User:Toursong123

[1페이지]

made on their children. They may punish them for coming home late one day, but ignore it the next-or they may punish them long afterward' so that the children feel they are being punished for no apparent reason. These parents seem to inflict punishment for its own sake. Furthermore, the marital roles of abusive parents are frequently uncertain. They often fail to allocate responsibility between themselves for important casks, including discipline of the children. Thus, their children are often difficult to control and lack any dear idea of what their parents will Tolerate (Parke & Collmcr, 1975) Since they are confused by their parents' inconsistent expectations, the children often bear increasingly harsh punishments. The parents may also live in a culture that does not frown on the use of harsh punishment with a child (Bdsky, 1980). These factors help to set patterns of abuse in motion. Other factors maintain already established patterns of abuse. For example, parents may justify abuse as morally acceptable because it builds the child's character, They may play down the injury sustained by the child. Abusive parents frequently shift die blame to the child and justify their own violence on the grounds that the child is “hateful," “crazy," or "dumb" (Parke & Collmcr, 1975) Finally, let us look at the role of the child in abusive families. Parents are usually selective in their abuse, singling out one child for mistreatment Infants and very young children are the most frequent targets. Unhealthy children or premature infants may tax some mothers' self-control and cause them to react negatively. Premature infants may have difficulty with feeding, cry more than other babies, and generally require more care Because of these problems, parents may fail co establish a positive emotional attachment to a premature infant. This is basically a problem of incompatibility between parent and child. There may also be differences in physical styles between parent and child； a physically demonstrative mother may find chat her infant does not like to be touched. Such mismatches may lead to poor attachment and, sometimes, to abuse (Parke & CoUmcr, 1975). Some children may be singled out for abu« because they uncomfortably remind a parent of his or her own flaws As adults, parents may find it hard to handle certain unresolved conflicts from their own childhood years. If they regard their own passive tendencies as unacceptable、they may be even harsher toward 3 passive child; if they fear their own impulsiveness, they may punish a young child for being impulsive. In other words, some unfortunate children tap a wellspring of self hatred in their parents. These three attempts to explain child abuse shed light c none of them has clearly defined its causes. PSYCHOLOGICAL ABUSE All physical abuse or mistreatment is accompanied by ' psychological component. Mistreatment exists in the context of an interpersonal relationship, and it is the relationship itself that has become psychologically abusive. That is, the relationship is manipulative, rejecting, or degrading. Psychological abuse comes in various forms and may be committed by various individual and groups of individuals, such as parents, peers, neighbors, and teachers. The significant characteristic of these individuals and groups is that they have power in situations in which the child is vulnerable (Hart et al. 1987). For example, the child of a divorce may be exposed is teasing because he or she “doesn't have a daddy anymore," with the strong implication that it is the child’s fault. Hart, Germain, and Brassard (1987) discuss the difficulties of determining when psychological abuse occurs. They paint out that abuse may be "immediately or ultimately psychologically damaging?' The abuse must measurably affect one or more of the following functions: the person's behavior, ability to understand, emotional make-up, and physical well-being. Hart, Germain, and Brassard also list several types of psychological abuse. These are： « Rejection. This involves refusing the request or needs of a child in such a way as co imply strong dislike for the child. Active rejection rather than passive withholding of affection is involved here. •	Denial Emotional Responsiveness. This is the passive withholding of affection. Detachment, coldness, failing to provide warm responsiveness一such as kissing, hugging, or talking—when the child attempts to relate are examples of this. Ignoring the child consistently is also part of this. •	Degradation. In this instance, the child's self-esteem is lowered by an assault on his or her dignity or intelligence. For example, humiliating the child in public or calling him or her “stupid” or “dummy” is degrading. •	Terrorization. Forcing a child to witness violence toward a loved one or threatening a child with violence is a terrifying experience for any child. Io regularly beat a child or say to him or her "I’ll break every bone in your body if you don't behave” is to terrorize the child. A nonviolent form of terrorism is to walk away from a misbehaving child while out in the street. This form of discipline will always terrorize the child and sometimes traumatize the parent. ■ Isolation. Refusing to allow a child to play with friends or take part in family activity is to isolate him or her. Some forms of isolating the child, such as putting him or her in a closet, are also terrorizing. •	Exploitation. To take advantage of a child's innocence or weakness is to exploit him or her. The mast well-known forms of exploitation are sexual, either molestation of a child or using him or her in pornographic films. Hart, Germain，and Brassard state that most people have probably experienced one form or another of psychological abuse. But, in most of those instances, the abuse probably lacked “sufficient intensity, frequency. and duration to have lasting negative effects” (Hart et al., 1987). The important distinction between the psychologically abused child and the rest of us is that the abused child has a damaging relationship and is not being socialized in a positive, supportive way. Instead, he or she is being exploited, for example. Many students of child abuse maintain that psychological abuse is at least as damaging to die child's ongoing development as physical abuse. AS a consequence, the child may not be able io get his or her dependency needs satisfied, may have to be overly adaptive to escape abuse, and/or may develop neurotic traits or conduct disorders. What is more, the child has learned to exploit, degrade, or terrorize and to expect that relationships often hurt. These are pervasive, long-term consequences. ---

[2페이지]

SOCIAL KNOWLEDGE As we have seen, children are continually learning how to deal with the complex social world both inside and outside the family. In middle childhood, they must come to terms with the subtleties of friendship and authority, with expanded or conflicting sex roles, and with a host of social rules and regulations. One way they do so is by direct socialization processes, such as rewards and punishment for their behavior, and by the observation and imitation of a model. Social learning helps children acquire a number of appropriate behaviors and attitudes. Another way children learn about the social world involves psychodynamic processes. Children learn to feel anxious in certain situations, and they learn to reduce this anxiety by using a number of defense mechanisms (see chapter 10). However, there is a third way by which children learn about the social world. Just as children's understanding of the physical world changes as they mature, so do their thinking and understanding change about the social world. This composite of thought processes and understanding about the social world is called social cognition. As children develop into middle childhood and adolescence, their social cognition becomes a more and more important determinant of their behavior. It is m middle childhood that children must learn how to deal with some of the complexities and subtleties of friendship and justice, social rules and manners, sex-role conventions, obedience to authority, and moral law. Children begin to look at the social world around diem and gradually come to understand the principles and rules it follows (Ross, 1981). Such developing understanding has been studied by cognitive theorists, who believe that all knowledge, whether scientific, social, or personal, exists as an organized system or structure, not as unrelated bits and pieces. In the same way, children’s understanding of the world does not develop by unrelated steps, but instead is built in a predictable sequence. Their understanding of the social world will depend in part on the point in the developmental sequence already reached. As wc saw in chapter 9, preschool children's understanding of the world is limited by their egocentrism. And although by age 7 children have reached “the age of reason” and are able to perform some logical operations, they are still somewhat hampered by their egocentrism. Many children in early middle childhood still do not recognize that their point of view is limited to themselves. They are not fully aware that another person has a different point of view and specific subjective needs because of a different background, set of experiences, or values. This fact only gradually impinges on the young child. A first component of social knowledge, therefore, is social inference that is, guesses and assumptions about what another person is feeling, chinking, or intending (Flavell, 1977; Forbes, 1978; Shantz, 1975). A young child, for example, hears her mother laughing and assumes that she is happy. An adult might hear something forced about the mother's laughter and infer that the woman is covering up her feelings. While young children cannot make such a sophisticated inference, by age 6 they can usually infer that another person’s thoughts may differ from their own, By age 8 or so, they realize that another person can think about thar thoughts. And by age 10 they are able to infer what another person is thinking while ar the same time inferring that their own thoughts are the subject of another person's thoughts. A child might think. “Johnny is angry with me, and he knows that I know he is angry.” The process of developing fully accurate social inference is gradual and continues into late adolescence (Shantz, 1975). A second component of social knowledge is the child’s understanding of social relationships. Children gradually accumulate information and understand¬ing about the obligations of friendship, such as fairness and loyalty, respect for authority, and the concepts of legality and justice. A third aspect of social knowledge is social regulations, such as social rules and conventions. Many of these conventions are learned first by rote or imitation. Later, they can become less rigid, depending on the child’s ability to make correct social inferences or the child’s understanding of social relationships. Stages of Understanding Psychologists who study social cognition find that it develops in a predictable sequence. Some even call the steps in this sequence “stages.” Most researchers agree that children get beyond the worst of their egocentrism by age 6 or 7. They stop centering on only one aspect of a situation and gradually get better at making social inferences. Beyond that, researchers and theorists disagree. How many stages are there? Are these universal, or do they depend on the particular social system in which a child lives? The field of studying social cognition is very active at the moment, and it is too new for very definitive conclusions. Instead, we might look at Selman's (1976) studies on children’s understanding of friendship to illustrate their developing knowledge about social relationships.

2페이지 왼쪽 각주 1) 사진 In middle childhood, children develop the ability to think about their social world and about relationships inside and outside the family In developing this social knowledge, children learn to understand how others feel and the rules of social interaction.

2) Social cognition A composite of thought processes and understanding about the social world. Social inference Guesses and assumptions about what another person is feeling, thinking, or intending

2페이지 오른쪽 각주

1) Social relationships Friendships that involve obligations such as fairness, new and loyalty; the knowledge of these obligations is a necessary component of social cognition Social regulations Social rules. and conventions, the knowledge of which is a component of social cognition

2) 사진 One type of friendship is based on give- and-take. friends are seen as people who help each other.

[3페이지] DISCOVERING OUR ECONOMIC SYSTEM

Money has an important place in die world of children. Some of their earliest memories include shopping for groceries and clothing with their parents and，when they are old enough, of buying sweets and other special treats for themselves. The formal rules that are part of the process of exchanging money for goods and services reflect the order of society itself When children learn these rules, they are well on their way to understanding how society operates. To find out exactly how children’s understanding of money evolves, Hans Furth (1980) interviewed approximately 200 English children ranging in age from 5 to 11. He asked them questions about money and roles, as well 35 such societal institution as shops, schools, and government. His findings point our once more die dynamic growth of intelligence during middle childhood. At each stage, children are confronted with information a hour the world that is inconsistent with their present way of dunking. By asking questions, by wondering about things, and by being given more details, they gradually learn what the real world and the world of money are all about. Furth identified four separate stages char children pus through in their growing awareness of money as a medium of exchange: In the first stage, children believe char money is freely available. The exchange of money in a store for a good or service is totally meaningless to them. In fact, they believe that one of the ways people earn money is by buying something and receiving change. Thus, said one of Furth's young subjects: Sometimes [the storekeeper! gives you four pence for the sweets back and sometimes he gives you more when you want sonic bigger things'' (p. 27). In the second stage, children understand that money is used as a medium of exchange to buy goods and services, but their understanding stops there. In their person-centered view of the world, they do not understand that shopkeepers must use the money they receive to pay for the goods they eventually sell. Those few children who understand a merchant's use of money never relate it back to their own purchases. Children may believe that die money storekeepers collect is their personal property to do with as they wish since the goods in the store are free. One child kid a very altruistie view of where the money finally winds up: “The money the lady collects,” said the child, said the child, “she gives it to the blind or something, the poor people” (p. 28). The third stage sees a major leap in children's understanding： They know that storekeepers use the money they receive from customers to stock their stores. However, children can nor understand the profit motive behind a sale nor storekeepers* need to cam money for themselves and their families. In fact, many children expressed a kind of moral concern that die storekeepers might be taking money that really didn't belong to them. “Keep the hand out of the till,” said one child. “Don't use business money for private affairs" (p. 28). In the final stage, which according to Furth most children reach when they are 10 or 11 year old, children understand the concept of profit. They also understand tint the money storekeepers receive by buying for less and selling lor more allows them to run their stores and pay their personal expenses. At each stage, information that conflicts with children's existing view of the world requires a readjustment of thinking. This process of cognitive growth is gradual; concepts that dial do not fit into the child's cognitive world ar an early age are disregarded until a later time, or only parts are used. This understanding develops from that of a 5-year-old, who neither understands the number system behind prices nor the grown-up world of real work, to that of the 11 -year-old, who blows what it is all about.

FRIENDSHIP The ability to infer die thoughts, expectations, feelings, and intentions of others is an important component in developing an understanding of friendship. Children who can successfully infer another’s perspective are better able to develop strong, intimate relationships with others. Using a social cognition model, Seim an studied the friendships of children aged 7 to 12 (Damon, 1977； Selman, 1981), His approach was to tell children a story involving a social dilemma and then ask them questions designed to measure their concepts about other people, their self-awareness and ability to reflect, their concepts of person¬ality, and their ideas about friendship (Damon, 1977; Selman, 1976). Kaiby and Debby have been best friends since they were 5. A new girl, JCMI- ncttc, moves into their neighborhood, but Debby dislikes her because she considers Jeannette a showoff. Later, Jeannette invites Kathy to go to the circus on its one day in town Kathy’s problem is that she has promised to play with Debby that same day. What will Kathy do? This story raises questions about the nature of relationships, about old and new friendships, and about loyalty and crust. It requires children to think and talk about how friendships are formed and maintained and to decide what is important in a relationship. In other words, Selman's story method provides a way of assessing both a child’s concepts and the thinking process—how the child decides what is important. Selman described four stages of friendship. At the first stage, occurring in children under 7, friendship is based on physical and geographical considerations. They perceive friends to be playmates and others who live nearby or who go to the same school. They often consider other children friends for selfish reasons— for example, children whose toys they like. At this stage, there is no understanding of the other person’s perspective. At the second stage (7 to 9), the idea of reciprocity and an awareness of another person’s subjective feelings begin to form. Friendship is seen mostly in terms of the social actions of one person and the subjective evaluation of these actions by another person. A child at this stage might say that Kathy could go to the circus with Jeannette and remain friends with Debby only if Debby did not object to the change in plans. The third level of friendship (age 8 to 12) is based on genuine give-and-take; friends are seen as people who help each other. Children realize chat not only can they evaluate the actions of their friends, but their friends can evaluate their actions in return. The concept of trust appears for the first time. Children at the third stage might realize that the friendship between Kathy and Debby is different from the friendship between Kathy and Jean nene, because the alder friendship is based on long¬standing trust At the fourth stage, which occurs only rarely among 11 - and 12 year-olds, children see friendship as a stable, continuing relationship based on trust. Children are now capable of looking at the relationship from the perspec tive of a third party. A child at this level might comment, “Kathy and Debby should be able to understand each other.” Not all researchers agree with every aspect of Selmarfs mode). For example，young children may implicitly know more of the rules and expectations of being a friend than they are able to tell an interviewer (Furman & Bierman，1983; Gotunan, 1983). Also, real friendships are quite complicated. They may involve mutuality, trust, and reciprocity at one time, and independence or even competitiveness at others. And certain types of conflicts may be intrinsic to the nature of friendship. Such intricacies of friendship are not easily handled in a model that stresses children's increasing understanding of the meaning of friendship (Berndt, 1983).

PERSONAUTY DEVELOPMENT FAMILY AND PEERS

4페이지

Moral Judgment Moral judgment—the sense of right and wrong_is another area of social knowledge. It involves social inferences, understanding of social relationships, and knowledge of soda! regulations. Somehow in the process of growing up, children learn to tell “good” from “bad” and to demonstrate kindness or cruelty, generosity or selfishness. Mature moral judgment, then, involves more than the rote learning of social rules and conventions. There is considerable debate as to how children acquire morality. Social learning theorists believe that children learn it by being rewarded or punished for various kinds of behavior and by modeling. Psychodynamic psychologists believe it develops as a defense against anxiety over the loss of love and approval. Cognitive theorists believe that, like intellectual development, morality develops in progressive, age-related stages. Let us take a closer look at the cognitive approach to moral development. Lawrence Kohl berg (1963) believes that moral judgment develops over several well-defined stages. It should be remembered, however, that these stages rep¬resent the growth of moral concepts or ways of judging, not moral behavior. Kohlberg’s work, in turn, is based on Piaget's theory of cognitive development. Piaget defined morality as “an individual’s respect for the rules of social order and his sense of justice”一justice being “a concern for reciprocity and equality among individuals” (Hoffinan, 1970). According to Piaget (1965), children's moral sense arises from the interaction between their developing thought structures and their gradually widening social experience. The moral sense develops in two stages. At the moral realism stage, children think that all rules should be obeyed because they are real, indestructible things, not abstract principles. A child at this stage judges the morality of an act in terms of its consequences, and is incapable of weighing intentions. For example, a young child will think that the girl who breaks 12 dishes accidentally while moving a table is much guiltier than one who intentionally breaks only two dishes because she is angry with her sister. When children reach the stage of moral relativism, they realize that rules are created and agreed upon cooperatively by individuals, and that rules can be changed as the need arises. This leads to the realization that there is no absolute right or wrong and that morality depends not on consequences but on intentions

Taking Piaget’s observations of childhood morality and the results of rests with children and adolescents, Kohlberg extended Piaget’s two stages to six “developmental types of value-orientation” within three distinct levels of moral development (see Table 12-1). Although Kohlberg discusses judgments and nut behaviors, his model includes examples of the kinds of behavior that would be typied of each stage When we describe these behaviors, we must keep m mind tii.i( they are only theoretical examples of the possible outcome of the thought processes being described. In several studies Kohlberg found that young b3ys, ar least in Western civilization, seem to go through these stages in the predicted fashion. In one 20-vcar longitudinal study of 48 boys, Kohlberg and his associates found remarkable consistency with these stages (Colby ct al. 1983). Kohlbcrg's method for arriving at his conclusions was a little unusual and very interesting. He presented young children,. adolescents, and adults with a series of morally problematic talcs during interviews. The characters in his tales

왼쪽 사진 각주 Developing a sense of right and wrong involves understanding social rules and gaining experience in social relationships.

Moral 설명 각주 Moral judgment The sense of right and wrong, an area of social knowl¬edge that involves social inferences, understanding of social relationships, and knowledge of social regulations. Moral realism Piaget's term for the first of two stages in moral development, characterized by children's belief in rules as real, indestructible things, not abstract principles. Moral relativism Piaget's term for the second stage of moral development, in which children realize that rules are agreements that may be changed. if necessary.

오른쪽 표 시작

제목 : TABLE 12-1 Kohlberg's Stages ol Moral Development

STAGE Level I. Preconventional (based on punishments and reward) Stage 1. Punishment and obedience orientation Stage 2. Naive instrumental hedonism

Level II. Conventional (based on social conformity) Stage 3. "Good-boy" morality of maintaining good relations, approval of others Stage 4. Authority-maintaining morality

Level III. Postconvenlional (based on moral principles) Stage 5. Morality of contract, of Individual rights, and of democratically accepted law Stage 6. Morality of individual principles of conscience

ILLUSTRATIVE REASONING - Obey rules in order to avoid punishment - Obey lo obtain rewards, to have favors returned. - Conform to avoid disapproval, dislike by others. - Conform to avoid censure by legitimate authorities, with resulting guilt. - Abide by laws of land for community welfare. - Abide by universal ethical principles.

-- face moral dilemmas—which means, of course，that there are at least two correct solutions—and the person being interviewed is asked to resolve the dilemmas. Kohlberg(이름) was actually less interested in the specific answers to the problem than he was in the reasoning behind the answers. Here is one of his stories, which has since become classic.

In Europe, a woman was near death from a special kind of cancer. There was one drug that the doctors thought might save her. It was a form of radium chat a druggist in the same town had recently discovered. The drug was expensive to make, but the druggist was charging 10 times what the drug cost him to make. He paid $200 for the radium and charged $2,000 for a small dose of the drug. The sick woman’s husband, Heinz, went to everyone he knew to borrow the money, but he could only get together $1,000, which is half of what it cost. He told the druggist that his wife was dying and asked him to sell it cheaper or let him pay later. But the druggist said, ''No, I discovered the drug, and I am going to make money from it." So Heinz got desperate and broke into the man's store to steal the drug for his wife.

The person being interviewed was then asked a series of questions. Some of the questions were like: “Should Heinz have stolen the drug?” “Why” ''Was the druggist right to have charged so much more than it cost to make the drug?” “Why?” “Which is worse, letting someone die or stealing if it will save a life?” “Why?” The answers Kohlberg(이름) received to these questions from different age groups led him to devise his theory that moral reasoning developed in distinct stages. Kohlberg's stages have raised many research questions (Austin ct al., 1977; Rubin & Trotten, 1977; Yussen, 1977): How firm are the categories? What is

[5페이지]

the actual order of the sequence? Are the categories contaminated by cultural biases and by the elaborateness of a child’s vocabulary? Researchers have found that it is very difficult to follow Kohlverg’s procedures exactly. For example, the scoring of an individual’s moral judgments involves many factors, and researchers often disagree as to which category a particular response belongs. Baumrind (1978) has attacked Kohlberg’s theory on the grounds of moral absolutism : It does not take into account important cultural differences that determine What is moral in other societies (Baumrind, 1978). Hogan, Johnson, and EmJer (1978) take issue with the same moral absolutism that Baumrind criticizes. They advocate instead a theory of relative absolutism, in which moral standards are rules that make social life possible, and not universal principles that apply to all people in all societies. Still others have criticized Kohlberg for placing too much emphasis on the individual as the creator of moral values. They argue that moral issues arise in a social context and that the terms in which a moral sayatijm is understood are given by society. In other words, society, not the individual creates moral values. Although Kohlberg does not deny that society provides the context for moral decisions, he continues to present the individual as the source of moral values. The individual stands alone and makes a moral judgment in a particular social circumstance. Power and Reimer (1978) find other weaknesses in Kolilberg's theory. They point out that Kohlberg’s scale measures attitudes, not behavior, and that there is a great difference between thinking about moral behavior and acting morally. Moral decisions are not made in a vacuum; instead, they are usually made in “crisis situations.” No matter how high our moral principles, when the time comes to act on them, our behavior may not reflect our thoughts or beliefs. Carol Gilligan (1982) claims that Kohlberg, who based his stages on studies of men’s moral judgments, has not considered that women use different criteria than men for making moral judgments. In other words, Kohlberg's theory is sex- biased in favor of men. Working with Kohlberg, Gilligan found that women generally scored lower than men on Kohlberg’s moral dilemma test. Women are taught from early childhood to value other qualities than are men. In the early socialization process, boys are trained to strive for independence and to value abstract thinking. Girls, by contrast, are trained to be nurturing, caring, and to value their connectedness to others. The socialization process tends to produce stereotypical responses in both men and women, which are reflected in Kohlberg's tests. Women are less likely than men to make absolute moral judgments and are more likely to exhibit “an apparent diffusion and co— of judgment” and therefore score poorly on the test (Gilligan, 1982). .  In her major study In a Different Voice : Psychological Theory and Women’s Development (1982), Gilligan argues that there are essentially two methods ol moral reasoning. One is based on concepts of justice and the other on caring for others. These methods can be sexually differentiated. The justice perspective is characteristic of male thinking, while caring for others is common to women’s moral reasoning. Men focus on rights and think in highly individualistic terms. relationships and concerns for die needs of both in amoral dilemma. However Gilligan notes, some women make moral judgments from a justice perspective and some men from a caring one. Sexual differentiation in moral reasoning is not absolute. It results from the socialization process. As a consequence of their predispositions, however, men tend to base their judgments on abstract moral principles and women generally on human needs in concrete situations. Neither is fully satisfactory, Gilligan says. Abstract reasoning often ignores the human dimension of moral situations, while over-concern with human needs tends to fuzzy thinking and the inability to make tough decisions in difficult situations. Some of both methods of reasoning are needed for the best moral judgments. Gilligan argues that Kohlberg’s stage theory needs to include the female perspective along with the male’s. Kohlberg himself (1978) reviewed his findings and acknowledged that the various distinctions pointed out by others are important. He decided that behavior should be studied not wholly in terms of people’s internal attitudes, but partly in terms of the moral norms of the group to which they belong. He has concluded that his sixth stage of moral development may not apply to all people in all cultures. Kohlberg's ideas about moral development, like all the social cognition theories we have discussed in this section, are open to question. Cognitive theorists assume that people develop social knowledge in progressive, age-related stages. They also assume that people reach these stages on their own, as a result of individual cognitive processes, and not as a result of cultural values instilled during the process of socialization. This implies that these cognitive processes are innate and occur at the same time in all cultures. While the cognitive approach seems to best explain some of the processes that occur in middle childhood, it is best to keep in mind that social cognition is a relatively new field and that important questions are still to be answered. Moral development extends from childhood into adolescence and young adulthood, and many individuals never reach the highest stages. Like the other theories of social cognition that we have discussed, Kohlberg's view emphasizes the significance of intellectual maturity and reasoning capacity in development. However, recent studies indicate that sympathy and empathy may have a positive effect on the level of maturity in moral reasoning (Eisenberg ct al., 1987). All of these social cognition processes become increasingly important in adolescence, and we will discuss them further in chapter 13.

PEERS AND SOCIAL COMPETENCE - Friendships - Children and adults alike benefit from having dose, confiding relationships. In the context of friendships, children learn social concepts and social skills. What are some of the functions of friendship pairs during middle childhood and how do children learn about friendship? We will examine these issues in the foUowing section.

FRIENDSHIP PAIRS Friendship patterns shift during childhood (Piaget, 1965). The “egocentric” pattern, typical of the preschool years, changes inc childhood when children begin to form close relationships, often with a few best friends. These friendship ties are very strong while they last, but they tend to be

왼쪽 각주 Moral absolutism Any theory of morality that disregards cultural differences in moral beliefs.