okay folks this is where close to where we left off um at the end of the socialization uh last socialization lecture I'm going to try to wrap it up here um this is uh looking at the classical um parenting types in terms of authoritative authoritarian permissive and neglectful parenting Styles um and this has been analytic work um that's looking at the relation between these different styles and externalizing problems later on uh it's broken out by temporaneous um versus um uh longitudinal versus um parent predicting change in externalizing and then flipping the direction so have externalizing predicting change in parenting um so these are just ours meta analytic RS and what you see is kind of a consistent relation such that authoritarian parenting is shows a modest relation um with um later externalizing um this the sorry these are later um here this is contemporaneous um but you know it look at change it gets smaller as essentially the more you control for things um it get gets weaker um so authoritarian is linked to positive so worse outcomes whereas the flip is true for authoritative um not huge effect signs but that's just kind of the name of the game um permissiveness is so also shows relations but um uh uh but but weaker uh neglectful is a little bit uh Stronger but it it kind of participates as you adjust for stuff so there's something there but it's not you know a huge huge effect sizes um here are some other elements of parenting that they've looked at one of them was in um they talked about two different types of control um psychological control versus the control you would use and in in like an authoritarian sorry authoritative um type parenting style which is kind of a blend of control behavioral control but with kind of support um and so you see oh um you see that over here in terms of psychological control so um positive relations that are actually as strong or similar to those of authoritarian parenting style so there's something there um but it's not a huge it's not a huge effect and there's some support for the effect might be a little bit larger in middle and childhood and Adolescence but there you go so those are the canonical models uh with a little bit of a aggression into different types of U control psychological versus behavioral um we mentioned the idea that this is kind of like a two-stage rocket when you think about the um parenting Styles one is holding you know being clear about what your so socialization goals are uh and the second is providing a context in terms of um either both affective but um um and responsive that allows the child to feel kind of engaged in uh heard and as part of the dynamic that kind of allows the socialization message to get soaked in so essentially there's the message and then setting a context in the parenting relationship that allows that message to sink in um and so there's the whole literature on parenting Styles there's also a literature that draws some very similar ideas um and I point to uh gra hansa's um funny somewhat recent paper um looking at the the extent to which um she's a nice review paper here uh and and Child Development perspectives um but similar idea it's the idea that parenting generally um whether you're talking about you know socialization specific goals um or just kind of the harshness of parenting or H the the positiveness of the parenting in terms of sensitivity um the relation between these outcomes and the extent to which they uh relate to these parenting experiences linked to later outcomes may be moderated uh by the by the actually overall quality of the attachment of of the relationship of the of parent child relationship so we can think about that in terms of um um she she talks about Mutual responsive orientation I can also think of it in terms of kind of insecure attachment or a secure attachment um so essentially the idea here is that um you may have some kind of negative parenting but the extent to which you have developed IR despite having some ups and downs of negativity um the extent to which you have a skure attachment May essentially buffer you against those lapses and and positive sensitive parenting so you're protected against those effects and uh inverse ly uh that if you have a strong attachment you believe you you trust yourself in the context of this other person um that's going to allow the essentially the socialization messages to soak in um because you're tuned in to your parent you're going to you're going to essentially tend to and and uh encode and use um these lessons they're teaching you through their parenting essentially so that's that's what we're looking at here she they also look at this in this particular paper I don't talk about it much U it also seems to moderate the the connection between difficulty and parenting so essentially if you are a difficult child temperamentally um the relation is in terms of how it links to worse parenting later on or kind of more har harsh power assertive effectively um negative types of parenting is uh going to be weaker in the context of uh um secure attachment relationships so you've essentially buffered um or or adjusted um downplayed or turned off the relation between difficulty uh and these NE more negative outcomes when there is a a um secure attachment I won't go into too much detail here but here's just a couple couple papers um um that kind of have shown this empirically um in this paper she was interested in this is by khansa and all um they're interested in conscience um the development of conscience and these kids are 56 months old um what these pictures mean they have a bunch of Behavioral tasks and if you ever read her work they have um always have lots of cool tasks and also really comprehensive uh measurement models so if you're interested in kind of how to use lots of different measures and then combine them um in in interesting composits um I would recommend her work but um so the behavioral um um measure of conscience in this situation they essentially kids in the lab they give them a chance to essentially cheat at this game to win it so they're told they're going to get a prize if they for the number of points they get by throwing these balls on the dartboard and um they leave them alone will they cheat or not um they do a puppet interview where they um we similar to one the Berkeley puet interviews we talked to where they talk about you know the different qualities um having to do with um different qualities having to do with um kind of being a good person being helpful being empathic you know and you say how much you identify with the puppet that's empathic and con and has a you know shows elements of conscience um versus the puppet who doesn't um and they give you another measure they use was kind of a story Paradigm where you know you're um they set up a situation where the child is about to go to a birthday party that they're very excited about um but on their way one of another child falls falls down on the ground and gets hurt in front of you do you stop to help help the child or do you run it uh so that's their outcome measure uh and they have several other parenting measures and they typically do in the in the lab um during kind of sem semi-structured play Tas and this is um a composite between 14 and 45 uh 45 months um things like how responsive the parent is gentle discipline overall kind of a composite measure of the two um and they're interested in the extent to which essentially the relation between these you know these positive parentingsingle overall there's a connection between um the these parenting qualities and and conscious conscience um development at 56 months um what's interesting though is that when you break it out it's really driven by a very strong effect for secure kids um or relation I should say um and uh nons signifant relations here uh the idea I think collectively is that secure attachment helps you kind of um allows you to absorb um the parenting you're more in tune to it and so you're more effective by it um we can see similar evidence in other so much bigger studies so here's something similar it's not huge um huge effects again but um this is from the nicd study of Early Child Care Youth Development it's about 1300 kids um and here they're looking at changes in parenting so whether parenting is is a parenting measured from 15 to 54 months uh and then looking at kind of stable parenting this is you using growth rates um so you model kind of how stable or or how dramatically they increase or decrease and they kind of broke them up somewhat arbitrarily but these are the more these are the the increases the decreases and the largely stable and they're broken out by um by attachment quality and then externalizing and so kind of what we're seeing here a little bit you kind of have to squint your eyes U and not every one of these simple slopes uh these differences is statistically significant but in terms of overall trend what you seen is is the um for those who are experiencing declining sensitivity um who are uh remain um secure they seem to be protected um in ter in terms of their externalizing behavior and this is measured in prek and so in grade one so this is average levels of teacher externalizing um so kids who are b b babies a secure kids um tend to weather that storm a little bit better than do uh the uh kids uh who are in secure um in terms of stability we don't see uh terribly much going on um there seems to be some hint here that at least um compared at least compared to C and D babies um those who are secure um May uh essentially benefit more from those increases um than actually no take that back um e sorry let me take that back um it the effect was actually only for the decline um these are all cially non significant again um so again the idea that it um in the context of kind of this is kind of the opposite um the other one was showing the you know having a secure attention turns up the effect of the positive stuff this one shows essentially that um being secure um protects against the negative effect of declines in um interal sensitivity here's another example from much smaller study um but you see kind of links between uh bad parenting stuff so this is links between um criticism uh at four and a half years uh and in terms of uh and then aggression later on in grade one um Broken Out by attachment status where you see again the insecure kids um where the secure kids tend to seem to be buffered um by um by that so irrespective if they had high levels of criticism they're actually not showing much of a difference between here there's no effect here uh whereas kids who are insecure there seems to be a big relation so again suggesting a um a protective effect of attachment again though the the overall idea is that it's quality of relationship that actually uh affects the extent to which the parenting or socialization experiences is transmitted there's another slide here I guess I got lost um in any case so that's that's parenting that's kind of thinking about the parenting types um and I rele leas this mix of kind of parent and and this two-stage rocket idea um the parenting typologies which were we've had for a long time back to the bound model they're often thought to be kind of the the authoritative was like the best um and you know other ones were less than um in terms of um they're kind of not as good for kids but chrisally we've kind of folks have have pushed back on this particularly the case that a lot of those early studies were based on incredibly homogeneous samples um of individuals and I don't know if it's apocryphal or not but the story I've heard is that that essentially one of the original studies um you know only had um had like very few um just a very small number of of black families in involved in the study um but then they actually were removed from the study because they didn't fit any of the typologies I don't I've never read that in the actual um papers I've looked for it I haven't found it but I've heard that so um you know take away the grain of salt um but there's been lots of talk about kind of other meaningful cultural differen and how parents parent and we've talked a lot a lot about this um different cultures have different things they want to highlight in terms of their kind of um uh cultural goals and values and how they they expect children to show up socially and this transmits into their um parenting strategy that they use um so one I'm going to give a first kind of an extreme example because it's part of a popular press um book this is Amy Chua and youve maybe heard of her um she wrote a book called The Battle hym of the Tiger Father which wasn't intended to be a um any parenting book uh of any kind it was just a memoir um she is a kind of high power um law professor at Yale and um the book got a lot of um press positive and negative um because of the way she kind of talks about how she treats her children she has extremely high expectations uh she can be a bit harsh um but she believes fundamentally and the idea of holding kids to incredibly high standards and not letting them um um get down and and the emotional element of of this is I think was probably got the most criticism because it really highlights um you know just getting pretty negative uh in terms of the affect content the video is in there for you to watch it we're not I'm not going to sit here and watch it while you watch it um but you can see that she has some pretty extreme has some pretty extreme stuff um she and her husband also who are not neither of our psychologists or developmentalist came up with a parenting book where they talk about cultural differences and and kind of uh what are the right things to support um kind of um your children being excellent essentially at things to really really being Superstars um and she highlights some cultural differences there um I'm not going to belabor it I I I essentially want to use it as as an extreme example that that's just in the popular press um we'll take a look at the actual findings in a second um but we could expect there might be some differences in terms of um the socialization goals and cultures that have more collectivist motivations than more individualist and we've seen this multiple times before and this is um kind of no different um I so we do see some oops so um if you read the um pomerants and paper um you'll see some of these um but this is just kind of breaking out some differences that have been established in the literature um in terms of the way um in this case Chinese versus um um kid parents in the uh White parents in the US um uh engage with their kids so um they have here's the parenting ATT attribute this expectations about learning um and so in the US there tends to be kind of to be lower and there's a concern with autonomy and self-esteem and enjoyment of the work you're doing whereas on average again these These are large swaths of of statements but um Chinese families have tend to have PL of very high value on about learning um the is to to not fall short of social standards and that the child is a reflection of the self so you're highly invested um in your your children and U seemingly particularly because they're they're representations and uh need to contribute back to the family um in terms of expect expectations for Success um there's expectations and high expectations in the US but there's less highlighting of effort um uh so you tend to have less concentration on how to do things better whereas in Chinese families on average um there's mixed expectations of success um less likely to viewed as a main goal but more likely to highlight failure um as a means to improve um so there's a careful attention to um putting in effort um to create to U build to build skills um and a careful attention to being correct in order to build those skills um Lear learning inv involvement in us the parents are less involved and they're less formal um and Chinese families on average um they're particularly involved and they often assign extra homework and and do some formal education at home um support for autonomy in the US there there's less directive control more autonomy and it tends to highlight individuality whereas in Chinese families on average um there's more directive control in um parenting practices that tend to less autonomy um and this is where you see is where this contrasts from the video if you watched it um whereas the Chua example she's pretty harsh uh uh in terms of her her motion content um in terms of the literature there um the the domain of warmth is actually seem seems to be very similar across cultures so it's not that anyone is any group is warmer or um less warm than than the other in terms of their affec of connection but they are highlighting different things that they want that different expectations that they have uh from their kids based on cultural differences um and so here's another Peart uh met analysis and um it so at some work if you watch the if you watch the Chua video it's going to suggest that um that kind of there are different strategies work differently across culture so essentially um it's suggesting that if you adopt those um those type more cultural parenting practices um what works is different across different cultures and The Meta analysis doesn't really support that though I want to say that these are uh looking at differences across different people CH children from different U cultural backgrounds but they're all actually living in the west so these are not kids um living in the their their culture um geographically um these are kids from the West um with that cultural background and they break it out by um European African Hispanic and Asian that's just how the authors happen to do it but it's a western sample um I won't walk through all this but um I think what we're going to see in terms of the gastal is that the findings in terms of like authoritative you know one one possibility or what has been suggested that authoritarian um parenting works better for um Asian children and uh whereas whereas rotative works better for um um uh you white kids in the US and uh in terms of internalizing externalizing academic performance and there seems to be a little evidence of that what you see pretty across the board is that no matter where you are where you're coming from there's a modest to uh to moderate correlation between um authoritative parenting and having fewer internalizing problems fewer externalizing problems and better AC academic performance now you see some slight differences uh in the magnitude at least for academic performance um but it's not huge and what you're not seeing um is uh that authoritarianism is good um for Asian students as some prior work has kind of hinted at or um tried to hint at um empirically what you see is no it's maybe a little a little less negative um but it's not positive and by and large you're seeing kind of Fairly similar relations across um different um cultural backgrounds uh of families that are living in in the in the west so this all say in so there are some differences seemingly um but in terms of um there being distinct things like what works better for whom uh with across these domains they seem to be much more similar than different across groups so there you go um some other things that folks have looked at in terms of cultural differences um this is a classic study that everyone always mentions by Jen Lansford and her group they're looking at cultural differences and physical discipline uh across different countries or different cultures with um so countries where we're assuming they have different cultures something that you want to notice here first is to First Look at so this is reports of Mother's use of physical discipline so what you should first look at is kind of the rank order here um moving from Thailand China Philippines Italy India and Kenya how normative is it um for moms to use a physical discipline um and this is Mom's perceptions of other people's um use use of it and the and child child children's perceptions of it so they all kind of agree um that the rank orders is the same across these so no matter whether it's moms using reporting on their own whether they're reporting on others uh or whether they're uh the children are reporting on uh the use of of other parents discipline they all kind of agree culturally that there are differences and how common it is and why this matters in terms of the um the uh the order is that because now we're going to look at the relation between um useage physical discipline and um measures of child anxiety and aggression across all these different um countries and what you should pick up on if you if you kind of go back and look at the last one is that the strength of the magnitude is um linked with the normativity of spanking so Thailand was the it was least common to be spanked there at a cultural level according to both parents and children um and the relation in terms of the link between discipline and higher levels of aggression high levels anxiety is the strongest for this group where it is not normative um in the the given culture to spank um and we see kind of this um this Decline and the magnitude of the effect as in in countries as it becomes typically more um common and the IDE one of the explanations here essentially that you know it may mean something different to kids if you are if you are getting spanked or or physically disciplined in one place compared to another is because it's just normative one place vers versus others so if everyone's getting spanked or physical discipline um it it probably doesn't it's not a reflection on you that there's something bad about you it's just what's done to kids and therefore you don't act out you don't internalize it and have anxiety whereas if it is not typical in in your given culture to be spanked or received physical discipline um then you see see it as something being about you something you know uh aberant about you and then perhaps that is the internalization of that negative thing about you is what leads you to act out um they didn't measure any of these specific mechanisms but that is kind of a one of explanation that has been offered to show this kind of interesting difference in terms of um the magnitude of the relation between physical discipline and the social outcomes the idea about kind of varying is a a function of cultural normativity there's variation in the US too or folks have tried to look at variations in the US too typically um this is been comparing um black versus white parents in the US um and there has been some mixed evidence that the relation between physical discipline and externalizing outcome is different uh for white is is evident for white but not for black um families so so essentially you see a positive relationship between uh physical discipline and worse uh social behavior for white kids compared to Black where you don't see it for um um black families however um there's evid this evidence is actually quite mixed and suggests it's actually uh very similar across the two um and also as you see here in a second um there both black and white families spank their kids a lot in the US um so uh it's actually quite normative for for both um both um groups and you know a reasonable question might be like you know are there reasons that we might expect potential differences in parenting between black and white families we have to think about context um so you know all parents share some common socialization goals so we all want our kids to be you know happy loved loving fulfilled strong honorable and really contributors to the broader Society um but if you were if you are a black family growing up and raising kids in the in the US you're also forc to adopt an additional set of socialization goals that's really created by the fact that you're raising kids in a society that systematically devalues their lives um we're just look at a couple examples of kind of direct and and and um systematic racism but um you have different parenting demands and so we need to think seriously about these ecological forces that are on the outside because they really translate into all the meaning of the things that are happening in the inside in terms of the micro system um and one theme that you that you see in this literature is this idea of needing to prepare and protect children um um from prepare them for and protect them from discrimination both overt and accute um and more the more indirect products of systematic racism so just unpack some of these I I know I'm um this is probably not surprising to anyone but there are massive disparities in terms of just direct harm um that are um uh occur across um black and or families of color in particular but uh and to white families here we're looking at this is um National Data uh looking at the risk of being killed by police by use of force in the US so here one means equal odds um of being killed versus um uh whereas two is twice as likely um Broken Out by by um natal sex and uh and um race and so here we see this is compared to white to white kids so um African-American kids are more than twice as likely to be shot and killed by police um American Indian and Native American children are um are also at slightly higher risk um latinx are as well um less so uh Asian and Pacific Islanders um but there's these Stark differences um and we've seen this you know obviously in our own City uh there are also just broader um uh differences in exposure ac across racial groups in terms of overall violence and things like neighborhoods for instance so um this is a study called the multiple core heart population study of Chicago um it's an extended study it C mult multiple cohorts but here's like four three cooh four cohorts of kids uh falled over time it's it's actually random random calls to uh in this in the in Chicago so it is actually a representative ramp uh Le and they have multiple surveys across multiple waves um and they're just trying to get it and they're asking questions about you know have you been exposed to violence in your neighborhood um and just through self-report um and you can look at these these kind of the what we're looking at here is the the essentially the um probability um or the cumulative exposure um that you receive as a function of age um these are called uh uh um Hazard Hazard rate but essentially what this shows this is broken out by um different cohorts so um there was more earlier cohorts it was much more violent so violence has gone down overall um so this is whether you've been shot um or this is where you've seen a a shot um by you've seen that's a gun violence in your neighborhood um you see it's it gets weak it's weaker over time kind of just secular there are secular changes um but we see it broken out by um by racial background um the risk if you were a family of color or individual of color if seeing violence um is considerably higher uh and you see it earlier um it's rather shocking um number so that's Chicago so it's this is inner city and and of course it's a city that has had some History of Violence um but there are systematic differences and exposure to violence and if you're raising a family in this context uh you have to think about different things um protecting your child being um a a a primary one um I mentioned this study just because I it's I think it's a really good example of how you can apply natural experiments um or use econometric methods to answer important societal questions so these aren't typical methods you'll see in child deel in kind of Developmental Psychology but they are very common in econometrics um so these are um data looking uh from an LA County um and um so this essentially all variation in um police shootings occurring um between 7202 and 6 2016 so there were 6 627 instances and this is looking at all kids High School data so essentially what they did is they went through and they got um data from 700,000 kids students high school students in uh in LA and they figured out where they live and they link that their GE geographical location with the location of um where uh where a a police officer had involved in a shooting of of an individual and they did subanalyses too in terms of kind of whether the individual was armed or not so there's there's much more advanc analysis they do here but I think just to Orient you here what they're interested in is essentially holding Place constant so kids were actually in the same um um space in terms of the census block so did so what we have here is essentially kids are living the same place but some just by happen stance happen to be exposed to a shooting just because um they just they just happen at the given time they they were exposed whereas another kid because it was a different time Point were not exposed so you're looking at kids living in the same place were ostensibly um one one kid is randomly arguably randomly exposed to this VI this U police violence whereas the other kid is not and by holding neighborhood constant you're holding a lot constant there um and ARG and you know it's presumably somewhat exogenous these these acts of violence they're not linked to this particular place or this particular kid and if they're linked to the place place is held constant because they comparing kids basically some the same neighborhood so what this essentially is leveraging temporal variability um in these exposures and then looking at the outcome so essentially if you were exposed um and exposed to this police violence how does that link to other things so in this case in this example we're looking at at um absenteeism from school so if you this is essentially how close you are to the incident um well absence goes up dramatically but only if you're very close to the event this is a nice little check like to say um you know is is it really the U police incident um is it really the police killing that that is having the the causal effect because it really should be a stronger effect if you're closer to it you're kind of directly exposed to it um and that's what they find here they do some other differences looking at things like grade point averages pre um so this is prior to a shoot to a police shooting and this is essentially the semester of seme after uh three semesters after so essentially if you're exposed U grade point averages tend to go down as far as about uh um um eight eth of a standard deviation so um there's there's something here um it's not a huge effect but we're seeing this really pronounced dip um after for those who are exposed to violence um this effect it we see something similar to in terms of emotional disturbances these are really probably underestimates in both both cases because these are actual these are grade point averages which are pretty blunt measures um and emotional disturbances were based on school records in terms of you know being referred to for PTSD um ADHD learning disabilities um we see that goes up as well but there's probably kids who are you know experiencing much more subtle um effects that don't present and this extreme level so this is probably an underestimation of the kind of overall effect um what's interesting and and important again is that this is actually um uh it seems to be specific to black students and black shooting victims um so there's a logical connection between I guess who is who is affected by it and this kind of is used to shore up the um logic of the causal inference so the reference is there if you want to look at it I think it's a cool paper um and I think it's a nice example of how we can use these types of methods to address important questions um I won't belabor it because I think you know folks are familiar with it but there's all kinds of instances so that's like examples of kind of direct violence um that that there in which there are disparities racially um we can see in examples of redlining um where the you know um homeowners loan corporation in 1930s essentially just carved up cities um and chose which which areas are valuable and which are not and if you essentially are are in an area that is devalued so definitely declining or hazardous um these are ones you just couldn't get loans for so no you wouldn't no one give you a a a way to buy a house um and it just so happened these have to be in promtly um uh areas where there promly black and um U immigrant families and uh if you look at this is this is from the 1930s if you look at uh a map now um so if if you haven't seen it already um there's a mapping Justice project at at the university U Minnesota uh you can see look at uh these neighborhoods now in terms of how they're broken up in terms of U racial segregation and how they were back in the 30s and they haven't changed much um so essentially what this does systematically limits a family's ability to build wealth you build wealth through accumulating um property uh and equity and um you cannot do that if you cannot get loans so this is one systematic way um families of color and immigrants were um uh um kept out of um being able to escape often kind of intergenerational um poverty we see this also with the covenants so uh here's other kind of maps of where there were covenants so even if you were in an area where you could get Alone um if you if you're a family of color you were not allowed to actually the people who were selling a house weren't allowed to sell it to you so even if you had the money you couldn't get the house and again this is just a a classic example of kind of more systematic um elements of racism that that we find across so if you're a family kind of navigating the space trying to think about your children's future you that may affect the way you interact with your kids another extreme example here um this is work by Janet Curry he's another Economist um this is um there's a whole uh other literature on environmental justice um which tries to again these disparities um in terms of even things just like access to physical things that can physically harm you so this is a fraction of uh families living with within 2,000 meters of a Toxic release inventory or superf fund site so any any company that um creates toxic chemicals has to register um and uh and so they're in this database uh and that's so these are these are all companies that that have hazardous waste um a super fund sight is like the worst of the worst these are these are um so toxic um that they've been shut down and they can't be they're uh you can't really develop on them it takes decades and decades to clean them up before you're able to to build anything near them they're extremely toxic and um just bad for human life um so this is looking at Florida Michigan New Jersey Pennsylvania t uh Texas and then looking at kind of um the the mean individuals who are within 20 meters of these terribly um toxic places um and so when you you start comparing across groups here um particularly um under less educated uh families you see some pretty Stark differences in terms of um exposure we see it across the board up here too in terms of um differences even for um uh above parents who have above high school educations um but you're you're more likely to be exposed to these extreme uh extremely bad uh en environments um compared to uh white mothers particularly white mothers who have um higher educations so again just kind of empirical evidence of this kind of systemic differences and disparities of exposures um uh for for families of color compared to white families and I think this the last example because God we that's fortunately go on forever um is the example of just how kids are treated differently in school um so there's a slide before this that's hidden just like ran out of time but um there's all kinds of evidence suggested that um the just the color of your skin leads to very different treatment in school so this is basic this is looking at um The Fragile family study which is a large longitudinal study of kids in the US uh what you're looking at here is is uh kids who are being ex um uh expelled from school um and so what's important and interesting here is that essentially what they're doing is looking at the predicted probability of being suspended but you broken out by by race white or black um but here's the deal what you're you're holding their actual behavior problems constant so essentially it can't be the behavior problems that are explaining this because statistically they're held con um so what this means is there just something different um and presumably it's it's you know it's either implicit or explicit uh racism that's leading to these differences of being Su suspended uh from school and these are young kids so this is the idea you're getting you're getting expelled in elementary school and this sets this sets uh you up for kind of negative Cascades down the road if you're getting kicked out of school and preschool even kid kids there disparities uh and and kids being kicked out uh so you're starting this this pipeline to build um you know skills and uh access and and a a future and you're being you know expelled expelled at um higher rates early um so this is kind of just setting a Cascade in a negative Direction um and and this is true even holding School constant so it's not even about kind of um certain kids getting in certain types of schools is actually true within schools um which is um remarkable and sad and so it's maybe not surprising um when you look at the literature um you know there are themes of preparation protection when you talk when um folks study the way black parents talk about parenting um some work has s highlighted the kind of a uh a parenting strategy called non nonsense parenting parenting so it's the idea of you know providing clear expectations and and high behavioral control so it's got elements of kind of um you know control in there but it's often in the context of warmth and affection so it's like taking no Guff but also being um warm and affectionate and explaining why you're doing what you're doing so it has a lot of similarities to authoritative parenting um but it's often kind of FL to be a little bit more controlling a little bit more strict um some evidence suggests that black parents are more likely to endorse physical discipline than white parents but this is a really small effect so and just overall what's should shock people is just the um so this is the um black families versus white families so there's a very small difference between them and also just a massive amount of of um spanking and just physical discipline um so in in the US we still have a lot of kids who are who are being physically disciplined um in interviews and more qualitative work what the themes that you you see and um um Von M Lloyd has written about that she's the current president of srcd um what you see it's this when they when they are endorsing when black families are endorsing um um punishment and even physical punishment it's really about um kind of holding no negotiation um or LI or negotiation with reeing um strong parental consistency are kind of thing that these families highlight um and motivations to um so social socialize character and maintaining Family Values um so there's a these elements of both protection um but also um being uh if there's punishment it's there um it might be a little more strict um but it's there to to kind of socialize these characters and maintaining family St u connection um in terms of you there's also been some work looking at the way in particular um the differences in um the way black parents May engage in with emotion with children um so some work has shown that black mothers tend to talk about emotions more with young children than do white moms um this is uh particularly the in the case for those who have experienced um uh racial discrimination or or report higher levels of it um that seems to coincide with talking to about your kids about racism and about uh emotions uh on average black mothers tend to support emotional expression more in their children but it's often coupled with a theme of knowing where to do it so um there's again that's kind of the protection element coming through here um and some evidence that black mothers may show comparatively more vigilance and concern about their own children's uh own children children's own emotions along with their greater sense of responsibility to help manage them so again this is along with the protection theme of um uh wanting your children to have of the full range of emotions but also knowing that there are things in the environment that that they children need to be cognizant of really for their own protection so the idea here is that that if we're thinking about you know back to the Balin idealized canonical parenting Styles you know you need to consider the context versus suggesting any kind of edly objective optimal parenting type um sometimes there may be cultural differences that affect the way um you choose to parent um sometimes cultural differences or subcultural differences contextual differences Force you as a parent um to have to adopt particular strategies um so a lot of this stuff with respect to socialization before was uh having to do with younger kids quite question is well what about older kids and Adolescence um is it all about kind of authoritative and authoritarian Etc um there there is work with parenting styles that we talked about with older kids and there the relations seem to be similar and sometimes some evidence that there might be stronger in terms of middle childhood and Adolescence um another construct you might have heard of which it gets um it's still studied a lot um is idea of Parental monitoring so in the 50s and through really through the 90s um there was kind of a idea that kids when kids go arai socially when they're kind of delinquent um the question is well why were their parents minding them um the idea was that kids are who are getting into trouble are getting into trouble because their parents aren't monitoring where they are and who they're with um so you know example of monitoring you know from my house when I was a kid for instance was like you know if you're going someplace you got to tell your parents where you're going you had a curfew of when you had to be back you you're expected to be back um and to the extent you know even when I was maybe getting a little trouble like they would you know even have to you know call the place we're going is a parent going to be there okay well great let me talk to the parent once you get there and then you had to convince one of your friends to act like a parent um so there's a ton of work so the lot people associations all over the place about kind of Parental monitoring so when you when you measure um how much parents um know about where where their kids are uh and their kids well-being um what you find is there's Association so essentially the parents who know more have parents who are acting out less or have less antisocial behavior um and so these These are you know robust relations but um one concern might reasonable concern that didn't come up until about 2000 was like wait a minute how do parents actually know about this are they are they actually checking in or are they knowledgeable just because their kids are telling them um what they're doing and if that's the case is it just the kids who aren't acting out or aren't being antisocial that are telling their parents what they're doing um so that was the question what if you measure active parent solicitation and control rather than knowledge alone so is there something about the act of monitoring and checking in and doing all these things having a causal effect or is it really just the fact that kids who don't get in trouble tend to tell their parents where they're going and it seems to be the latter so uh most of the work today really suggests that the any the links between parental monitoring or what is called parental monitoring is really just effect of the um the child the the fact that kids who don't act out um who are kind of more pro-social and positive tell their parents where they're going more so than people um kids who are getting in trouble um you see this is this pretty common effect Ross multiple studies um across multiple places in the world um here's just one example um using within person relations I won't kind of belabor this but um the idea is you're holding person constant and you're looking at links between um links between temporal increases in um parental monitoring and um temporal decreases and say antisocial Behavior so do these things flow together over time so if I'm my mom's checking up on me more does my antisocial Behavior go down and the answer is no um there doesn't seem to be a a strong relation there it seems to really be a story about kids telling their parents uh and it's uh um and the fact that less anti less antisocial kids tend to tell their parents more um so most of the monitoring literature people are still studying it um most of it's not terribly strong okay so we're going to transition here um gez at the almost hour mark y um from kind of top- down parenting um so the idea that parents are what control the the kids do um to much more Dynamic ways of thinking about it um so this is call it's a relationships model or dietic trans transactional model here we're looking at kind of Dynamics between parents and children and and to some degree when possible using things like Dynamic systems models uh to actually test them um and this surprisingly didn't really become a Mainstay of Developmental work really until like the 60s um and there are lots of we don't know why that happened there are lots of kind of contextual changes happening at the time um uh of Youth were getting more voice there was social change broad scale in the 60s this is Woodstock and if you look there that's my father um but this is a a book by Richard cuell child effects on adults and we all take for granted that you know we always thought about possibility that these effects could be bidirectional but the reality is we kind of didn't treat it that way at all um there was always a small camp of dynamic systems people um but by and large it was really this kind of um parents have effect on effects on kids and um didn't really think about any other direction um so are some other books that came out so this is coming out of the Oregon Social Learning Center um Gerald Patterson and others um looking at this idea of bidirectional relationships or more specifically Dynamics how these these uh parent child interactions function together in Dynamic ways uh and organize into kind of common attractor States and we've already covered this in class so I won't go in too much detail but um this these are all things all come together they also come together in the context of of changes in technology we can actually handle data uh much more effectively and so I think it's always good to take a you know a look at historical context and how that actually changes the way science works but this is just one example um so we can think about parent child relationships as a dynamic system and this is you've seen this picture before we've seen State space grids before so I'm not going to um go into too much detail but the idea just to remind us is the idea that it understanding the system may be more informative than just understanding average levels of things like affect understanding about kind of the real-time Dynamics can tell us something uh more about what's going on developmentally in terms of what may be supporting or sometimes undermining uh children's Social Development and we can think about this from many different perspectives we talked we looked at the tronic paper um where we see this idea of um being falling out of connection but then refining it and reconnecting and that being important that could be important for a lot of reasons um this idea of falling out of Step but then kind of re re refining your connection uh could be important because it allows you to essentially test the system to some degree it allows kind of this uh you get to fall out and be a little bit out of reg out out of kind of Regulation with your with your caregiver um but so you're kind of in this you get to a little bit stress you get in heighten levels of arousal but then you find it again and so it provides you an opportunity to kind of stay in that sweet spot of the right level of kind of overarousal or uh or a little bit of stress uh and allows that system to kind of tune um and kind of be in that that sweet Middle Ground of the inverted you curve between arousal and optimal functioning um that the kind of monetary lapses in coordination and sub subsequent repair really also allow kind of this nent sense of volition uh particularly for when we're talking about babies um you're alone for a second you have to work on your own but you get support in the next moment when you have when you do that repair um we in terms of the the some of the tronic stuff as well um it's the idea that um these systems have to have to be fueled in terms of maintaining their organizational structure so the process of um falling out of sync and not being completely coordinated with your caregiver um Pro might provide that fuel um to keep it going and as we mentioned in class variability information so if you're just in that one spot of never getting anything contrary to uh what you already know you might not be learning you need variation that's variation is information um and so that may also be part of the process so so that's what these State space grids are useful for and the idea is that you you have these configurations of um particular organization organizational properties and they may have a tractor state so if that were the case you might see that um some individuals or or some individuals at some time may fall into this common organizational um um status where they're all really negative in this negative zone or maybe they moveed positive for a little while but move back uh and you wouldn't if you're just looking at averages um of behavior you would miss this completely um so the Dynamics themselves matter uh this is different from a lot of the ways we've been thinking because essentially these are idiographic essentially you have to each each diad um gets their own own um space space grid uh and they get their own measure of Dynamics and then you take that um to look at perhaps within person or between person differences uh and how they relate to to later social behavior so just as one example this is different than the ones we looked at this is just another uh example of why this might be useful particular from particularly from a clinical perspective um and the folks this organ Social Learning Center who did a lot of this really important early work they were absolutely on the ground applied folks um so they were using this not just to do the science but also to uh apply this to to kids and so this is an example of how they're using this to understand they want to know the difference between kids who are showing kind of P kind of purely externalizing aggression problems versus those who seem to have um mixed internalizing and externalizing problems so um internalizing problems like anxiety and depression are often comorbid with um things like aggression but not in all kids and they're interested in maybe could we learn something about what's differentiating these kids developmentally by looking at the Dynamics of their of their parent child interaction so this is an example um where they're doing a four-minute a um conflict discussion task but a lot of kind of what's important or one methodologically I think something you see in Dynamic systems work is you're interested in the system but you're also understanding how the system organizes um after a pertubation so you've got this one structure and think of the ing the little thing with the rubber bands so it's got It's a tractor state but then you drop it how quickly uh does it take the system to reverberate back to its normal Source or in this case what is the what's the reorganization um you know after you add a pertubation so what they doing here is they have this four-minute task they discuss a conflict and then uh they knock on the door and they say Okay wrap it up and they're interested not only how do they're interacting when they're in the heat of it but then how do they Recon how do they kind of end um the the the exchange do they reconcile or do they end up in a dynamic that's kind of equally bad so this example here is uh from um a purely externalizing uh diad um and they kind of they found these were these types of differences were there across multiple kids but um what we see here is kind of a permissive type style so you see kids over here they're highly a neg they're mostly a negative uh and hostile um but the parents over here neutral and positive and this would be kind of a classic example of um um what Patterson would call a CO coers of relationship so the kid keeps on escalating and the parent may maybe tunes into a little bit but then Tunes out basically just turns out maybe tries to be a little bit positive but never really engages in it um uh and so this might be a pairing of kind of CH child hostile with a parent being pretty permissive um after per pertubation they they pretty much maintain this so the um child becomes neutral and mix of neutral and negative and the parent tries to stay positive and neutral so this is not a parent is a parent who's not engaging in the bad behavior and the kid remains uh externalizing compar this to a prototype from kids who have the mixed um representation of internalizing and externalizing um so little different over here you see a mix of the kind of the kids pretty hostile um here you see the parents also being a little bit hostile so there's a little bit hostility in this group but still lots of um parent being neutral um when the kid is hostile and negative here um so this is kind of turned up a little bit compared to the last one but what's interesting after the post after their postperturbation they they're still in it in fact it gets worse they get they get in this Mutual host hostile maybe the child gets a little bit negative but now the parents pretty ticked off um and so instead of reconciling this or they actually end up in a worse almost a worse place than they were before and perhaps that is what um leads to kids to be uh much more mixed in terms of their their presentation um they're feeling kind of they're uh maybe feeling unloved but certainly feeling like they're not feeling a connection uh with their parent if they end up in this hostile state so that's an ex example of how you could use these stuff I I think it's unfortunately underu method um and just you know the there are many methods for looking at Dynamics between um parents and children um uh I've listed these because they're kind of the most straightforward um a lot of other ones have a lot of pretty complex modeling and stuff so I didn't want to go into those too much um but we can also Beyond Behavior we can looking at connections of um neural processes um so here increasingly we're seeing a literature this with younger kids but it's also um making its way into adolescence um looking at it's called hyperscanning but essentially looking at the real-time dynamics of neural processes so you might have um EEG uh here between a parent and a child uh you and you kind of code um how what's going on behaviorally and then what's going what's syncing behaviorally and then what's syncing uh in terms of what's going on nurly and um it's a really it's kind of it's a brave world so it's really kind of cool stuff um I everything needs to be replicated at this point because it's all so new um but you are seeing some evidence that um change neural coordination uh is associated with coordination in um joint and solo attention changes in gaze coordination changes in the emotional veillance that are going on between parents and children as they're engaging so um multiple levels you can look at this physiology um in my lab this is um work with collaborating with with Jed Ellison and and this is uh Isa stal where these really great really great um dissertation work um actually it's no longer in prep it's been published and developmental pych um but here we're interested in the connection between parasympathetic functioning um we measured this using respiratory sinus arhythmia which we'll talk more about after the after the holiday um but there are connections between the parasympathetic system we think and um uh affective engagement often it's the case um that when we are trying to um regulate some kind of emotion in an active way we see decreases in parasympathetic response uh as measured through respir respiratory Sin Sin rythmia it's mouthful um often in in the context of kind of leaning in in a positive way like heightening attention we see sometimes vagal augmentation or RSA increases um what Issa did in her work um was to do it more ecologically valid version of the still face where um um so I think we've talked about the still face procedure where you mom is has an normal interaction with with the baby um then has a still face and just kind of stares still faced at the the child for a while and of course this leads to emotion emotional response of the child and they try to kind of get the the parents attention and such uh and then there's recovery and sometimes folks meas measure physiology with that and behavior with that where and the same here we did the same here um except we've tried to have a more ecologically valid um kind of temporal stressor and this is essentially instead of having the still face what we did is we started just texting mom on an iPad and that required her to answer a bunch of questions and so it's not a still face it's just Mom not paying attention what we're interested in a couple things I only mentioned one one here or a couple here um is the extent to which this breaks the be kind of the behavioral coordination between the two um it does intrinsically because mom's not paying attention as much because she has to so attention changes um but we're interested in the connection between physi child physiology and child um social responses the extent to which they're kind of positive showing positive negative effect so we expect there to be a coupling between what's going on physiologically and what's going on emotionally in the child but we think that this is Manifest really in the context of parent child interactions when they're engaging together is what should kind of allow help that coordination between physiology and behavior um we also looked uh at connections between mom physiology and child physiology do they sync up and I don't think I should have slides for that the answer is they do um so it's a small sample just to put it out there it's a 44 uh this convenient sample during covid so we're doing our best um but the kids on average were 9 months old were measuring real time um heart rate Vari ability using ECG as you can see down here um and uh then then doing micro coding um at the kind of second byc level in terms of child affect uh and as well as gaze what are there are the parents meeting gay or parent and child looking at each other or are they not uh I won't go through the models but it's kind of these complex stochastic Vector autoaggression models but the idea is you're looking at this the lead lag effects of um in this case um looking between connections between child RSA and child level of positive engagement as determined here so um we expect decreases uh in uh decreases in parasynthetic response in the moment from second to second to be associated with subsequent um positive behavior um so what you see first is that there's a connection between um RSA and um social behavior so essentially this is looking at increases in RSA so um more positive RSA changes and links with social more positive social behavior and what this is showing is that there's a connection between these two things so and from second to second if my heart rate is higher is if my RSA is higher in one second the next Mo the next second later I'm showing more positive behavior but this only happens when engaging with with my mom when in the texting phase this goes away so it disrupts the connection between the child's own physiology and their their own behavior so what this suggest is there's something about engaging with in Broad Strokes there's something about engaging with one's caregiver that allows this coupling or supports this coupling between physiology and behavior socially so this is the dip you see this is just one example person 10 what's even more I was actually surprised this actually came out to be honest with it was so it was so it was so it was so it was surprising because it was kind of a it's what should happen but it was almost too clean um we also see it feel from moment to moment so it wasn't just during the phases when it was the um the um the first free place first free play and then the recovery at the end it was also Within the play Within the free play and within the recovery um it was also the case when they're just looking at each other so um if they're meeting I ey in the moment that's when the baby's physiology connected with their positive with their social behavior that was um when they were not gazing at each other that connection went away so even at the literally the second by second level um something about engaging with the caregiver led to that synchrony LED that to that coupling of the child's own physiology with their social behavior um I I think this is a really cool paper I'm really proud of isa's work on this um so can we mentioned these before I guess but when you're thinking about this coordination what what are the potential mechanisms for supporting kids growth um allows high levels of arousal without disorganization so essentially these momentary separations allow you to kind of fall out of sync um and maybe that's a little bit disquieting but you have you're able to then in the mo next moment pick it up um and with respect to to the connection between physiology and behavior it's it's coordinating these two things so having this connection between your bodily response and your affective response you're learning how to do this and it's intrinsically embedded in this interaction with your caregiver um I've said all this stuff before um it also it supports attentional systems so able so in when you are coordinating and disc coordinating and finding recovery um it allows you to practice um the coordin attentional systems with another person um and if you're showing this physiological coordination um it it suggests that essentially that might be informative of um share it might help you to share effective and attentional States so essentially your mind connection and bodily connection probably allows you to figure out when you're disconnected uh and then affords the better opportunities to repair so the take home of all this is that we think there's added value uh in thinking about physiological coordination behavioral coordination between parents and caregivers above and beyond kind of just the average levels of these things overall so I will end there this has been longer than I anticipated but thanks for staying with me if you did um and uh let me know if you ever want to talk about Dynamics because it's my favorite thing to think about