Artikelen gezinspedagogiek
Artikel 1: Hardy, S. B. (2007). Evolutionary context of human development: The
cooperative breeding model. Family relationships: An evolutionary perspective
Introduction:
John Bowlby was the first evolutionary psychologist to explore how selection pressures encountered by our
Pleistocene ancestors (what he termed “the environment of evolutionary adaptedness,” or EEA) shaped the
development of human infants. Bowlby assumed that the mother was the primary, typically exclusive,
caretaker in the EEA. In later versions of his book, Bowlby (influenced by Ainsworth and others) mentioned the
possibility of multiple caretakers, but he nevertheless continued to centre his model on a Victorian division of
labour within a pair bond where a sexually monandrous mother nurtured offspring provisioned by their father.
The last quarter century has Attention began to focus on assistance from group members other than the
genetic parents.
The study of cooperative breeding:
Cooperative breeding is a breeding system in which group members, other than the genetic parents
(alloparents), help one or both parents rear their offspring. The altruism of alloparents is explained by
Hamilton’s rule: The cost of helping should be less than benefits to offspring calibrated in line with the
alloparent’s degree of relatedness to his or her charge. Alloparents enhance their inclusive fitness by helping
kin. Today most theorists acknowledge that kinship facilitates the evolution of cooperative breeding, even if it
is not necessarily essential to maintain helping behaviours in all contexts.
Ecological and Life-History Outcomes:
Cooperative breeding systems tend to be flexible and dynamic. There are often one or more mated pairs, but
depending on circumstances, which fluctuate from one habitat to another, and over the course of lifetimes, a
breeding female may mate monogamously, polyandrously (i.e., with several males), or polygynously (sharing
her mate with other females). At a physiological level there has to be sufficient phenotypic flexibility so
individuals can shift between nonreproductive and reproductive roles. At a cognitive and emotional level, there
has to be some prior predisposition among alloparents to respond to signs of infant need. That is, the
underlying neural circuitry has to be there in both sexes and in virgin and parous females.
Why humans must have evolved as cooperative breeders:
Humans are costly to produce, mature slowly, and rarely reach nutritional independence before age 18 or
older. Even with four-year or longer birth intervals, a hunter–gatherer mother would have a new offspring
before her last one became entirely self-sufficient. To rear a child from infancy to nutritional independence
exceeds what a mother could provide by herself. Even when men manage to kill a large animal, meat is typically
shared with the group at large rather than channelled to a man’s own mate and her offspring. What kept
children from starvation? Part of the answer is that many early humans did starve. But which ones survived?
Availability of allomothers in Pleistocene societies:
Hawkes et al. focused attention on the role of older matrilineal kin, especially “hardworking” grandmothers
studied among Hadza hunter–gatherers in Tanzania. In times of food shortage, children with older matrilineal
kin on hand grew better. The need to expand the number of available “kin” may help explain why classificatory
kinship systems are so common, as well as why foragers place so much stock in trade networks and other
reciprocal relationships. Wiessner argues that one reason that a talented hunter would expend effort hunting
large game and sharing out the meat is that he thereby influenced the demographic composition and political
dispositions of his group. By recruiting group members likely to be both efficient providers and/or generous
allomothers, a hunter could thus enhance the survival chances of kin.
The debate over Residence Patterns:
Demographic reconstructions of Pleistocene family life rely on assumptions about residence patterns. Based on
a two-pronged set of assumptions, it was long taken for granted that early humans lived patrilocally.
,Artikel 2: Conger & Donnellan (2007). An interactionist perspective on the socioeconomic
context of human development.
Introduction:
The present report provides a selective review of research and theory related to the impact of socioeconomic
status (SES) on human development, with a special emphasis on the proposition that the family acts as a
conduit for socioeconomic influences on the development of children and adolescents. Two dominant
perspectives are considered and critically evaluated on the causal relation between SES and the development
of children: the social causation explanation and the social selection explanation.
Important Developmental Correlates of Socioeconomic Circumstances:
Research by developmental scholars joins with research in social epidemiology on health disparities, or the
general trend that more socially and economically disadvantaged adults and children are at increased risk for
physical, emotional, and behavioural problems. With respect to the influence of SES on children and
adolescents, there is evidence for an association between poverty and mental health, SES and cognitive
development, and social class position and physical wellbeing. There are several reasons to suggest that the
influence of SES on children and adolescents may result from the actions of parents.
lower-SES compared with middle-SES parents are more likely to use a harsher, more authoritarian,
parenting style as indicated by physical punishment and the absence of reasoning with children about
the consequences of their behaviour. These parenting practices have been linked to less competent
social and emotional development for children and adolescents.
middle- compared with lower SES parents are more likely to use richer vocabularies and to engage in
cognitively stimulating activities with their children.
The multifaceted nature of SES:
SES is a construct that captures various dimensions of social position, including prestige, power, and economic
well-being. Three quantitative indicators provide reasonably good coverage of the domains of interest:
1. income
2. education
3. occupational status
These represent separate yet related personal, social, and economic resources that have important
implications for the health and wellbeing of both parents and children. These resources can be thought of as
“capital” that differentiates persons, households, and neighbourhoods. Each aspect of SES may have an
important independent influence on how children are raised and on how they develop over time. As such,
researchers should separately measure income, education, and occupational status and use analytic techniques
that are capable of identifying the potentially unique associations each has with human development
Moving from a Static to an Interactionist Model of Socioeconomic Status and Development:
The social causation argument, predicts that social conditions lead to variations in social, emotional, cognitive,
and physical functioning. The antithesis to this viewpoint is the social selection argument, which proposes that
the traits and dispositions of parents influence their social status and the health and well-being of their
children. According to an interactionist perspective, the actual processes through which SES and a person’s
health and well-being come to be associated with one another are far more complex than suggested by either
the social causation or social selection point of view. From this integrative perspective, the association between
SES and human development involves a dynamic interplay between social causation and social selection. That
is, the interactionist view of human development proposes an ongoing reciprocal relationship between the
characteristics of individuals and the broader socioeconomic environments in which they live
A social causation view of socioeconomic influence:
There are two major theoretical approaches we can describe that are consistent with the social causation
perspective:
, 1. the family stress model (FSM) of economic hardship = proposes that financial difficulties have an
adverse effect on parents’ emotions, behaviours, and relationships, which in turn negatively influence
their parenting strategies
2. the family investment model (FIM) = drawing attention to the ways that parents invest financial,
social, and human capital to promote the talents and well-being of their children.
The family stress model of economic hardship:
This model focuses on the economic dimension of SES, consistent with evidence that low income is associated
with significant developmental difficulties for children, especially when poverty is severe or persistent. The FSM
proposes that economic hardship leads to economic pressure in the family. Markers of hardship include low
income, high debts relative to assets, and negative financial events. These hardship conditions are expected to
affect family functioning and individual adjustment primarily through the economic pressures they generate.
The FSM proposes that economic pressures include:
unmet material needs involving necessities such as adequate food and clothing
the inability to pay bills or make ends meet
having to cut back on even necessary expenses
The model predicts that when economic pressure is high, parents are at increased risk for emotional distress
and for behavioural problems. These emotional or behavioural problems predict increased marital conflict and
reduced marital warmth, and this process diminishes nurturing and involved parenting. That is, parents
distracted by their own personal problems and marital distress are expected to demonstrate less affection
toward their children, to be less involved in their children’s daily activities, and to be more irritable, harsh, and
inconsistent in their disciplinary practices.
Also, when families experience economic hardship, children are at risk for suffering both decreases in positive
adjustment and increases in internalizing or externalizing problems. The studies reviewed in this article suggest
that the FSM is a useful model for helping to understand how the economic aspects of SES may influence family
members, child-rearing practices, and the adjustment of children and adolescents.
The family investment model:
The FIM is rooted in investment and builds on the notion that higher SES compared with lower-SES parents
have greater access to financial, social, and human capital. The investment of these resources by families is
associated with the successful development of children and adolescents. The investments involve several
different dimensions of family support, including
learning materials available in the home
parent stimulation of learning both directly and through support of advanced or specialized tutoring
or training
the family’s standard of living
residing in a location that fosters a child’s competent development
The model proposes that parents with more prestigious and higher paying work roles will tend to invest in their
children in at least two important ways.
1. they provide social capital by increasing access to employment and other career-related activities.
2. They provide human capital by guiding their children toward activities that will promote their eventual
career success
So, the FIM proposes that parents with greater resources are likely to invest their economic, educational, and
occupational capital in ways that facilitate the well-being of their offspring from childhood into the adult years.
Summary:
Health disparities are pervasive and demonstrate that lower socioeconomic status is associated with less
healthy physical, emotional, behavioural, and cognitive functioning of adults and children. The relationship
between SES and healthy development is likely complex. Empirical evidence suggests that low SES may have an
adverse influence on child development by exacerbating family stresses that reduce the effective functioning of
Artikel 1: Hardy, S. B. (2007). Evolutionary context of human development: The
cooperative breeding model. Family relationships: An evolutionary perspective
Introduction:
John Bowlby was the first evolutionary psychologist to explore how selection pressures encountered by our
Pleistocene ancestors (what he termed “the environment of evolutionary adaptedness,” or EEA) shaped the
development of human infants. Bowlby assumed that the mother was the primary, typically exclusive,
caretaker in the EEA. In later versions of his book, Bowlby (influenced by Ainsworth and others) mentioned the
possibility of multiple caretakers, but he nevertheless continued to centre his model on a Victorian division of
labour within a pair bond where a sexually monandrous mother nurtured offspring provisioned by their father.
The last quarter century has Attention began to focus on assistance from group members other than the
genetic parents.
The study of cooperative breeding:
Cooperative breeding is a breeding system in which group members, other than the genetic parents
(alloparents), help one or both parents rear their offspring. The altruism of alloparents is explained by
Hamilton’s rule: The cost of helping should be less than benefits to offspring calibrated in line with the
alloparent’s degree of relatedness to his or her charge. Alloparents enhance their inclusive fitness by helping
kin. Today most theorists acknowledge that kinship facilitates the evolution of cooperative breeding, even if it
is not necessarily essential to maintain helping behaviours in all contexts.
Ecological and Life-History Outcomes:
Cooperative breeding systems tend to be flexible and dynamic. There are often one or more mated pairs, but
depending on circumstances, which fluctuate from one habitat to another, and over the course of lifetimes, a
breeding female may mate monogamously, polyandrously (i.e., with several males), or polygynously (sharing
her mate with other females). At a physiological level there has to be sufficient phenotypic flexibility so
individuals can shift between nonreproductive and reproductive roles. At a cognitive and emotional level, there
has to be some prior predisposition among alloparents to respond to signs of infant need. That is, the
underlying neural circuitry has to be there in both sexes and in virgin and parous females.
Why humans must have evolved as cooperative breeders:
Humans are costly to produce, mature slowly, and rarely reach nutritional independence before age 18 or
older. Even with four-year or longer birth intervals, a hunter–gatherer mother would have a new offspring
before her last one became entirely self-sufficient. To rear a child from infancy to nutritional independence
exceeds what a mother could provide by herself. Even when men manage to kill a large animal, meat is typically
shared with the group at large rather than channelled to a man’s own mate and her offspring. What kept
children from starvation? Part of the answer is that many early humans did starve. But which ones survived?
Availability of allomothers in Pleistocene societies:
Hawkes et al. focused attention on the role of older matrilineal kin, especially “hardworking” grandmothers
studied among Hadza hunter–gatherers in Tanzania. In times of food shortage, children with older matrilineal
kin on hand grew better. The need to expand the number of available “kin” may help explain why classificatory
kinship systems are so common, as well as why foragers place so much stock in trade networks and other
reciprocal relationships. Wiessner argues that one reason that a talented hunter would expend effort hunting
large game and sharing out the meat is that he thereby influenced the demographic composition and political
dispositions of his group. By recruiting group members likely to be both efficient providers and/or generous
allomothers, a hunter could thus enhance the survival chances of kin.
The debate over Residence Patterns:
Demographic reconstructions of Pleistocene family life rely on assumptions about residence patterns. Based on
a two-pronged set of assumptions, it was long taken for granted that early humans lived patrilocally.
,Artikel 2: Conger & Donnellan (2007). An interactionist perspective on the socioeconomic
context of human development.
Introduction:
The present report provides a selective review of research and theory related to the impact of socioeconomic
status (SES) on human development, with a special emphasis on the proposition that the family acts as a
conduit for socioeconomic influences on the development of children and adolescents. Two dominant
perspectives are considered and critically evaluated on the causal relation between SES and the development
of children: the social causation explanation and the social selection explanation.
Important Developmental Correlates of Socioeconomic Circumstances:
Research by developmental scholars joins with research in social epidemiology on health disparities, or the
general trend that more socially and economically disadvantaged adults and children are at increased risk for
physical, emotional, and behavioural problems. With respect to the influence of SES on children and
adolescents, there is evidence for an association between poverty and mental health, SES and cognitive
development, and social class position and physical wellbeing. There are several reasons to suggest that the
influence of SES on children and adolescents may result from the actions of parents.
lower-SES compared with middle-SES parents are more likely to use a harsher, more authoritarian,
parenting style as indicated by physical punishment and the absence of reasoning with children about
the consequences of their behaviour. These parenting practices have been linked to less competent
social and emotional development for children and adolescents.
middle- compared with lower SES parents are more likely to use richer vocabularies and to engage in
cognitively stimulating activities with their children.
The multifaceted nature of SES:
SES is a construct that captures various dimensions of social position, including prestige, power, and economic
well-being. Three quantitative indicators provide reasonably good coverage of the domains of interest:
1. income
2. education
3. occupational status
These represent separate yet related personal, social, and economic resources that have important
implications for the health and wellbeing of both parents and children. These resources can be thought of as
“capital” that differentiates persons, households, and neighbourhoods. Each aspect of SES may have an
important independent influence on how children are raised and on how they develop over time. As such,
researchers should separately measure income, education, and occupational status and use analytic techniques
that are capable of identifying the potentially unique associations each has with human development
Moving from a Static to an Interactionist Model of Socioeconomic Status and Development:
The social causation argument, predicts that social conditions lead to variations in social, emotional, cognitive,
and physical functioning. The antithesis to this viewpoint is the social selection argument, which proposes that
the traits and dispositions of parents influence their social status and the health and well-being of their
children. According to an interactionist perspective, the actual processes through which SES and a person’s
health and well-being come to be associated with one another are far more complex than suggested by either
the social causation or social selection point of view. From this integrative perspective, the association between
SES and human development involves a dynamic interplay between social causation and social selection. That
is, the interactionist view of human development proposes an ongoing reciprocal relationship between the
characteristics of individuals and the broader socioeconomic environments in which they live
A social causation view of socioeconomic influence:
There are two major theoretical approaches we can describe that are consistent with the social causation
perspective:
, 1. the family stress model (FSM) of economic hardship = proposes that financial difficulties have an
adverse effect on parents’ emotions, behaviours, and relationships, which in turn negatively influence
their parenting strategies
2. the family investment model (FIM) = drawing attention to the ways that parents invest financial,
social, and human capital to promote the talents and well-being of their children.
The family stress model of economic hardship:
This model focuses on the economic dimension of SES, consistent with evidence that low income is associated
with significant developmental difficulties for children, especially when poverty is severe or persistent. The FSM
proposes that economic hardship leads to economic pressure in the family. Markers of hardship include low
income, high debts relative to assets, and negative financial events. These hardship conditions are expected to
affect family functioning and individual adjustment primarily through the economic pressures they generate.
The FSM proposes that economic pressures include:
unmet material needs involving necessities such as adequate food and clothing
the inability to pay bills or make ends meet
having to cut back on even necessary expenses
The model predicts that when economic pressure is high, parents are at increased risk for emotional distress
and for behavioural problems. These emotional or behavioural problems predict increased marital conflict and
reduced marital warmth, and this process diminishes nurturing and involved parenting. That is, parents
distracted by their own personal problems and marital distress are expected to demonstrate less affection
toward their children, to be less involved in their children’s daily activities, and to be more irritable, harsh, and
inconsistent in their disciplinary practices.
Also, when families experience economic hardship, children are at risk for suffering both decreases in positive
adjustment and increases in internalizing or externalizing problems. The studies reviewed in this article suggest
that the FSM is a useful model for helping to understand how the economic aspects of SES may influence family
members, child-rearing practices, and the adjustment of children and adolescents.
The family investment model:
The FIM is rooted in investment and builds on the notion that higher SES compared with lower-SES parents
have greater access to financial, social, and human capital. The investment of these resources by families is
associated with the successful development of children and adolescents. The investments involve several
different dimensions of family support, including
learning materials available in the home
parent stimulation of learning both directly and through support of advanced or specialized tutoring
or training
the family’s standard of living
residing in a location that fosters a child’s competent development
The model proposes that parents with more prestigious and higher paying work roles will tend to invest in their
children in at least two important ways.
1. they provide social capital by increasing access to employment and other career-related activities.
2. They provide human capital by guiding their children toward activities that will promote their eventual
career success
So, the FIM proposes that parents with greater resources are likely to invest their economic, educational, and
occupational capital in ways that facilitate the well-being of their offspring from childhood into the adult years.
Summary:
Health disparities are pervasive and demonstrate that lower socioeconomic status is associated with less
healthy physical, emotional, behavioural, and cognitive functioning of adults and children. The relationship
between SES and healthy development is likely complex. Empirical evidence suggests that low SES may have an
adverse influence on child development by exacerbating family stresses that reduce the effective functioning of
