15Play, Peers, School, and Media Hero Images/Getty Images Learning Objectives After completing this module, you should be able to: ሁ Distinguish between different kinds of preschool environments and generate evidence-based conclusions about the benefits of preschool. ሁ Outline types of play and elaborate on the psychosocial and cognitive benefits that play provides. ሁ Describe how the structure and activity of friendships change throughout childhood. ሁ Differentiate among a number of peer statuses and generalize about group outcomes. ሁ Synthesize developmental issues related to bullying and identify commonly used intervention strategies. ሁ Identify trends in adolescent use of tobacco and psychoactive substances. ሁ Discuss the changing role of electronic media in the development of children. Section 15.1Preschool: Giving Children a Head Start? Prologue In response to a prompt in a recent class, Akira, a young college student, related how our everyday experiences with peers and in activities can deeply affect how we develop: In the world that technology has taken over our communications, I usually feel lonely. Yesterday I was in a room with my group of friends. Every one of us was on the phone, either texting or on social media. It was really bad. There were no words tossing around the room, it was just complete silence. There were so many opportunities to connect to the people next to you, yet people were on their phones for no reason. Then, I thought about loneliness as I looked around the room. Being on the phone is a way to isolate us from the community. We might have hundreds of friends on social media, but how many REAL friends do we have? I think we become more lonely when we get into our phones. At least, I do. I feel sad that we are missing out on living in the moment. It happens whether we are in a room by ourselves or in a room full of people. Whenever my partner is on the phone—not even talking—for a long period of time, I get lonely to the point that I feel like I am not loved or I cannot talk about my concerns. He is right next to me, and there is complete silence for hours. What can we do in those few hours without being on the phone? He didn’t have a phone when we met. We were totally different back then compared to how we are today. I get really sad when I think how com- munication has changed. Akira’s poignant response reveals to us how individual circumstances can have a profound effect on development for some, and have little effect for others. It also reminds us that we are all affected by the ways in which technology has transformed social interaction, among young people especially. Just as the advancement of automobiles and the telephone transformed social networks during the 20th century, the Information Age is no doubt affecting part of the foundation of psychosocial growth for today’s generation of children. As this final module explains, these developments are an extension ...

1. 15Play, Peers, School, and Media
Hero Images/Getty Images
Learning Objectives
After completing this module, you should be able to:
ሁ Distinguish between different kinds of preschool
environments and generate evidence-based
conclusions about the benefits of preschool.
ሁ Outline types of play and elaborate on the psychosocial and
cognitive benefits that play provides.
ሁ Describe how the structure and activity of friendships
change throughout childhood.
ሁ Differentiate among a number of peer statuses and generalize
about group outcomes.
ሁ Synthesize developmental issues related to bullying and
identify commonly used intervention
strategies.
ሁ Identify trends in adolescent use of tobacco and
psychoactive substances.
ሁ Discuss the changing role of electronic media in the
development of children.
Section 15.1Preschool: Giving Children a Head Start?
Prologue

2. In response to a prompt in a recent class, Akira, a young college
student, related how our
everyday experiences with peers and in activities can deeply
affect how we develop:
In the world that technology has taken over our
communications, I usually
feel lonely. Yesterday I was in a room with my group of friends.
Every one
of us was on the phone, either texting or on social media. It was
really bad.
There were no words tossing around the room, it was just
complete silence.
There were so many opportunities to connect to the people next
to you, yet
people were on their phones for no reason. Then, I thought
about loneliness
as I looked around the room. Being on the phone is a way to
isolate us from
the community. We might have hundreds of friends on social
media, but how
many REAL friends do we have? I think we become more lonely
when we get
into our phones. At least, I do. I feel sad that we are missing out
on living in
the moment. It happens whether we are in a room by ourselves
or in a room
full of people. Whenever my partner is on the phone—not even
talking—for
a long period of time, I get lonely to the point that I feel like I
am not loved or
I cannot talk about my concerns. He is right next to me, and
there is complete
silence for hours. What can we do in those few hours without
being on the
phone? He didn’t have a phone when we met. We were totally

3. different back
then compared to how we are today. I get really sad when I
think how com-
munication has changed.
Akira’s poignant response reveals to us how individual
circumstances can have a profound
effect on development for some, and have little effect for
others. It also reminds us that we are
all affected by the ways in which technology has transformed
social interaction, among young
people especially. Just as the advancement of automobiles and
the telephone transformed
social networks during the 20th century, the Information Age is
no doubt affecting part of
the foundation of psychosocial growth for today’s generation of
children. As this final module
explains, these developments are an extension of the
relationships that begin in preschool
and in play activities.
Therefore, we begin by looking at different types of preschool
programs and consider the sci-
entific evidence of their value. Because play is an essential part
of learning and development,
it is a natural extension to the discussion on preschool. Later we
explore how friendships
mature and the importance of peer relations, including what
makes a child popular or not,
and the risk factors associated with bullying. Because use of
psychoactive substances, like
marijuana and alcohol, is influenced heavily by peers, this
module addresses substance use,
as well. The module concludes with a discussion of media and
the Internet in an effort to bet-
ter understand how modern technology affects young people

4. like Akira.
15.1 Preschool: Giving Children a Head Start?
Often, the first consistent relationship that children have
outside of family is in preschool.
About two-thirds of children attend some kind of center-based
preschool program before
they enter kindergarten, an increase of 50% in just one
generation. In 2012, about 54% of
Section 15.1Preschool: Giving Children a Head Start?
3 and 4 year olds attended a center-based preschool program,
down from a peak of 56% in
2002 (Flanagan, McPhee, & Mulligan, 2009; National Center
for Education Statistics, 2014;
U.S. Bureau of the Census, 1970). Through popular wisdom and
personal stories, we tend to
think that early childhood education is both necessary and
scientifically sound. But is it?
Types of Preschools: Child-Centered or Academic?
Preschool programs can generally be classified as more teacher-
directed academic programs
or more self-directed child-centered ones. Academic programs
focus on planning and struc-
ture. Parents are expected to bring their children on a schedule,
just like they would when
their children are in elementary school. Teachers implement an
academic curriculum that
usually includes repetition and drill in numbers, colors, shapes,
letters, and so forth. Stan-
dardized worksheets are not uncommon. At designated intervals,
there is unstructured play-

5. time, singing, and other activities as well.
Child-centered programs are devoted more to play and
unplanned invention. There is a natu-
ral flow to learning as children count blocks, name colors of
toys, and engage in social play
and discovery. A child-centered approach acknowledges that
children develop at an individual
pace and that learning is best served through exploration rather
than a standard approach.
Whether or not Piaget was right about the stage-like progression
of development, most early
childhood educators acknowledge the necessity of
developmentally appropriate activities for
children. This focus is a direct descendant of Piaget’s theories.
Though perhaps paradoxical, evidence indicates that children
who attend child-centered
rather than academic preschools develop better math and
reading skills, have more advanced
motor behavior and better social skills, exhibit less stress, and
become more actively engaged
in learning (Burts et al., 1992; Hart et al., 1998; Marcon, 1999).
One of the reasons that the
child-centered approach has been found to be more effective is
because children choose their
own activities. In this way, children are more often engaged in
developmentally appropriate
ways. In an academic preschool, as in any other school setting,
there is great variation in the
skill levels of children. If children are treated mostly the same,
many will not be working at a
developmentally appropriate level.
It is, however, difficult to make general conclusions across
preschool environments since

6. individual programs have a lot of variation; research is
confounded further by family vari-
ables. For instance, wealthier parents are much more likely than
economically disadvantaged
parents to send their children to higher-quality preschools. And
perhaps parents who opt
for child-centered preschool education spend more time on
academics at home. Although
the level of parental education and socioeconomic status (SES)
are the most reliable predic-
tors of school success, as opposed to any particular school
environment, the ways in which
family can influence achievement are multifaceted and
complicated (Kagitcibasi, 2014; Sohr-
Preston et al., 2013; Yeung, Linver, & Brooks-Gunn, 2002).
The Montessori Method
One child-centered approach is the Montessori method. Maria
Montessori (1870–1952)
was an Italian psychiatrist who worked with children identified
as physically and intellectu-
ally disabled. She demonstrated that training and sensory
stimulation could help many of
these children reach skill levels equal to those of children who
were developing normally. She
Section 15.1Preschool: Giving Children a Head Start?
then broadened her techniques for use with all children. Over
100 years ago, when she began
to implement her methods, the prevailing wisdom was that
children were simply small adults.
Instead, she showed that children benefit from different learning
environments and that

7. young minds are capable of self-directed learning. These ideas
were one of Piaget’s important
influences as he developed his theory of cognitive development.
In the Montessori method, children are offered considerable
choice and are not restricted from
moving from one activity to another (Montessori, 2004). In pure
Montessori schools, teachers
are there to facilitate learning rather than direct its course and
only provide aid (like scaffold-
ing) when it is requested. Although having
available role models remains important,
unlike Vygotsky’s sociocultural approach
to learning, the Montessori method deem-
phasizes social interaction. Critics point to
this part of Montessori’s philosophy as an
important shortcoming.
Reggio Emilia
Another popular child-centered program
also originated in Italy. Reggio Emilia dif-
fers philosophically from the Montessori
method by offering a social-constructivist
approach; collaborative learning is stressed
instead of independent exploration. It also
differs in its emphasis on parental and com-
munity involvement. Reggio Emilia teachers
are not necessarily trained; they become
“co-learners” and partners in participation and discovery.
Parents are expected to have an
interactive relationship with the school and the community,
reflecting the idea that it “takes a
village” to raise a child; parents must be involved in school and
public policy to ensure com-

8. munity support.
In this setting, children promote their own play and learning
interests and long-term collab-
orative projects are emphasized over individual discovery. The
Reggio Emilia approach also
involves “intentional socialization,” in which teachers
manufacture opportunities for children
to participate in specific dialogues or group conversations
(Hewett, 2001; Rankin, 2004).
Specific activities in this environment are found to be quite
effective at increasing the enjoy-
ment of school and decreasing problem behaviors after children
transition to kindergarten
(Schneider et al., 2014).
Head Start
Because evidence shows that SES is a strong determinant of
academic success, the U.S. gov-
ernment launched Head Start in 1965 as one way to fight
poverty and improve outcomes
for children from low-income families. About 962,000 children
(including 848,000 children
aged 3 to 5 years) attend Head Start programs at a projected
federal cost of about $8.6 billion
Nadezhda Prokudina/iStock/Thinkstock
ሁ The child-centered Montessori method
encourages self-directed learning and offers
various forms of sensory stimulation.
Section 15.1Preschool: Giving Children a Head Start?

9. for 2014, or more than $9,000 per child when local expenditures
are added in (U.S. Depart-
ment of Health and Human Services, 2014). Head Start provides
educational and nutritional
services for children and also attempts to address the social and
vocational needs of parents.
When Congress reauthorized Head Start in 1992, school
readiness was made the program’s
official goal, partly because its original intent to fight poverty
was largely unsuccessful (Zigler,
2003). More recently, Early Head Start was added to focus on
the cognitive needs of children
as young as newborns.
Some research outcomes comparing children who attend Head
Start with those who do not
attend preschool have been encouraging. Evidence indicates that
children who attend Head
Start are less likely to repeat a grade, are more likely to
graduate from high school and attend
college, and are less likely to be arrested (Currie & Thomas,
1995; Garces, Thomas, & Currie,
2002; Yoshikawa et al., 2013). In general, children who attend
Head Start enter kindergarten
with better social skills; they have fewer behavior problems;
and they test higher for language
skills, reading readiness (including phonetic decoding),
attention, and overall cognition (Bier-
man et al., 2014; Zhai, Brooks-Gunn, & Waldfogel, 2011).
Other research has been less favorable. A large-scale statistical
analysis of Head Start found
that children exiting the program do not perform any better
overall than non–Head Start chil-
dren. Head Start has “repeatedly been proven ineffectual” due
partly to the home environ-

10. ment and partly to the inadequacy and inconsistency of the
various programs (Levitt & Dub-
ner, 2006, p. 170). The program’s own analysis shows no long-
term academic impact beyond
third grade (U.S. Department of Health and Human Services,
2012). Once children exit Head
Start, it appears that parental variables and the complicated
effects of low SES override any
cognitive benefits that early intervention may have provided
(Brooks-Gunn, 2003; Currie &
Thomas, 2000; Fryer & Levitt, 2004; Gelber & Isen, 2013). As
Zigler (2003) remarked, “There
is no magical, permanent cure for the problems associated with
poverty” (p. 10). Research
with non–Head Start programs has found similar patterns. It
appears that any academic gains
attributable to early childhood education programs disappear by
third grade or, among disad-
vantaged preschoolers, even sooner (Lazar & Darlington, 1982;
Magnusen, Ruhm, & Waldfo-
gel, 2007; Yoshikawa et al., 2013).
It is difficult to weigh the relative importance of poten-
tial nonacademic benefits that have been found, such
as improved fitness, emotional stability, and parental
involvement and behavior (Gelber & Isen, 2013; Lee,
Zhai, Han, Brooks-Gunn, & Waldfogel, 2013; Lipscomb,
Pratt, Schmitt, Pears, & Kim, 2013). Head Start pro-
grams vary from state to state and even among indi-
vidual facilities in proximity to one another, which
makes comparisons difficult. Finally, although research
consistently finds that cognitive gains from Head Start
disappear by third grade, advantages seem to reappear
after high school. That is, even though standardized testing
results show that children who
attended Head Start do not maintain an advantage in elementary

11. school, there appear to be
gains in high school graduation rates, college attendance, and
future earnings (Chetty et al.,
2011; Gelber & Isen, 2013; Yoshikawa et al., 2013)
Critical Thinking
How would you respond to those who are con-
vinced a particular preschool program is effec-
tive because their own children enjoyed large
cognitive and social gains in the program? From
a scientific perspective, what are some impor-
tant issues to consider when addressing this
conclusion?
Section 15.1Preschool: Giving Children a Head Start?
A C T I V I T Y : W h a t M a k e s a “ Q u a l i t y ” P r e s
c h o o l ?
Signs of high-quality early education include the following:
• Qualified, experienced educators who speak and interact
at the child’s level, including
physically being on the f loor.
• Low child-staff ratio, allowing for frequent individual
contact.
• A variety of stimulating activities; children are not
restricted to one activity for an
extended period of time.
• Safety standards.
• An inclusive, inviting atmosphere where unannounced

12. visits are welcomed.
• Space for vigorous physical movement, even in colder
climates where outdoor activity
may not be possible for weeks at a time.
• Staff who engage children individually and an
environment in which not all children are
expected to perform at the same level.
• Generous periods of free play.
• Close relationships with both children and parents.
High/Scope Perry Preschool Project
Rather than an imprecise network of Head Start schools, the
High/Scope Perry Preschool
Study is a more closely monitored project. Since 1962, children
who attended a high-quality
preschool have been compared to those who received no
preschool. The project involved 123
black children who were born into poverty and were identified
as high risk for school failure.
Fifty-eight children were randomly assigned to the preschool
program, and the remaining
65 served as controls. Children who attended the program
attended closely monitored class-
rooms for 2.5 hours each day, usually for 2 years. They and
their families also participated
in weekly home visits from project professionals. Follow-up
reports were obtained period-
ically. The most recent follow-up at age 40 demonstrated
significant gains, as Figure 15.1
shows (Schweinhart et al., 2005). Children who attended Perry
Preschool were less likely
than control subjects (i.e., not attending preschool) to become

13. pregnant in high school or to
be arrested. They had higher graduation rates from both high
school and college. At 27 and
40 years old, they were more likely than controls to be
employed, to have higher incomes,
and to own their own homes. Although evidence indicates that
gains might be overstated,
the High/Scope Perry model appears to deliver the family and
community support that Head
Start programs do not always provide (Gelber & Isen, 2013;
Heckman, Moon, Pinto, Savelyev,
& Yavitz, 2013).
Section 15.1Preschool: Giving Children a Head Start?
Figure 15.1: Perry Preschool findings at age 40
ሁ Favorable outcomes for children who participated in the
High/Scope Perry Preschool program
included fewer arrests, higher graduation rates, more
employment, and higher incomes.
High/Scope model Traditional model
40% 60%20%0% 80% 100%
IQ 90+ at 5
Homework at 15
Basic achievement at 14
Graduated regular high school

14. Earned $20K at 40
Arrested 5+ times by 40
Source: From The High/Scope Perry Preschool Study Through
Age 40, by L. J. Schweinhart. Ypsilanti, MI: High/Scope Press.
© 1999 High/Scope Educational Research Foundation. Used
with permission.
National Institute of Child Health and Human Development
Until funding was discontinued in 2009, the National Institute
of Child Health and Human
Development (NICHD) had been tracking a group of more than
1,300 preschoolers since 1991,
investigating the overall effects of preschool on cognitive and
social development (see NICHD
Early Child Care Research Network, 1998, 2002, 2003, 2005).
High-quality childcare (provid-
ing a high measure of sensitivity, emotional support, and
cognitive stimulation) was an early
predictor of preacademic skills, but more hours of care was also
associated with increased
behavior problems. Aggression and disobedience were
demonstrated toward mothers, teach-
ers, and other caregivers alike, and differences persisted into
kindergarten and beyond.
In a newer analysis of the datasets, earlier findings regarding
academic achievement and
behavior problems have been found to persist into adolescence,
though differences remain
small (Vandell et al., 2010). In addition, quality of care and
quantity of hours in care impact
outcomes independently. High-quality care was found to be a
strong predictor of academic
success when compared to low-quality care, but more time spent

15. in nonmaternal care contin-
ued to predict a greater degree of behavioral problems.
Findings from the Early Childhood Longitudinal Study,
sponsored by the U.S. Department of
Education, mimicked the results from NICHD. Longitudinal
research has repeatedly found
that preschool is associated with increased reading and math
skills at kindergarten entry, but
is also associated with increased behavioral problems and less
self-control. Furthermore, the
academic gains faded by the middle of first grade, but the
behavior problems persisted (Lee
et al., 2014; Magnuson, Ruhm, & Waldfogel, 2007).
Section 15.1Preschool: Giving Children a Head Start?
Conclusions
The direct benefits of preschool for children are questionable,
yet there is relatively little con-
troversy. Critics of universal preschool argue that the most
important variable in school pre-
paredness is parental involvement. And they are correct. The
easiest way to predict the aca-
demic success of infants is to look at the income level and
educational attainment of parents.
Children in maternal care do not differ significantly from those
in childcare (NICHD Early
Child Care Research Network, 2000).
F O C U S O N B E H A V I O R : S c h o o l R e a d i n e s s
My wife and I have differing views on Head Start and other
preschool programs that are
designed to accelerate school readiness. As a kindergarten

16. teacher, she knows when chil-
dren have attended preschool because they are better prepared
socially and academically
when they enter elementary school. And I have no doubt that
she can indeed identify those
who are school-ready from their behavior. However, I am a
science guy, and I know what
the research up to this point says: By third grade, all those
kindergarteners will be at about
the same level, whether or not they attended Head Start or
another program. So does Head
Start work? The answer is clear if you teach kindergarten.
By contrast, proponents of universal preschool argue that
quality is the determining factor
in the success of early childhood education. Though effects are
small, research supports
this position (Keys et al., 2013; Magnuson et al., 2007; Zigler,
Gilliam, & Jones 2006). That
is, children who attend high-quality preschools indeed benefit,
but only compared to those
who attend lower-quality childcare facilities. On average,
groups of children who attend
preschool do not consistently outperform similar groups of
children who do not attend.
Once again, family variables are much stronger predictors.
Therefore, formalized preschool in general is not an
overwhelming determinant of school
success. Maternal care, quality of the preschool environment,
and later elementary school
placement are more predictive of academic outcome (and all are
associated with SES).
Given demographic trends of single-parent and two-working-
parent families, the need for
preschool care is not going to disappear. The larger concern

17. then is for the estimated 60%
of children who attend lower-quality programs that are less
responsive to children’s needs
(Barnett, Carolan, Fitzgerald, & Squires, 2012; Reynolds & Ou,
2004). For other parents,
research suggests that formal programs do not offer any clear
advantage. With the right
stimulation, parents can provide the same kind of academic
“head start” that preschools
provide.
HOME
To measure the effects of the complexity of the home
environment on cognitive and academic
outcomes, Bradley and Caldwell (1977, 1979) constructed the
Home Observation for Mea-
surement of the Environment, or HOME, scale. This instrument
assesses a child’s home life,
including quality of supervision and discipline; family meals;
richness of language usage;
availability of books, games, and discovery toys; parental
displays of warmth and affection;
and the variety of stimuli outside the home, like trips to the
market or the park.
More positive HOME scores are associated with better academic
and cognitive outcomes for
all children, regardless of ethnicity or SES (Bradley et al.,
1989). Just like the early language
Section 15.2Play
studies by Hart and Risley (1995) discussed in Module 9, low
SES was associated with low

18. HOME scores. However, parental responsiveness and amount of
stimulation are much stron-
ger predictors of outcomes than is SES. Although higher-SES
parents may have the means to
invest more time and money in a wider variety of resources and
activities, it does not mean
that SES is always a barrier to achieving the same results.
S E C T I O N R E V I E W
Describe how different types of early childhood learning
environments may affect cogni-
tive and psychosocial outcomes.
15.2 Play
The stimulating environment described by Bradley and his
colleagues (1989) includes a
generous portion of play. Play allows children to gather
information about the world, and
also provides children with feedback about their abilities and
characteristics. Play and peer
relationships are therefore essential components of healthy
psychosocial development. Con-
versely, lack of playtime impedes healthy development and
disproportionately affects chil-
dren who face socioeconomic obstacles (Milteer et al., 2012).
While playing, children learn
both interpersonal skills like sharing, societal norms, and values
and intrapersonal skills like
self-regulation. The ways in which children begin to play by
themselves and with others offers
another perspective on cognitive and social advances that occur
throughout childhood.
Categories of Play
One way of categorizing play is by the purpose and type of
stimulation it provides. Infants

19. and toddlers engage in functional play. They enjoy repetitive
activities that facilitate prac-
tice with both fine and gross motor movements. There are not
necessarily any goals in mind;
there is just activity for its own sake. Pounding or rolling clay,
running around and jumping
on furniture, and playing with sand or water
are all examples of functional play. It is how
the majority of preschoolers spend their
free time (Kantowitz & Evans, 2004).
In later preschool, children gradually
become more interested in production.
This change is consistent with Erikson’s
stage of initiative versus guilt. Children now
want sand to represent an object or idea;
games have a goal; a puzzle is worked to
completion; pillows and household objects
are made into a shelter. These activities
are indicative of constructive play. In this
kind of play, repetition and exploration
merge with the symbolic representations
Photodisc/Thinkstock
ሁ Constructive play, like building a fort to play in,
is purposeful and produces an outcome.
Section 15.2Play
indicative of preoperational thought. For instance, children will
repeatedly build a “city” out
of blocks or other materials. Each time there are trials and
errors, and imaginative construc-

20. tion looks different each time play is initiated.
The preschool/early childhood years also include a fair amount
of pretend play. Acting out
a movie, playing house, taking an imaginary trip, and using
hand puppets are examples of
pretend play. Pretend play allows children to process emotions,
develop language, and create
inner thoughts and a rich imagination. Pretend play occurs as
both a solitary and a social activ-
ity and is an important milestone in development. Higher levels
of pretend play are associated
with increased levels of interpersonal communication and social
engagement. Therefore, it
makes sense that children with autism exhibit less complexity
and frequency of pretend play
(Hobson, Hobson, Malik, Bargiota, & Caló , 2013; Rutherford,
Young, Hepburn, & Rogers, 2007).
Social Aspects of Play
Another way to categorize play is by its social aspects. Mildred
Parten (1932) coined the term
parallel play to refer to the stage during which children play
beside one another but do not
jointly cooperate. For example, two 3 year olds will build
separate block structures without
sharing either blocks or labor. Playmates will imitate each other
and talk about their pro-
cesses, but they remain absorbed in their own activities and do
not try to influence each other.
As a percentage of time, parallel play occurs most frequently
during the early preschool years.
At about 3 years of age, preschoolers soon begin to interact
more with their playmates. Asso-
ciative play occurs when two or more children actively engage

21. each other but are not neces-
sarily dependent on the other’s cooperation. For instance, while
building with blocks, chil-
dren who are playing associatively might make suggestions to
each other and share unused
items, but they will not construct together. When a number of
children are playing together
in a sandbox, playmates may enter and exit the area without
notice. Roles are not defined, but
social interaction is definitely becoming more sophisticated.
By the time children enter kindergarten at age 5 or so, most will
engage in cooperative play.
Children have roles and engage in reciprocal activities like
sharing and taking turns. They
cooperate to achieve a common goal. Children who are using
building blocks will collaborate
on a project and help each other “finish” a structure.
F O C U S O N B E H A V I O R : P l a y
As discussed, parental variables are generally the most
significant factors in early cog-
nitive and psychosocial development. At first glance, the wealth
of high-SES families
appears to be the deciding factor in the pursuit of cognitive and
psychosocial growth, but
it should be clear by now that supporting a culture of learning is
more important than
economics.
There are simple, inexpensive, nonelectronic ways to enhance
play and cognitive develop-
ment in early childhood. Toddlers love the simplistic. Balls and
bubbles, sand and water
(and mud!) make for easy, inexpensive activities. Although play
should be enjoyed in its

22. own right, this kind of play also “teaches” about wind currents,
friction, resistance, tex-
ture, and so forth. Toy cars teach children about motion and
gravity.
(continued)
Section 15.2Play
Playmates, even strangers at the park, encourage self-
regulation, empathy, sharing, follow-
ing rules, and verbal communication. Collecting leaves teaches
colors, counting, and biol-
ogy. It also encourages curiosity and trips to the library or the
computer.
When play is restricted to only planned activities, it discourages
imagination and creativ-
ity, whereas free play facilitates attention and concentration.
Even though a large bucket-
ful of good wooden blocks or Legos may be expensive, these
simple toys provide countless
opportunities to experiment and understand mathematical
relationships of weight, bal-
ance, and length.
Paper towel rolls, boxes, and plastic bottles (that are free of
sharp edges and tops that can
be swallowed) can be repurposed for creative activity. In the
same way that simply talk-
ing provides greater growth of language, providing
opportunities for play enhances every

23. developmental domain.
Culture and Play
Play is also affected by culture. Compared to individualistic
cultures, in more collectivistic
societies, there is more touching and cooperation, and active
children are more willing to
include those who are quiet (Chen, DeSouza, Chen, & Wang,
2006; Roopnarine, Hossain, Gill,
& Brophy, 1994). Subcultural differences exist, as well. For
example, among American pre-
schoolers, those of Korean descent engage in more parallel play
and less pretend play than
their Anglo counterparts. However, as the children became more
acculturated, they take on
more of the play characteristics of Anglo children (Farver, Kim,
& Lee-Shin, 1995; Farver &
Lee-Shin, 2000).
Play is also quite different when we consider the environment in
much of the developing
world, where over half the world’s children live. In large parts
of Southeast Asia, Sub-Saharan
Africa, and other regions, children are unsupervised and left to
their own devices for a great
part of the day. Siblings are the primary supervisors for younger
children. It is not unusual to
see toddlers playing by themselves in fields or next to roads.
Because there is little structure,
it is typical for multiple age groups to play together, unlike in
the United States and other
Western societies. However, there is little research in this area,
other than on the cognitive
and physical effects of poverty.
Play and Cognition

24. When children “drive a car” or “shave,” pretend play is a way
for them to broaden their under-
standing of the world. In elementary school, concrete thinkers
pursue the order and logic
that games provide. Organized sports and other competitive
games allow children to feel a
sense of accomplishment, too, satisfying a need for industry.
Play also facilitates moral behav-
ior, as children act out the consequences of different actions.
During adolescence, play and
games are used to facilitate hypothetico-deductive reasoning
(see Section 7.1). Teenagers
move beyond the immediate situation of the activity to
speculate about alternative outcomes,
including social consequences. Play is therefore integral to
cognitive development.
It has been suggested that the structure and content of older
social play has shifted due to the
advancement of video games and new media technology. It is
sometimes difficult for adults
to embrace the richness of these cultural and social changes.
Adults need to collaborate with
Section 15.3Friendships and Peer Groups
children in a playful and exploratory manner that will enhance
the learning environment and
bring enthusiasm to learning and social interaction. Compared
to teenagers, teachers and
parents may lack media awareness (e.g., YouTube, Facebook),
but they can use their experi-
ence and judgment to broaden thought and creativity. For
example, teachers may not show

25. as much competency as their students in posting a story on
YouTube, but they are likely to be
more competent in exploring how to best express ideas. In the
dynamic age of digital media,
advanced playfulness is required to keep youth engaged in
academic pursuits (Graesser, 2013).
S E C T I O N R E V I E W
Describe how different kinds of play integrate with cognitive
and physical development.
15.3 Friendships and Peer Groups
Play contributes to the process of building relationships both
inside and outside of the fam-
ily. Most toddlers and preschoolers develop favored
associations based on shared interest in
toys and activities. Not surprisingly, older preschoolers
socialize more and have more friends
than their younger counterparts. However, even for young
children, friends are distinct from
nonfriends. Interactions with friends occur more frequently and
are more complex than are
interactions with nonfriends (Bagwell & Schmidt, 2011).
Throughout childhood, friends are
more likely than nonfriends to have conflicts with one another
and are also more likely to
resolve them positively. Perhaps this outcome is due to the
increased investment that friends
have, since nonfriends have less to lose if they simply walk
away (Hartup & Abecassis, 2002).
Friendships
Friendship competency is associated with other successes.
Children who are the most skilled
socially in preschool also have the most friends in kindergarten
and are the most well-adjusted.

26. Conversely, children who are argumentative and aggressive and
have poor self- regulation
skills generally have fewer friends. Negative social outcomes
are also associated with less
classroom participation, poorer learning, and less overall
enjoyment of school (Birch & Ladd,
1998; Eggum-Wilkens et al., 2014; Rudasill, Niehaus, Buhs, &
White, 2013).
During middle and late childhood, relationships gradually
change from a focus on a “handy
playmate” or a physical partner to friendship based on mutual
trust and helpfulness (Damon,
1977). The early importance of physical interaction is joined by
an increased focus on personal
qualities. These advancements coincide with the continuing
development of self- concept and
awareness of the needs of others. Preference for peer
companions over adults accelerates,
and reciprocated kindness becomes an increasingly important
part of friendship.
During adolescence, the structure and expectations of
friendships continue to change. There
is a transition from an orientation toward activity to one based
on communication. No longer
do friends always have an activity in common. Now they share
thoughts, hypothesize about
future goals, commiserate, and become emotionally intimate.
Self-disclosure increases as
teenagers pursue loyalty, affection, and psychological closeness
(Damon, 1977; Hartup & Abe-
cassis, 2002). The benefits of positive friendships are again
reflected in behavioral outcomes.

27. Section 15.3Friendships and Peer Groups
Especially among boys, adolescents who are more empathic and
positive have better qual-
ity friendships; those with a poorer understanding of reciprocity
and other friendship needs
have a higher risk of delinquency (Oberle, Schonert-Reichl, &
Thomson, 2010; Walsh & Kur-
dek, 1984).
Formal operational thought is reflected in adolescent
friendships, too. Recall that abstract
ideas like moral values and political views are not really
formulated yet in middle childhood
because of the nature of concrete thought. In adolescence,
though, friends tend to be alike in
level of psychosocial maturity, educational values, political
beliefs, and moral behavior, includ-
ing willingness to take drugs and break the law (Akers, Jones, &
Coyl, 1998; Jones, Vaterlaus,
Jackson, & Morrill, 2013; Schwartz & Pantin, 2006).
Peer Groups
Peer associations are reflected not just in individual friendships.
Before the end of elementary
school, children begin to have an increased desire for
belongingness and organize themselves
around peer groups. Members of the same group choose each
other based on intelligence
and achievement, sex, personality, and activity level (Mariano
& Harton, 2005; Rubin,
Bukowski, & Parker, 2006). Peer groups are also similar by
race, ethnicity, and SES. However,
the most important factor in that regard might be proximity.
Adolescents and (especially)

28. children naturally gravitate toward those who share
demographic characteristics because
they are close by, not necessarily because they are racially or
ethnically similar.
Beginning in preschool, peer groups are used to make
judgments about relative competency. Children become
increasingly aware of how they compare to others. When
children do not have an accurate idea of their abilities,
they make social comparisons, further defining a sense of
self. If children think they compare favorably to their peer
group in various skill areas, then self-esteem improves.
When social comparisons reveal shortcomings, self-esteem
suffers, especially when there is a lack of parental close-
ness (Birkeland, Breivik, & Wold, 2014).
In early adolescence, peer groups include cliques, groups
of about 3 to 10 members. They share interests and activi-
ties, and they “hang out” together. Cliques are segregated
initially by sex and are more common among groups of
girls. By mid-adolescence, though, it is not unusual to see
mixed-sex cliques. There are “jocks,” “skaters,” “druggies,”
and others. Those outside the clique can view cliques either
positively or negatively; members use them for social refer-
encing and, therefore, for part of identity formation (Hen-
rich, Kupermine, Sack, Blatt, & Leadbeater, 2000; Martin,
Bruner, Eys, & Spink, 2014).
Cliques are more exclusive than larger, more loosely con-
structed crowds. Crowd members do not always socialize
together; crowds are less personal than cliques and are based
more on reputation and general-
ized perception of activities rather than common interests. For
instance, “nerds” or “brainiacs”
B. Tanaka/Photographer’s Choice/

29. Getty Images
ሁ While crowd members share a
generalized reputation, members
of cliques more specifically share
interests and activities.
Section 15.4Peer Acceptance and Status
are not necessarily a clique, but they share values and a
reputation for academic skill. Like
cliques, members use each other to assess group norms and
guide identity. Therefore, crowds
are associated with both protective factors and risky behavior
(Bobakova, Geckova, Klein, van
Dijk, & Reijneveld, 2013; Verkooijen, de Vries, & Nielsen,
2007). As college students know,
cliques and crowds become much less prominent after high
school.
S E C T I O N R E V I E W
What is the effect of crowds and cliques on development? What
types of consequences
might there be for children who do not identify with cliques or
crowds?
15.4 Peer Acceptance and Status
Some children are well liked, whereas others become unpopular
or withdrawn. Adolescents
may pursue unconventional behaviors or try out new groups as
they continue the process of
forging an identity. Peer acceptance has great impact on
psychosocial development. How a
child is viewed by peers can often be used to predict other

30. behaviors. Differences in popular-
ity are reflected in what developmental psychologists call
status. Though it may appear obvi-
ous to peers why a particular person is well liked or not, as
scientists we want to systemati-
cally examine how judgments about peers are formed. In the
most common method of
assessment, children are asked to nominate peers they like and
do not like and to identify
who they believe are the most and least popular peers.
Status profiles include popular children, who are academically
and socially competent.
These children typically communicate well and show leadership
ability. They tend to move
in and out of playgroups easily and also help set the rules for
group behavior. The majority of
popular children tend to be kind and cooperative and engage in
more prosocial behavior than
their peers (Cillessen & Rose, 2005; Newcomb, Bukowski, &
Pattee, 1993).
A smaller group of popular children are more
belligerent. They are identified as “cool” and
“tough,” are athletic and, as a group, are
below average academically (Rodkin & Rois-
man, 2010). Popular children in general are
more demonstrative in two commonly iden-
tified types of aggression, overt aggression
and relational aggression. Overt aggres-
sion refers to direct verbal or physical con-
frontation, whereas relational aggression
includes behaviors that are damaging to
relationships, like spreading rumors and
excluding peers (Cillessen & Rose, 2005).
It may seem counterintuitive that popular

31. children are aggressive, but perhaps they
use it against those who threaten their high
social status. It has been found, for instance,
Blend Images/Thinkstock
ሁ What makes some people more or less popular
than others?
Section 15.4Peer Acceptance and Status
that youth who are perceived as popular are strategically both
aggressive and cooperative in
order to manipulate peers and retain high status (Kuryluk,
Cohen, & Audley-Piotrowski, 2011).
Rejected children receive many negative and few positive
nominations from their peers.
They fall into two types: Disruptive, impulsive, and aggressive,
or simply withdrawn. They are
much less socially competent than popular children and have
fewer friends (Newcomb et al.,
1993). Aggressive types are more hostile than others and prone
to physical violence and later
delinquency (Lansford, Malone, Dodge, Pettit, & Bates, 2010).
Research on withdrawn types
of rejected children has found that they tend to “hover” over
other children and then choose
inopportune times to enter the group. This behavior violates
rules and is therefore disruptive.
Rejected children also show more emotional problems and
depression than others, and have
the lowest cognitive measures of any status (Bierman, Kalvin, &
Heinrichs, 2014; Coie, Dodge,

32. & Kupersmidt, 1990).
The behavior of controversial children represents a combination
of traits from popular and
rejected children. They receive many positive but also many
negative ratings, matching their
mixed behavior; they are the least homogeneous of the status
groups (Newcomb et al., 1993).
Controversial children are the most aggressive of any status, but
they typically demonstrate
prosocial behavior that is on par with popular children.
Controversial children are more skilled
socially and cognitively than rejected children, perhaps
compensating for behaviors that typi-
cally would be rejected. Like aggressive popular children,
controversial children will some-
times engage in manipulative and calculated relational
aggression to sustain a higher social
status (DeRosier & Thomas, 2003). Their above-average social
skills lead them to have more
romantic partners in early adolescence. However, they also are
more likely to be influenced by
the negative behaviors of those romantic partners, including
delinquency (Miller et al., 2009).
As the label implies, neglected children receive relatively few
positive or negative nomina-
tions. They play alone more often than others and therefore are
relatively less aggressive and
less disruptive than other statuses (Hymel, Vaillancourt,
McDougall, & Renshaw, 2004; New-
comb et al., 1993). Compared to rejected children, neglected
children are significantly more
socially competent, though they have lower than average scores
of sociability. Neglected chil-
dren represent the least stable status. It may last only until

33. children become more comfort-
able in their surroundings. Although neglected children
constitute a distinct classification,
there is no foundation to suggest that neglected children
represent a strong at-risk group.
They may appear less social and more withdrawn, but they have
a relatively low incidence of
depression (Rubin et al., 2006).
In many ways, neglected children resemble average children.
This final category is made
up of children who receive some negative and some positive
nominations, but not signifi-
cantly more of either (as in controversial children). Measures of
sociability, withdrawal, and
aggression are sandwiched between those of neglected and
popular children, but remain sig-
nificantly different. Though a distinct category, the behavior of
these children is average—
socially, cognitively, and in both prosocial and disruptive
behaviors (Newcomb et al., 1993).
S E C T I O N R E V I E W
Explain how children come to be associated with each of the
five peer statuses. How might
you differentiate among statuses if you were observing children
on a playground or in a
classroom?
Section 15.5Bullying
15.5 Bullying
In general, children and teenagers of all ages prefer
relationships with peers who are kind, help-

34. ful, friendly, and complementary. As children move beyond
concrete thinking into adolescence,
they add humor, loyalty, and intimacy as important relationship
attributes. Young children and
teenagers alike tend to want to avoid peers who are aggressive,
critical, and dishonest.
In contrast, bullying occurs when children feel they cannot
defend themselves against
repeated aggression. The aggressive incidents can be verbal or
physical and always involve
a power imbalance (Olweus, 2010). If a child is injured by a
peer of about the same strength
(as in a fight) or is not victimized repeatedly, psychologists do
not define it as bullying, which
can create controversy in some antibullying campaigns (see,
e.g., Finkelhor, Turner, & Hamby,
2012). About one-quarter to one-third of children are involved
in bullying behaviors and
about 10% are victimized on a regular basis, a figure that has
remained fairly steady even as
increased resources have been committed to combating the
problem (Isolan, Salum, Osowski,
Zottis, & Manfro, 2013; Kim, Boyce, Koh, & Leventhal, 2009;
Nansel et al., 2001).
Demonstrating the importance of examining contextual
variables in bullying, children are
more likely to become both victims and bullies when they come
from chaotic or dysfunc-
tional family environments. Before acting out in school, bullies
are more likely to have been
maltreated at home. Intervention programs that focus on
forming friendships have been par-
ticularly successful for these children (Fox & Boulton, 2006;
Schwartz, Dodge, Petit, & Bates,

35. 2000). Evidence is fairly consistent that higher parental
involvement is associated with less bul-
lying overall (e.g., Abdirahman, Fleming, & Jacobsen, 2013;
Bowes, Maughan, Caspi, Moffitt, &
Arseneault, 2010).
Types of Bullying Involvement
Although it would seem that bullying and victimization are
mutually exclusive, they are not.
In addition to bullies and victims, up to one-half of all victims
are also bullies. Though evi-
dence is not conclusive, bully-victims are considered a
distinctive group that has been found
to have the highest risk of academic and psychosocial problems
(Isolan et al., 2013; Juvonen,
Graham & Schuster 2003; Leiner et al., 2014).
Both bullying and victimization are associ-
ated with a host of physical and psychologi-
cal problems, most notably, anxiety, depres-
sion, and suicide (Chang et al., 2014; DeSmet
et al., 2014; van Geel, Vedder, & Tanilon,
2014). Victims particularly are lonely, have
lower self-esteem than average, experience
more distress, and share traits with rejected
children, like school avoidance (Paul & Cil-
lessen, 2003; Wang, Nansel & Iannotti, 2011).
One British longitudinal study found that
adults who had been victimized as children
remained at risk for a wide range of negative
psychosocial, physical, and economic factors
five decades after being victimized (Takizaw,
Maughan, & Arseneault, 2014).
iStock/Thinkstock
ሁ Bullying does not always involve direct

36. aggression.
Section 15.5Bullying
Cyberbullying
A newer form of peer victimization is cyberbullying,
or online Internet victimization. It involves a high
degree of psychological violence and is probably influ-
enced sometimes by its potentially anonymous nature
(Valkenburg & Peter, 2011). Cyberbullying was a rela-
tively infrequent phenomenon only a few years ago,
accounting for barely 3% of reported cases in 2011.
Probably due to the proliferation of smartphones in
schools, recent data show that between one-quarter
and one-third of secondary students are involved, as victims,
bullies, or both, a proportion
that is now consistent with in-person numbers. These figures are
somewhat consistent in
France, Taiwan, Turkey, the United States, and elsewhere
(Chang et al., 2014; Kowalski &
Limber, 2013; Kubiszewski, Fontaine, Huré, & Rusch, 2013).
Being victimized online is often
an extension of in-person victimization, as up to 96% of online
victims have reported being
victimized in person. Therefore, it is not considered a unique
phenomenon, just a different
way to deliver aggression (Hertz & David-Ferdon, 2011;
Mitchell, Finkelhor, Wolak, Ybarra, &
Turner, 2011).
F O C U S O N B E H A V I O R : H o w D o Y o u S t o p
B u l l y i n g ?
After 13-year-old Megan Meier was repeatedly bullied online by

37. a neighbor, she commit-
ted suicide in 2006. Since then, states have moved to pass laws
against cyberbullying. As of
the middle of 2014, fifteen states had either passed laws or had
pending legislation. Many
more local jurisdictions have taken action as well. Schools can
institute their own policies,
though courts have had a difficult time reconciling the balance
between what is considered
free speech and what is harmful behavior.
There is potentially some gray area in the definition of bullying.
For instance, given the
“no-tolerance” edict of many schools, how would you
differentiate between what may be
acceptable “trash talking” in an organized high school athletic
contest and what is consid-
ered bullying?
Interventions
Norwegian psychologist Dan Olweus has been at the forefront
of intervention programs since
his pioneering research on bullies began in the 1970s. Most
prevention efforts continue to
be based on his Olweus Bullying Prevention Program (OBPP),
which focuses on improving the
social climate at school and teaching adults how to get involved
when they see bullying behav-
ior (Olweus, 1993). Programs generally attempt to increase
awareness, promote the under-
standing of consequences, and teach children how to actively
defend peers who are targeted.
Unfortunately, little evidence indicates that current methods
significantly stop bullying
on a large scale (Merrell, Gueldner, Ross, & Isava; 2008; Smith,

38. Schneider, Smith, & Ana-
niadou, 2004). Although many modern versions of OBPP
include community components,
it is suggested that bullying is better understood within the
larger contextual view, like
Bronfenbrenner’s ecological systems model. For instance, we
see that the social contextual
Critical Thinking
President Obama’s secretary of education, Arne
Duncan (2010), said, “Simply put, we think in
this country, bullying should not exist. We need
to work…together as fast as we can to eliminate
this issue.” Is “elimination” or the pursuit of
“zero tolerance” of bullying a reasonable goal to
pursue?
Bullying Section 5.5
environment affects individual characteristics of aggression,
which are involved in bullying
(Hong & Espelage, 2012). That is, children growing up in
certain environments are socialized
to be more aggressive, and that aggression is sometimes
channeled into bullying. Instead of
implementing policies that focus on awareness and
consequences of bullying, others suggest
there be more collaborative community efforts. These could
include building relationships
with law enforcement, strengthening communication between
schools and home, and hold-
ing parent meetings and trainings. Interventions that
consistently focus on the social ecologi-
cal context appear to be more scientifically supported (Hong &

39. Espelage, 2012).
F O C U S O N B E H A V I O R : R e s p o n d i n g t o B u
l l y i n g
Though the first line of defense for young children to defend
against bullies is to report
incidents to an adult, it could be argued that the preferred
method is the one that works
best. Though educators and psychologists rarely want to
recommend it, fighting back
against bullies has proved effective. Black, Weinles, and
Washington (2010) asked 2,615
children in a high-risk group of children in kindergarten through
eighth grade about their
experiences with bullying. Half of the students reported being
victimized at least twice a
month in the preceding two months.
Only 42% felt confident telling an adult, and barely half found
success in doing so. By con-
trast, the most successful method turned out to be fighting back.
And by a wide margin,
more students used that technique than any other. Making a
safety plan and telling a peer
or an adult at home were other successful methods, but students
simply did not feel as con-
fident employing those options. Other less successful strategies
included ignoring the bully
and making a joke.
These results suggest that school professionals and other adults
need to regard peer
aggression seriously and must respond with authority. If
children do not think their prob-
lems will be listened to, they will resort to behaviors that may
put them in harm’s way.

40. Especially in elementary school, there is no doubt that children
should tell an adult after
being threatened or harmed. But adults also need to be sensitive
about taking reports seri-
ously and making sure they empower children instead of
forsaking them.
S E C T I O N R E V I E W
Classify types of peer victimization. Identify the deciding
factors that would persuade you
to intervene in a bullying situation.
Section 15.6Substance Use
15.6 Substance Use
As is the case with antisocial activity, adolescents who use
alcohol and other psychoactive
substances (chemicals that alter brain and other central nervous
system functions) tend to
be attracted to friends who engage in similar behaviors (Poulin,
Kiesner, Pedersen, & Dish-
ion, 2011). Most information regarding substance use
comes from comprehensive nationwide surveys that are
sent to middle and high school students. However, like
surveys that ask students about sex, caution is advised
whenever results are interpreted. There is likely to be
both underreporting and overreporting of some infor-
mation. However, recall from Module 2 that we never
completely know how strongly the data may be biased.
Tobacco
Tobacco use in the United States has continued the mostly
downward trend that began in the
1960s. Both literally and figuratively, smokers in the United

41. States are becoming outcasts. It
is harder to smoke openly due to local laws, and smoking is
becoming prohibitively expensive
for many individuals. Nevertheless, many children still take up
the habit. In the United States,
more girls than boys smoke, but worldwide, sex differences
vary by country. Unfortunately,
tobacco companies continue to distribute free cigarettes and
market their branded merchan-
dise to schoolchildren outside the United States, contributing to
a worldwide problem (Eaton
et al., 2012; Salawu, Danburam, Batulu, & Agbo, 2010; Warren
et al., 2008).
In the United States, about 16% of adolescents are referred to as
“current users” of cigarettes,
but only 5.6% smoked on 20 of the previous 30 days. Both of
these figures continue to decline.
By contrast, use of smokeless tobacco has seen a slight uptick
in recent years after nearly two
decades of declines. More than 8% of 12th graders have used
smokeless tobacco in the past
30 days, rising from a low of 6.1% achieved in 2006. Although
nicotine produces biological
and psychological dependency relatively quickly, at least among
light or social smokers, there
does appear to be some early immunity from addiction (Eaton et
al., 2012; Kann et al., 2014).
Marijuana
Unlike cigarette usage, trends for most psychoactive drugs have
tracked a curvilinear pat-
tern. They have followed a consistent rise throughout the 1990s,
declined during most of the
2000s, and then began to rise a bit, as shown in Figure 15.2.
The exception has been mari-

42. juana. Regular use of it among high school students increased
substantially in the early 1990s
(15 to 25%) and has since remained somewhat consistent. It
continues to be the most com-
monly used illicit drug; about a quarter of high school students
reported using it in the past
month and nearly half have tried it by the time they graduate
high school (Eaton et al., 2012;
Johnston, O’Malley, Miech, Bachman, & Schulenberg, 2014;
Kann et al., 2014).
Critical Thinking
If you are collecting data on drug use among
adolescents, how might differences in SES
between schools affect the accuracy of the
information?
Section 15.6Substance Use
Figure 15.2: Trends in illicit drug use—combined grades 8, 10,
12
ሁ After peaking in around 1980, substance use decreased, then
rose again in the 1990s. Use of most
substances is currently trending down after a brief period of
increase.
Percentage who used any illicit
drug in lifetime
Percentage who used any illicit drug
in previous 12 months
8th grade

43. 12th grade
10th grade
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
90
100
20
02
19
92
19
94

44. 20
08
20
04
Year
19
96
20
06
19
98
20
00
P
e
rc
e
n
ta
g
e
20
10
20

45. 12
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
90
100
20
02
19
92
19
94
20
08

46. 20
04
Year
19
96
20
06
19
98
20
00
P
e
rc
e
n
ta
g
e
20
10
20
12
20

47. 14
20
14
Source: Adapted with permission from the Monitoring the
Future study, University of Michigan.
There is also a higher persistence rate of use for mari-
juana than for other drugs. That is, among students who
have ever used marijuana, 57% use it again within the
next 30 days. The persistence rate of other illicit sub-
stances ranges from about 15% to 35%. Undoubtedly,
adolescents feel marijuana is relatively safe compared to
other so-called hard drugs (Kann et al., 2014).
Prescription Drug Use and Inhalants
Parents and other adults are not always aware that pre-
scription drug use is more common than the combined
use of heroin, cocaine, and methamphetamine. Though
there are some geographic differences, overall the most
popular illicit prescription drugs on high school cam-
puses are Xanax, OxyContin, Adderall, and Ritalin. These
drugs can be especially concerning since they are found
in so many homes (Kann et al., 2014).
Even more than prescription drugs, inhalants are particu-
larly difficult for adults to securely monitor. Many ordi-
nary products (legally sold to children) can be sniffed (or
“huffed”) to get “high.” Younger adolescents prefer to sniff
more easily obtainable products like lighter fluid, gasoline,
glues, and solvents. Older teens
often graduate to nitrous oxide, a drug often found in dance
clubs.

48. Bananastock/Thinkstock
ሁ Marijuana use among teens has
remained somewhat consistent
since the 1990s.
Section 15.6Substance Use
Alcohol
Adolescents consume more alcohol than any other psychoactive
substance (see Figure 15.3).
About 35% of adolescents are active drinkers, defined as having
had at least one drink in the
previous 30 days. Perhaps more concerning is the 21% of
students who have been binge
drinking during the past 30 days. Binge drinking occurs when
blood alcohol content (BAC)
is elevated to .08 over an hour or so. For most people, this is
equivalent to four or five drinks.
Binge drinking in high school is associated with an increase in
traffic accidents, antisocial
behavior, crime, and poor health (Dawson, Goldstein, Chou,
Ruan, & Grant, 2008; Johnston,
O’Malley, Backman, & Schulenberg, 2011). Also concerning is
the 22% of students who had
been a passenger in a car at least once in the previous 30 days
with someone who had been
drinking (Kann et al., 2014).
Figure 15.3: Percentage of high school students who have used
alcohol, cigarettes, and various illicit substances
Ever used

49. Current use
P
e
rc
e
n
ta
g
e
0
40
60
20
80
Al
co
ho
l
Ci
ga
re
tte

50. s
M
ar
iju
an
a
Ille
ga
l p
re
sc
rip
tio
n
dr
ug
s
In
ha
la
nt
s

51. Ec
st
ac
y
(M
DM
A)
M
et
ha
m
ph
et
am
in
es
An
y
illi
cit
d
ru
g
us
e

52. ot
he
r t
ha
n
m
ar
iju
an
a
An
y
illi
cit
d
ru
g
us
e
Source: Adapted from Eaton et al., 2010; Johnston et al., 2011;
SAMHSA, 2010.
Risk Factors
From a psychosocial perspective, the use of drugs and alcohol
can arrest the development
of identity. When users get high, they may not be able to
integrate all the different parts of

53. identity that we have discussed. That is, because intoxication
produces a “new” personality,
development of the “true” personality is suspended temporarily
(Ulman & Paul, 2006). Occa-
sional use will not necessarily impact socioemotional
development, but the negative effect of
compulsive use epitomizes the interaction of biology, genetics,
and the environment that has
been a constant theme throughout this text.
Section 15.7Media and the Internet
F O C U S O N B E H A V I O R : I d e n t i f y i n g A d d i
c t i o n
How do you tell if someone is addicted? Professionals think
they always know, but diagno-
ses are usually subjective and definitions of addiction are fairly
ambiguous. Professionals
use terms like compulsive, repetitive, and dependent to identify
problematic use. Those
words may seem perfectly descriptive, but when you consider
that they also refer to the
way you put on shoes, eat lunch every day, or watch the same
television show, it gets a bit
unclear. Still not convinced? When people crave cocaine, are
they addicted? How about
when they crave a cheeseburger? Further, physiological
reactions like tolerance and with-
drawal are sometimes apparent in addictions, but other times
they are not.
It is therefore important to adopt objective measures that can
identify an addiction. Five
areas of concern stand out:

54. • Health—Does using interfere with health, including
nutrition or sleep? Does use persist,
for example, even when cocaine has damaged nose tissue?
• Law—Has the person been involved with legal issues
because of substance use?
• Finances—Does the user purchase drugs instead of paying
bills?
• Relationships—Have relationships changed or disappeared
because of use?
• School/Work—Has the user missed work or school on
more than one occasion due to use?
Assessment in these areas can be adapted to assess other
addictions, too, like video game
playing, sex, and gambling.
S E C T I O N R E V I E W
Describe the trends in substance use among adolescents and
potential effects on identity
development.
15.7 Media and the Internet
As noted previously, the media also have a strong effect on
identity development and behav-
ior. In addition to the content of media, the sheer time that
children spend in front of a screen
can detract from other valuable activities, like athletics and
conversations. Conversely, media
also provide a potential outlet for expression. In this final
section, we address these issues as
we discuss the effects of older forms of media (e.g., television)

55. along with electronic stimuli
that were not even invented until just a few years ago.
Television and Screen Time
The American Academy of Pediatrics (2013) strongly
discourages children younger than
2 from watching television because it harms language
development and interferes with
other necessary aspects of brain development. Strong evidence
suggests that television
Section 15.7Media and the Internet
limits early language development and further stifles
psychosocial and cognitive develop-
ment in general (Christakis et al., 2009; Duch, Fisher, Ensari, &
Harrington, 2013; LeBlanc
et al., 2012). Nevertheless, in the United States, more than two-
thirds of children younger
than 2 years are exposed to daily television (Strasburger,
Jordon, & Donnerstein, 2010). In
addition, phones have rapidly become the screen of choice for a
majority of adolescents.
By the middle of 2013, 70% of teens aged 13–17 owned a
smartphone, representing the
fastest growing demographic. That compares with rates of 36%
in 2011 and 58% in 2012
(Nielsen, 2013).
Studies have shown that youth between the ages of 8 and 18
spend an average of more than 7
hours a day using screen media, though it is difficult to get an
accurate picture of the amount
of time spent on phones and tablets. While 93% of teens have

56. access to a computer at home,
a quarter of teenagers use smartphones as their primary mode of
online access. In general,
adolescents spend more time in front of screens than in any
other activity, including night-
time sleep. Increased screen activity is associated with a lack of
physical activity, a lack of
sleep, and a greater propensity for overall health problems
(Kubiszewski, Fontaine, Rusch,
& Hazouard, 2013; Rideout, Foehr, & Roberts, 2010; Staiano,
Harrington, Broyles, Gupta, &
Katzmarzyk, 2013; Strasburger et al., 2010).
Although the Internet exposes children to potential predators,
prevalence estimates have
held steady recently, possibly due to increased awareness
(Livingstone & Smith, 2014). Media
involvement in general encourages a sedentary lifestyle. The
association between media con-
sumption and weight gain, including food choices, has been
well established for decades (e.g.,
Cameron et al., 2013; Coon & Tucker, 2002; Dietz &
Gortmaker, 1985; Falbe et al., 2013). In
one study of 674 students who met professional
recommendations for screen time, activity
level, and sleeping, 16% of boys and 9% of girls were
overweight or obese. But only 9.2% of
children met the recommendations. Among the children who
failed to meet any of the recom-
mendations, 53% of boys and 43% of girls were obese, a fairly
dramatic difference (Laurson,
Lee, Gentile, Walsh, & Eisenmann, 2014).
Both the American Academy of Pediatrics (2013) and the
Canadian Paediatric Society
(2012) urge in their policy statements that video games, cell

57. phones, and televisions should
be left out of bedrooms and turned off during dinner.
However, these guidelines may not be realistic for most
families, since such tremendous overlap exists among
traditional screen entertainment, social networking,
and other media like video games and Internet videos.
A recent study attempted to separate outcomes related
to time spent with video games, Internet, television,
and book reading. Book reading and moderate use of
newer forms of media were associated with healthy
outcomes. By contrast, heavy use of the Internet and
video games was associated with social withdrawal
and depression. Whereas books specifically supported
academic performance, television was especially detri-
mental to academic outcomes (Romer, Bagdasarov, &
More, 2013).
Critical Thinking
Back in the 1980s when video game sales first
became hugely popular, a case was made that
children learned important hand-eye coordina-
tion skills when they played games such as Pong
and Pac-man. An opposing argument stated
that video games were fine for entertainment
but that they should not be viewed as motor
enhancements because most outdoor activities
probably taught better skills. Today, of course,
video game controllers are much more sophisti-
cated. Do you think learning how to use them is
a necessary skill?
Section 15.7Media and the Internet
F O C U S O N B E H A V I O R : T o d d l e r s a n d T e l e

58. v i s i o n
When our children were toddlers, we had a routine of watching
one short sing-along video
in the evening before we read to them. And there were times
they watched television, even
before age 2 (gasp!). But rather than its being a crutch,
television was usually a planned,
limited activity.
Like most indulgences, I think a realistic approach to media
exposure is prudent; mod-
eration and motivation are key. Are children put in front of a
screen in order to provide
another short activity to break up the day, or do parents simply
want the kids out of the
way for a couple of hours so that they too can entertain
themselves?
You will not damage an 18-month-old for life in 30 minutes.
However, the issue becomes
one of consistency. When parents or their children become
dependent on media for enter-
tainment, the number of activities that engage children will
contract. The more they
“watch,” the less children “do,” and passive behavior does not
promote either physical or
cognitive development.
Internet Addiction
Increased screen time has led to increased con-
cerns internationally about Internet addiction
among youth (e.g., Kalmus, Blinka, & Ólafsson,
2013; King, Delfabbro, Zwaans, & Kaptsis, 2013;
Yu & Shek, 2013). Literature suggests that gam-
ing and Internet addiction affects between 2%
and 16% of youth who regularly use the Inter-

59. net; it is more common in boys. Like other
addictions, it is associated with depression and
anxiety and lower self-esteem; it is often found
to be associated with less family cohesion and
reduced parental responsiveness (Li, Garland,
& Howard, 2014). Research into the disorder
is accelerating throughout the world’s peer-
reviewed journals, but it was not included in
the 2013 revision of the Diagnostic and Statis-
tical Manual of Mental Disorders, the psychol-
ogy standard for identifying mental disorders
(American Psychiatric Association, 2013).
Problems remain in agreeing on diagnostic criteria
and measurement instruments. (Wondering if you are
addicted to the Internet? See Focus on Behavior: Identify-
ing Addiction.)
Social Media
The topic of social media brings this module together,
as social media are now an integral part of peer-to-peer
relations, schools, media, and society. Various texting
Tatiana Gladskikh/iStock/Thinkstock
ሁ Mental health professionals have had
increasing concerns about the effects of
prolonged screen time among youth.
Critical Thinking
Under what specific circumstances would
you recommend that parents install spyware
on their children’s computers? At what age
should adolescents be allowed free rein on the
computer?

60. Epilogue
applications and other social media like Facebook and Twitter
are no doubt key components
of psychosocial development. They provide easy tools for
children to engage in group and
individual interactions, though they can also be a source of
alienation and ostracism.
From a research perspective, conclusions may be fleeting, as
popular technology evolves rap-
idly. For instance, in just one year between 2011 and 2012, the
use of MySpace among ado-
lescents declined from 24% to 7%, while the early adoption of
Instagram sent its usage from
0% to 11% (Pew Research, 2013b). However, Davis (2012) has
suggested that digital media
in general are used to fulfill identity needs of belongingness and
autonomy, just like in past
generations. They simply provide a different means to do so.
In much the same way that online courses provide opportunities
for disclosure that may not
exist in face-to-face classes, digital media may provide an extra
measure of safety to reach
out and form new friendships. Far from the negative stereotype
of sensationalistic teens who
plot evil deeds in front of a computer, the use of technology
might offer an additional outlet
for forming friendships and relieving adolescent depression and
anxiety (Valkenburg & Peter,
2011). In a comprehensive study involving adolescents from six
European countries, heavier
use of social networking sites was associated with greater social

61. competence among older
(though not younger) adolescents. The larger issue might be the
time that it takes to stay
connected to so many contacts, as heavier use was also found to
be associated with lower
academic standing (Tsitsika et al., 2014).
In focus groups, teens have also discussed the proliferation of
trivial posts even though there
has been a parallel increase in self-disclosure (Pew Research,
2013b). Adolescent users lament
the stress involved in frequently checking how many people
“like” them and maintaining their
social reputation, but they fear being isolated if they stay away.
The average adolescent user
had 425 Facebook friends in 2012, which can contribute to
healthy development, but as the
module prologue suggests, it can contribute to emotional
distance, as well.
Epilogue
The three domains of child development prepare us for our adult
roles, through which we
continue to grow and change. Physical transitions leading up to
puberty signal readiness for
parenthood; cognitive transitions culminate in high school
graduation and preparation to
guide the next generation; and social changes may include
moving out and going to college,
beginning a career, or starting a family.
Traditionally, the stage that follows adolescence has been
referred to as early adulthood, lasting
from about 20 until about 40 years of age. More recently,
lifespan developmentalists and schol-
ars have noticed that young adults in industrialized countries

62. have undergone a social change.
Compared to previous generations, we often postpone the
commitments of marriage and par-
enting. Instead, there is often an extension of Marcia’s
moratorium status, as young adults con-
tinue to explore goals related to school, career, and family. For
this reason, a new developmental
stage has been proposed, called emerging adulthood, which lasts
until perhaps 25 or 30 years
of age. Just as the stages of preschool and adolescence did not
really exist 150 years ago, emerg-
ing adulthood extends the idea that development is continually
evolving, both academically and
individually. You may feel that you have come to the end of a
journey, studying how children
develop, but I hope also that this text and course reflect the idea
that your development and
that of the world around you continues to emerge. I wish you
the best of luck in your pursuits.
—RM
Summary and Resources
Summary and Resources
• Results of research on early childhood education are
largely inconclusive. Many pro-
grams exist, but the common denominator in later school
success seems to be more
strongly related to SES rather than to specific types of
preschool programs.
• A number of categories of play predict stages of

63. psychosocial development. Play is
important physical, cognitive, and psychosocial development.
Research points to
definitive differences between the play activities of boys and
girls, a finding that is
consistent with other aspects of psychosocial development.
• Children and especially adolescents join cliques and
crowds and make social com-
parisons in an effort to explore identity. Children fall into
patterns of behavior that
reflect their status, which often predicts a particular trajectory
of psychosocial
development.
• To measure peer status, children are asked to nominate
peers they like and do not
like and those they believe are the most and least popular. This
method has resulted
in the identification of a number of distinct peer statuses that
are associated with
specific outcomes.
• Some children fall into patterns of bullying and
victimization. Cyberbullying appears
to be an extension of in-person bullying, but it occurs online,
where there can be
more anonymity. Though intervention efforts have accelerated
recently, research has
so far not identified programs that are consistently successful.
• The use of cigarettes among adolescents has declined
steadily for many years. In
contrast, use of most psychoactive substances has followed a
curvilinear pattern.
Marijuana is a notable exception, however, as its use appears

64. rather steady after
increasing markedly in the 1990s.
• Television is no longer the only type of media that
impacts development. Overall, an
excess quantity of screen time appears to be a singular variable
that has a negative
effect on development.
Key Terms
associative play A kind of play in which
children interact with each other but are
not dependent on each other’s cooperation.
Occurs beginning at about age 3 years.
average children Children who overall
demonstrate traits that do not resemble
either popular or rejected children, but
instead represent a distinct middle-of-the-
road group.
binge drinking At least five drinks in a
short time (within 1–2 hours). For girls and
women, the definition is often four drinks.
bullying A pattern of aggressive behavior
directed at specific children.
clique A group of about 3 to 10 members
who share specific interests and activities.
constructive play Play that involves a pur-
poseful outcome, like a construction.
controversial children A status indicative
of children who have traits of both popular

65. and rejected children.
cooperative play A kind of play that
includes mutual activities like taking turns
and sharing materials and activities. Notice-
able around the time of kindergarten.
crowd A large, loosely organized group
of people who engage in many of the same
activities.
cyberbullying, or online Internet victim-
ization A form of bullying that takes place
through online chat rooms, social network-
ing sites, or other Internet sources.
Summary and Resources
Web Resources
See links below for additional information on topics discussed
in the chapter.
Blood Alcohol Calculator
http://bloodalcoholcalculator.org/
Bullying
www.stopbullying.gov/index.html
emerging adulthood The period that
bridges adolescence and early adulthood. A
relatively new concept that refers to young
adults who have not yet solidified future

66. plans related to career, education, and
marriage.
functional play Simple, repetitive play typi-
cal of infants and toddlers.
Head Start A U.S. government–sponsored
preschool program designed to offer edu-
cation and health benefits to low-income
preschoolers and their parents.
HOME Home Observation for Measurement
of the Environment. A psychological inven-
tory for families with children that assesses
the quality of social, emotional, and cogni-
tive support in the home.
Montessori method A child-centered
approach to education that focuses on self-
directed learning.
neglected children A social status for chil-
dren who receive few positive or negative
nominations from their peers because they
are simply ignored on scales of popularity.
overt aggression Verbal or physical
confrontation.
parallel play A kind of play in which chil-
dren play next to each other but for the most
part do not engage each other.
peer groups A social group made up of
children or adolescents of equal status and
usually organized around similar interests.

67. popular children A peer status in which
children receive many nominations for being
well liked and few nominations for being
disliked. This status is associated with aca-
demic and social competence.
pretend play Play that involves make-
believe activities.
psychoactive substances Chemicals that
alter brain and other central nervous system
functions.
Reggio Emilia A child-centered preschool
philosophy that centers on collaborative
learning and usually includes community
support and a requirement of parental
involvement.
rejected children A status indicative of
children who get few nominations for popu-
larity and are not identified as well liked.
relational aggression Deliberate aggres-
sion that uses rumors, attacks social status,
or otherwise undermines relationships.
social comparisons When children define
their abilities or self-concept by comparing
themselves to peers.
status Social competence and likeability, as
indicated by peers’ ratings of behavior.
http://bloodalcoholcalculator.org/

68. http://www.stopbullying.gov/index.html
Summary and Resources
Canadian Paediatric Society
https://s3.amazonaws.com/files.cps.ca/document/312/abridged_e
.pdf?AWSAccessKey
Id=AKIAIQDIKLPWFMPMSEAA&Expires=2145934800&Signa
ture=HqPcm%2B%2
B9PSBDAF%2BHa%2FYBgQ2%2FmC0%3D
CDC Youth Online: High School YRBS (Comprehensive
Nationwide Surveys)
http://nccd.cdc.gov/YouthOnline/App/Default.aspx
It Gets Better Project
http://www.itgetsbetter.org/
Megan Meier
http://www.meganmeierfoundation.org/megans-story.html
NICHD Early Child Care Research Network
https://www.nichd.nih.gov/research/supported/seccyd/Pages/ove
rview.aspx
Relational Aggression
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=irWLOoMuFvo&feature=rela
ted

69. https://s3.amazonaws.com/files.cps.ca/document/312/abridged_e
.pdf?AWSAccessKeyId=AKIAIQDIKLPWFMPMSEAA&Expire
s=2145934800&Signature=HqPcm%2B%2B9PSBDAF%2BHa%
2FYBgQ2%2FmC0%3D
https://s3.amazonaws.com/files.cps.ca/document/312/abridged_e
.pdf?AWSAccessKeyId=AKIAIQDIKLPWFMPMSEAA&Expire
s=2145934800&Signature=HqPcm%2B%2B9PSBDAF%2BHa%
2FYBgQ2%2FmC0%3D
https://s3.amazonaws.com/files.cps.ca/document/312/abridged_e
.pdf?AWSAccessKeyId=AKIAIQDIKLPWFMPMSEAA&Expire
s=2145934800&Signature=HqPcm%2B%2B9PSBDAF%2BHa%
2FYBgQ2%2FmC0%3D
http://nccd.cdc.gov/YouthOnline/App/Default.aspx
http://www.itgetsbetter.org/
http://www.meganmeierfoundation.org/megans-story.html
https://www.nichd.nih.gov/research/supported/seccyd/Pages/ove
rview.aspx
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=irWLOoMuFvo&feature=rela
ted