Study Direct Observations At present, the sample includes 20 preschool-aged children recruited from a research-oriented preschool in the San Francisco Bay Area. Dr. Jeff Cookston, principal investigator for this study, recruited participants via a convenience sampling method. Because this study is ongoing, we expect to recruit about 20 new participants in September 2012, after the next cohort of preschool students begin school. As of April 24, 2012, our sample included nine females and 11 males, ranging in age from 42 to 65 months old (M = 51. 8, SD = 6. 49). Because data collection has been spread out over several months and is still ongoing for a few participants, the ages reported above do not necessarily reflect the exact age of participants at the time of data collection. 1. Direct observation of aggressive and dependent behaviors > Researchers observed and recorded target behaviors in a running record over four 3 -min observation periods, separated by 1 -min breaks. > Children’s behaviors were coded as: aggressive acts, responses to aggression, dependent behaviors upon adults, or dependent behaviors upon other children. 2. Observations of children’s social interactions with peers > Researchers kept a running record over ten 3 -min observation periods, separated by 1 -min breaks, spread over as many activities and as much time as possible. > Interactions were coded as positive, negative, or neutral. > Interactions were also coded as initiations or responses, and whether the other agent in the interaction was an adult or child. 3. Children’s spoken language utterances with peers > Fifty verbatim remarks from each child were recorded over a 60 -min period, with the goal of capturing as wide a range of activities as possible. > Researchers also noted who or what elicited each utterance, to whom utterances were directed, the frequencies of different types of speech used (e. g. , nouns, verbs, etc. ), the number of different words spoken. > Researchers also coded utterances as belonging to one of the following psychosocial categories: controlling, collaborative, withdrawal, or obliging. Research Questions and Hypotheses Interviews This ongoing study investigates the socioemotional and cognitive development of preschool children through the use of direct observations, interviews, and children’s performance on tasks. This poster introduces the following aspects of the study: our sample and methods for recruiting participants; theories and research questions on which this study is based; unique contributions of our study; an overview of the procedures for each observation, interview, and task conducted; a detailed focus on preliminary results from the cognitive aspects of the study; and a discussion of what we have found so far with expected improvements we will make to our study in the future. Sample and Recruitment Methods Due to the ongoing nature of our study, our research goals and interests have expanded and changed throughout the project. We will list possible future directions and new questions that we may include in future analyses in the Discussion and Implications section, and include only the original research questions below. As relates to preschool socioemotional development, we make the following predictions: 1. Participants will demonstrate dependency behaviors with both their peers and teachers based on observations of social behaviors. 2. Participants will demonstrate preferences for same-sex playmates based on observations of social behaviors. 3. Participants who demonstrate more social behaviors will be nominated more often as preferred playmates through a sociometric task. 4. Parents will tend to be similar in their philosophy of parenting based on information gathered in a parent interview. As relates to preschool cognitive development, we make the following predictions: 1. Participants will be inconsistent in their ability to conserve according to Piagetian theory, and will tend to attribute animistic qualities to inanimate objects based on information gathered during a cognitive interview. 2. Participants who demonstrate more advanced language for their age will tend to be those who are female and tend to interact with adults more often based on results from the Peabody Picture Vocabulary Test. 3. Participants will, when presented with the Toy Preference Test, take longer to choose a toy preference between two toys that tend to be preferred by the opposite sex as compared to two toys that tend to be preferred by the same sex as the child. Unique Contributions of Study Several previous studies have utilized the various components of this study in examining the cognitive and socioemotional development of preschool children. This study extends this vast body of research in two important ways: 1. By including an analysis of tasks capturing a wide range of preschool development, rather than focusing on a single dimension. 2. By studying separate cohorts of children over several years, which will allow for eventual analysis of cohort similarities and differences among the different aspects of preschool development. 1. Piagetian cognitive interviews > Animism interview: researchers assessed what children attribute “alive” traits to. > Dream interview: researchers assessed children’s understanding of dreams. > Consistent with Piagetian methodology, researchers conducted both interviews in a semistructured format, with emphasis given to children’s responses over the scripted questions. 2. Sociometric interviews > Children were asked to assign each of their classmates to one of the following three categories: plays with a lot, plays with sometimes, or doesn’t play with at all. > Children were asked to choose three classmates they play with the most and the three classmates they play with the least. 3. Sex-typing interview > Children were asked several questions regarding their views of sex-related roles for both children and adults. 3. Parent interviews (to examine differences in views on child rearing) > Using a semi-structured interview, researchers asked one or both of the child’s parents questions related to the following topics: play activities, other children, parenting philosophy, child discipline, and behavior policies. Children’s Performance / Tasks 1. Piagetian conservation tasks > Number: researchers tested number conservation using different orientations of cups and saucers. > Length: researchers tested length conservation using different orientations of two pencils. > Quantity: researchers tested quantity conservation using different configurations of Play-Doh®. > For all tasks, researchers encouraged children to explain their answers, took note of strategies the children used, and recorded children’s behaviors during the sessions. 2. Language tasks > Researchers assessed children’s receptive vocabulary using the Peabody Picture Vocabulary Test-Revised (PPVT-R). 3. Gendered play preference tasks > Researchers assessed children’s toy preferences using the Toy Preference Test-Revised (TPT-R). 4. Drawing tasks > Children were asked to draw a picture of a man, a woman, and of themselves. > This task assessed children’s perceptual understanding of the human body. Focus on Cognition Piaget and Preoperational Development Jean Piaget’s theories and methods are used extensively in our study, and we focused on Piaget’s concepts of conservation, animism, and dream understanding in designing the cognitive aspects of our study. According to Piaget, preschool children are in the preoperational stage of development, which lasts roughly from the ages of two to seven years old. Because of this, preschool children should not yet show mastery of conservation, nor should they show a mature understanding of animism or dreams. Despite this, children who are older or more cognitively developed may show evidence of a better understanding of conservation, animism, and dreams, even if they do not understand the concepts as an adult would. Hypotheses for Target Child The procedures researchers followed in administering the conservation tasks and animism and dream interviews were briefly explained previously in this poster. This section will detail some preliminary results as pertains to one male target child, aged 59 months at the time of his cognitive data collection. Given the age of the target participant, it was hypothesized that the child would not show mastery of conservation for any of the three Piagetian tasks, and that the participant would not show evidence of understanding the concepts of animism or dreams. Results and Discussion Consistent with our hypotheses, the target participant did not show mastery of conservation for any of the three tasks, and demonstrated a lack of understanding of animism and dreams by giving conflicting responses to the questions asked during the interviews. It is not surprising that we confirmed these hypotheses, as these cognitive deficiencies in preoperational preschool children have been consistently demonstrated across countless studies, but in keeping with Piagetian methodology, we examined the differences in his performances across tasks and in his responses in the two interviews. On the number conservation task, the target participant did not use a counting strategy until prompted by the researcher, and even then, did not seem to understand when there was an equal amount of cups and saucers. The target participant also demonstrated similar errors on the length conservation task. However, on the quantity conservation task, the participant alternated between using width and height in making his judgments. Prior research has shown alternating between two competing features to be a necessary precursor to developing conservation. On the animism and dream interviews, the participant gave conflicting responses, which may indicate that he is developing an early understanding of these concepts but needs time to mature before giving consistent answers. For example, when asked why you can’t see a dream, the target participant responded, “…because it’s just in the world. It’s not a real thing. ” This response seems to indicate that the target participant understands the falsity of dreams, but when asked if his mother can see his dreams, he responded, “No, because it goes away. It’s scared of her. ” Clearly, this response indicates that the target participant does not yet understand that dreams are false. Discussion and Implications This poster attempted to sum up several months of research, planning, and data collection involved in our study of the socioemotional and cognitive development of preschool children. Although we only report a small set of results as relates to cognitive development in this poster, we will soon finish data collection for our first cohort. We should double our sample size with the arrival of the next preschool cohort, and will be able to make more confident claims with our findings due to an increase in statistical power. With this in mind, we also hope to adapt our study with future participants to capture a more full picture of preschool development. As hinted at in the cognition section above, participants gave a wide range of responses during the animism and dream interviews, and some participants may have a more clear understanding of the concepts of animism and dreams. We hope to develop a coding system to glean information from the animism and dream interviews regarding preschooler’s development of Theory of Mind, which we can then analyze for individual differences among the participants. Other revisions to the study currently being discussed are including a language task to assess children’s expressive vocabulary, and updating the toy preference stimulus materials used during the TPT-R. Acknowledgement We are grateful to the faculty, staff, and families involved in The Social Cognitive Preschooler project. In addition, we are grateful to all of the students and coders researchers in the Family Interaction Research (FAIR) laboratory who assisted with data collection for this study.