Discuss the two basic styles of social interaction and the ways they can affect the development and
Discuss the two basic styles of social interaction and the ways they can affect the development and
From a wide variety of possible styles of social interaction that might inevitably play a role in the development of independence and conformative behaviour in children, Subbotsky (1976) choose two styles which he considered to be particularly relevant to the development of independent and conformative behaviour. The first being an authoritarian style the second a democratic style, of which he wrote; In an authoritarian style of social interaction (ASI) one party has the opportunity of controlling, and in fact does control, the action of another in his or her interests; the other party does not have this possibility. In a democratic style of social interaction (DSI) , both parties have equal rights to control, and indeed do control, each other's actions according to certain common rules or programmes. (1).
Subbotsky's decision to choose these two basic styles of social interaction was based on previous experiments he had conducted to determine which styles of interaction enhanced dependency in a child's behaviour. He found that when a child was put in a situation whereby they were allowed to take a leading, teaching, or controlling role in an accompanying adults actions, this was enough to eliminate the child's Global imitative attitude (GIA) towards the adult and to foster a more independent role. Subbotsky, therefore concluded that independent and conformative behaviours in children are a product of the styles of interaction the child is exposed to. As a result of his findings he chose two styles of social interactions which accounted for these behaviours.
The conformative behaviour ( and the global imitative attitude (GIA) towards adults) is a result of a prevalence of the authoritarian style in social interactions between preschool children and adults. As the democratic style of social interactions gradually replaces ASI the independence in the children's behaviour arises. (2).
The extensive amount of research into the social interaction styles in terms of Parenting styles have found several connections between the characteristics of parents and the dependent behaviour of their preschool children. For Instance Diana Baumrind (1967, 1971,1975) conducted a number of studie of the relationship between parenting styles, and the competence and independence of their preschool children. From the many families she had studied she concluded that one of three basic parenting style were being used; these were permissive, authoritarian-restrictive or authoritative.
In general, Baumrind found that children of authoritative parents seem to be the most self-reliant, self-controlled, explorative, and content. The children of permissive parents seem to be the least self-reliant, self-controlled, and explorative. And the children of authoritarian- restrictive parents tend to be more discontented, withdrawn, and distrustful than the others (Baumrind & Black 1967).
Subbotsky suggest's that the studies on parenting styles supply us with no direct evidence for whether or not any one of the styles proposed might enhance conformative or independent behaviour in children. However, he does believe that some of the parenting classifications, identified in Baumrind studies do come close to his own scale of 'authoritarian Vs. democratic' style of social interaction. The studies also support his own hypothesis that children of restrictive and authoritative parents are more inclined to rely upon external authority in their moral judgments in comparison to children of responsive but demanding parents and that this relationship seemed to support his own findings. That a democratic style of social interaction appeared to enhance independent behaviour, whereas an authoritarian style of social interaction appeared to encourage conformity.
In order to test his hypothesis, concerning the effect of various styles of social interaction and the impact it may have on a child's behaviour Subbotsky and Drobotova (1980) conducted a series of experiments. The first of which is described overleaf.
Experiment 1. The children taking part in this experiment had shown complete independence towards an adult partner in a prior testing procedure. In the experiment the child and his/her adult partner were presented with a new and more complex programme, (this was known as the training phase. Each participant had 3 objects a cup, plate and ...
This is a preview of the whole essay
In order to test his hypothesis, concerning the effect of various styles of social interaction and the impact it may have on a child's behaviour Subbotsky and Drobotova (1980) conducted a series of experiments. The first of which is described overleaf.
Experiment 1. The children taking part in this experiment had shown complete independence towards an adult partner in a prior testing procedure. In the experiment the child and his/her adult partner were presented with a new and more complex programme, (this was known as the training phase. Each participant had 3 objects a cup, plate and spoon. The idea of the programme was that the child and his/her adult partner were expected to perform identical movements with their objects however, their movements were governed by the movements made by the experimenter with his objects. For e.g. if the experimenter put his spoon on his plate leaving his cup in its' original place then the child and the adult partner were expected to put their spoons in their cups and their cups on their plates. This is just one example of the many movements involved in the programme. A period of trial practices commenced and because the adult partner had received prior training his/her performance was far better than the child's, so the experimenter asked the partner to teach the child to perform the correct procedure. The adult partner used an authoritarian style of teaching which continued until the child performed the task correctly.
The children were then subjected to further testing using 3 different condition groups. In conditions 1 and 2 the child performed either the pretest or the posttest programme with the same adult partner as in the training phase. Whereas in condition 3 the child performed a new programme with a new adult partner. The results showed that the children in the posttest group conformed more with the same authoritarian adult partner than did the children who performed the pretest programme, again with the same partner. Children in condition 3 conformed to the same extent with the new adult partner as they did to the authoritarian partner. The conclusion made from these findings was that an authoritarian style of social interaction fosters conformity in children's behaviour. However, the children who were assigned to the pretest programme, after the training programme continued to display the independent behaviour they had shown before they'd been subjected to the training programme.
This result prompted Subbotsky to conduct a further experiment to test whether a longer and more comprehensive use of authoritarian communication could eradicate any display of independent behaviour.
Experiment 2. In this experiment children were exposed to either an authoritarian or democratic style of social interactions. The children who were later chosen to take part in the posttest conditions had first taken part in pretest trials to measure both their real and verbal independent behaviour when faced with a conflict situation. Two adults, who had not taken part in the pretest trails where then deployed to communicate with the children over the next month. This involved visiting the children in their own homes and studying with them. One of the adults employed an authoritarian style of interaction whereas the other used a democratic style.
When the children's independent behaviour was measured in later conflict programmes children displayed a reduced rate of independent behaviour than they had displayed in the pretest trials, when they were accompanied by the authoritarian adult. Whereas, children who were accompanied by the democratic adult partner showed a higher rate of independence than they had displayed in the pretest trials. This results indicates that ASI appears to prompt the development of conformative behaviour whereas DSI fosters independent behaviour.
Experiment 3. Subbotsky (1981), decided to undertake further studies to determine whether DSI enhanced independent behaviour, but this time he chose to conduct his studies outside the laboratory and in the children's classroom. These studies were conducted in Moscow, where the prevailing style of teaching is authoritarian. In order to introduce a democratic style of social interaction a break had to be made with the traditional authoritarian style of relationships which existed between the teacher and the pupil and to introduce a democratic style of social interaction within the classroom. This involved two essential changes:
(1) an equalisation of the demands made on the respective behaviours of adult and child which both children and educator may equally exercise the functions of model and controller, and (2) the educator's repudiation of social control over the child's acts (rewards and punishments) as much as possible. (3)
The purpose of these changes was to make the child feel as if he/she was playing a more equal role in the interaction between the teacher and themselves. To make the child realise that the teacher was not an infallible person, that they too could sometimes make mistakes and require guidance.
The study took place in two kindergarten classes where the children and educator's positions changed alternatively to occupying positions of pupil and teacher. The experiment was set up in a classroom with the children, the educator and an adult assistant. The assistant sat with the children and did the same things as the children did. In the first part of the study the children and the assistant learnt programme material under the guidance of the educator. In the second part the educator asked one of the children to explain to the others the material he had learnt earlier, and for the other children to check his/her actions and correct mistakes. This was then followed by the educator asking the assistant to reproduce his/her work to the class and for the children to check his/her work and to correct any errors he/she made.
At all times the educator and assistant were expected to respond in a non authoritarian way, although the educator was permitted to use a mild form of social control. However the assistant was expected to take a more passive role sometimes displaying a slight lack of confidence. To avoid any stereotyping of the adults behaviours by the children in the classroom the educator and assistant changed roles each week.
The experiment took place over a period of several months. During which time the educator and assistant performed daily exercises which contained extensive and varied material. Pre and posttest trials were conducted in October and April.
There were some noticeable changes in the behaviour of the children over the course of the experimental period. For instance, at first most of the children tended to shy away from making verbal corrections of the assistant's mistakes, it was always left to a few of the most active children to correct any errors. However, by the end of the experiment the passive children were spontaneously correcting errors or mistakes made by their peers and the adults.
Another feature of the experiment was the change in the relationship between the children and the assistant. After the initial phase of adjusting to this new style of interaction three distinct tendencies emerged in the children's attitudes towards the non authoritarian adult. These were actively negative, passively positive, and actively positive attitudes. Usually one of these tendencies predominated in the behaviour of each child. However towards the end of the experiment most of the children who had displayed actively negative attitudes has shifted towards a more passively positive attitude.
Discipline was noticeably reduced in the children's behaviour during the initial stages of the study. However, as the children adjusted to this new style of interaction, discipline was generally restored to the classroom.
Finally, another noticeable change in the behavioural characteristics of the children was their spontaneous creativity. This was displayed in a number of different ways, e.g in their use of language,when performing an assigned movement in their physical education class they would quite often vary it and they also became more imaginative and descriptive in both their modelling and drawing skills.
The posttest results of the study showed that independence had increased in both real and verbal behaviour towards adults and peers, in children who had been assigned to the experimental groups. Whereas, children in the control group exhibited a decrease in independent behaviour for all four measures. However, the differences between the independent behaviour scores of the control group and the experimental group was not significant. The results also showed that children who had displayed a high imitation coefficient in the pretest trials, and who had displayed a passive attitude throughout the programme, had by the time the programme was finished seemed to have benefited most from the democratic style of interaction and were displaying the greatest change in their development of independent behaviour.
The conclusion drawn from these results was that a democratic style of interaction between children and adults encourages and enhances development of independent behaviour in children.
Summarising the experimental data cited in this essay it seems that an authoritarian style of interaction fosters the development of conformative behaviour in children. In contrast a democratic style of interaction appears to promote independent behaviour. A further interesting outcome of the studies was that the democratic style of interaction within the school setting appeared to enhance spontaneous creativity in children. Finally one of the major significant factors to be produced by these studies is that children can change the way they assimilate social experiences from GIA to a more selective imitation of social behaviour.
What the findings of these studies seem to suggest is that although the children have the cognitive ability to distinguish between a right and wrong action they find it difficult to break with the traditional belief's which are rooted in the child's social position within society. Therefore, the findings of experiment 3 suggest that by allowing the child to become more independent and by making them realise that an adult is not as infallible, as our social upbringing often leads us to believe, it releases many inhibitions, or inner tensions the child might feel towards the adult. The democratic style of interaction, it seems therefore, made the children realise it was o.k to make mistakes, and that adults are just as likely, as they themselves are of making errors. By encouraging this type of two way interaction between the child and adult it appeared to enhance the children's confidence, which was further illustrated by their increased independent behaviour. This in turn appeared to make them less inhibited, which might well account for their heightened spontaneous, creative, active involvement in various types of lessons.
Despite all the positive effects produced by the democratic style of interaction, it also produced a certain amount of negative results, such as liberation of aggressive tendencies and a lack of discipline displayed in the children's behaviour. The process of introducing a democratic style of interaction into the classroom was also time consuming, labour intensive and emotionally draining for the adults who took part. However, Subbotsky suggested that the disadvantages could be eliminated if a mixed style of social interaction was applied. In a further study using such tactics he found that this was the case.
In conclusion, It would seem that a child's social position, reflected in the style of social interaction he or she is permitted to participate in is, to a substantial degree, responsible for the development of either independent or conforming behaviour. An authoritarian style of social interaction promoting GIA and a democratic style of social interaction promoting nonconforming behaviour. In the classroom a democratic style of interaction fosters not only independent behaviour but also seems to heighten children's spontaneous creativity. It appears however that children may benefit most from a mixture of authoritarian and democratic styles of social interaction, because the authoritarian styles seems to reduce some of the negative consequences that arise from applying the democratic style of social interaction alone.
BIBLIOGRAPHY
Aronson, E. (Ed.) (1973) Reading about the social animal. Freeman: New York.
Bandura, A. & Walters, R.H. (1970) Social learning and personality development. Holt international: Great Britain.
Fischer, K.W. & Lazerson, A. (1984) Human Development. W.H. Freeman and Company: New York.
Maslow, A.H. (1970) Motivation and Personality 2nd Edition. Harper & Row Publishers: New York.
Subbotsky, E.V. (1993) The birth of personality. The development of independent and moral behaviour in preschool children. Harvester Wheatsheaf: London.
REFERENCES
ibid. Chapter 2 pp 46-67.
QUOTATIONS
. Subbotsky, E.V. (1993) The birth of personality. P46.
2. Ibid. P46.
3. Ibid. P51.
