UM Culture in Social Development & Racial & Ethnic Differences in Aging Article Analysis


University of Mississippi

Question Description

I need 2 paragraph summaries for each of the following articles. The 2 paragraphs must describe relevance to attached paper. APA FORMAT. No Plagiarism. Wording not too fancy. Answer as if a social work major.

Unformatted Attachment Preview

See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: Race, Ethnicity, and Culture in Child Development: Contemporary Research and Future Directions Article in Child Development · September 2006 DOI: 10.1111/j.1467-8624.2006.00951.x · Source: PubMed CITATIONS READS 171 3,730 10 authors, including: Josefina Grau Wiliam Edward Cross, Jr. Kent State University University of Denver 13 PUBLICATIONS 258 CITATIONS 18 PUBLICATIONS 1,120 CITATIONS SEE PROFILE SEE PROFILE Cynthia Hudley Diane Hughes University of California, Santa Barbara New York University 74 PUBLICATIONS 1,853 CITATIONS 63 PUBLICATIONS 4,951 CITATIONS SEE PROFILE SEE PROFILE Some of the authors of this publication are also working on these related projects: Encouraging Maternal Guidance of Preschoolers’ Spatial Thinking During Block Play View project All content following this page was uploaded by Josefina Grau on 10 February 2020. The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file. Child Development, September/October 2006, Volume 77, Number 5, Pages 1129 – 1141 Race, Ethnicity, and Culture in Child Development: Contemporary Research and Future Directions Stephen M. Quintana Frances E. Aboud University of Wisconsin McGill University Ruth K. Chao Josefina Contreras-Grau University of California-Riverside Kent State University William E. Cross, Jr. Cynthia Hudley City University of New York University of California, Santa Barbara Diane Hughes Lynn S. Liben New York University The Pennsylvania State University Sharon Nelson-Le Gall Deborah L. Vietze University of Pittsburgh CUNY Graduate Center The editors of this special issue reflect on the current status and future directions of research on race, ethnicity, and culture in child development. Research in the special issue disentangles race, ethnicity, culture, and immigrant status, and identifies mediators of sociocultural variables on developmental outcomes. The special issue includes important research on normal development in context for ethnic and racial minority children, addresses racial and ethnic identity development, and considers intergroup processes. The methodological innovations as well as challenges of current research are highlighted. It is recommended that future research adhere to principles of cultural validity described in the text. The contents of this special issue (SI) reflect the scholarship of authors who submitted their manuscripts, the contributions of the consultants who provided careful and thoughtful reviews of manuscripts, and the work of the editors who selected and shaped final manuscripts. The response to this issue was overwhelming at every level. More than 300 letters of intent were submitted in response to the preliminary callFmore than the number of manuscripts many journals receive in a year. The response from scholars invited to edit and review SI manuscripts was similarly remarkableFvirtually every person invited to participate agreed to review, and many others volunteered. Vonnie C. McLoyd and Margaret Beale Spencer accepted our invitation to reflect on how the field has changed since they edited the 1990 Special Issue on Minority Children. These uniformly enthusiastic responses speak to the great significance that race, culture, and ethnicity currently have in the field of child development. Collectively, the contents of this issue showcase progress and promising forms of innovation while revealing persisting limitations in extant research. In this editorial, the SI editors have joined together to document the goals of the SI, to place the SI in historical context, to highlight some of the major points made in the final collection of articles, to identify some remaining challenges and lacunae, and to offer recommendations for future work. The Call and Response The call for papers identified three foci for the SI: The order of authorship beyond the lead editor is alphabetical to reflect the shared contribution of the special issue editors to the production of this issue and editorial statement. Correspondence concerning this article should be addressed to Stephen M. Quintana, 1000 Bascom Mall, University of Wisconsin, Madison, WI 53706. Electronic mail may be sent to Normative Development in ContextFcovering language, cognitive, social, personality, academic, and behavioral development for children from r 2006 by the Society for Research in Child Development, Inc. All rights reserved. 0009-3920/2006/7705-0001 1130 Quintana et al. racial and ethnic minority groups in specific ecological contexts, such as urban and rural neighborhoods, segregated and integrated settings, and low income and middle class. Of special interest are investigations of the ways developmental processes operate in ecological contexts. Intergroup Relations and AttitudesFaddressing children’s and adolescents’ ethnic attitudes and behavior, including prejudice, discrimination, and ethnic pride; dynamics of intergroup conflict; causes and consequences of racial attitudes; and characteristics and formation of intergroup friendships and relationships. Identity DevelopmentFconcerning the formation and development of children’s racial, ethnic, and cultural identity including social cognitive processes, the implications of bicultural and multicultural identification, bilingualism and multilingualism, immigration and migration, and acculturation and enculturation processes that support these identity processes. The articles appearing in this SI are balanced across these three domains, with many articles addressing two and some addressing all three domains. Of the 25 articles, 7 focused on both normative development and racial identity or racial socialization, 5 focused only on racial identity, 9 focused only on normative development, and 4 focused on intergroup relations and attitudes. Eleven articles focused on multiple ethnic or racial groups, and 14 focused on a single ethnic or racial group. Thirteen articles included African American participants, 10 included Latino participants, 8 included European American participants, 4 included Asian American participants, and 1 included Native American participants. Three articles investigated immigrant groups; 3 investigated populations outside of the United States, Canada, or the European Union; and 1 investigated multiracial youth (numbers do not sum to 25 because some studies included multiple populations). Comparison With the 1990 SI Progress in studying race, culture, and ethnicity can be identified by comparing the current SI with the 1990 SI (Spencer & McLoyd, 1990). Many differences between the two SIs reflect broader changes in the field of child development. Whereas in the 1990 SI only about 5% of the empirical studies were longitudinal, in the current SI, roughly 33% of the empirical studies were longitudinal. Longitudinal designs provide obvious benefits for sorting out the direction of influence among developmental varia- bles and elucidating prospective changes. In the current SI, Pahl and Way (2006) found support for reciprocal relationships between discrimination and ethnic identity but discovered that the path from discrimination to ethnic identity was stronger than the reverse. Similarly, Brody et al. (2006) found reciprocal relationships between discrimination and conduct disorders but discovered that the path from discrimination to later conduct disorders was stronger. The growth in the proportion of longitudinal designs investigating race, ethnicity, and culture in this SI reflects the increased reliance on longitudinal designs in the field of child development more broadly. Another important difference between the two SIs is that articles in the 1990 SI focused on either parental characteristics or children’s activity, whereas articles in the current SI examined the connection between parental socialization and child outcomes. The SIs also differ in the way context is represented. Articles in the 1990 SI focused on the family context including family structure (e.g., single- or two-parent families) and parental social class and educational levels, whereas articles in the current SI expanded the focus to include neighborhood (ethnic composition, prevalence of violence, social class) and peer group (sociometric status, racial density, ethnic affiliation). Again, these trends in research on ethnic and racial minority children and families reflect broader growth in the field of child development due to, for example, the application of Bronfenbrenner’s (1986) ecological theory to developmental research (e.g., Garcia Coll, Crnic, Lamberty, & Wasik, 1996). Research in the current SI demonstrates how the field has benefited from the requirement by some granting agencies (e.g., National Institutes for Health, National Science Foundation) to include historically underrepresented groups (Office of Budget Management, 1997, Directive 15). As a result, many federally funded studies are now better able to test the external validity of their findings across ethnic and racial groups. In the present SI, the Early Childhood Longitudinal Study, Birth Cohort Study has a sample large enough to establish the generalizability of some parenting constructs for two separate Latino populations (Cabrera et al., 2006). Advances in methodological rigor in developmental research in general thus aid the study of race and ethnicity in child development, but these advances cannot substitute for innovations specific to the study of race and ethnicity. For example, even large-sample, longitudinal investigations are of limited value if the measurements of racial or cultural features remain outdated. Special Issue Editorial SI Articles and Current Trends Disentangling Race and Ethnicity From Culture Developmental research has been attempting to disentangle the various components associated with ethnic and racial minority children by examining the individual contribution of each sociocultural characteristic (e.g., race, culture, social class) as well as the interactions of multiple sociocultural features. Of particular importance within this SI are approaches that unpack race and ethnicity from culture in children’s development. Historically, racial and cultural statuses have been conceptually confounded and empirically conflated. It is important to note that race is not used here to denote the biological and genetic characteristics presumed to underlie differences across racial groups. We recognize that the biological and genetic integrity of racial classifications has been seriously challenged (e.g., Smedley & Smedley, 2005). Consequently, race instead refers to its socially constructed meaning in which differences between racial groups perceived to be immutable because of the belief that racial differences are based on genetic and biological characteristics. Hence, we do not wish to reify the presumed biological and genetic reality of the term race but acknowledge there remain socially constructed connotations of the term that are meaningful. When investigating issues of race and ethnicity in child development, researchers have focused most often on racial or ethnic minority groups. However, logically racially or ethnically privileged groups are no less affected by racial and ethnic issues than are minority groups, albeit in ways that are less often acknowledged (see Spencer, 2006). For example, most research conducted on racially privileged children vis-à-vis their racial status has focused on racial prejudice (e.g., Katz, 2003). Research by social psychologists has identified several psychological benefits of racial privilege for self-esteem, social status, and cognitive and academic performance (Crocker, Blaine, & Luhtanen, 1993; Stangor & Thompson, 2002; Steele & Aronson, 2000). The developmental implications of these benefits for racially privileged children require further study (Spencer, 2006). The racialized context of children’s and youth’s development is reflected in several articles in this issue. Specifically, investigators studied the effect of racial discrimination on development (e.g., Altschul, Oyserman, & Bybee, 2006; Brody et al., 2006; Pahl & Way, 2006) as well as the impact of parents’ racial socialization of their children (e.g., Caughy, Nettles, O’Campo, & Lohrfink, 2006). Several researchers 1131 also studied White children’s racial prejudice with a focus on the stability and malleability of these intergroup attitudes (e.g., Cameron, Rutland, Brown, & Douch, 2006; Jackson, Barth, Powell, & Lochman, 2006). Several others compared and contrasted discrimination experiences and the sequela of discrimination across racially stigmatized groups. For example, the experience and effects of ethnic and racial discrimination for Latino and African American populations are similar in important ways (Altschul et al., 2006; Pahl & Way, 2006). Hence, research in this SI concerns the influence of racial and ethnic minority status on children’s development. Although this direction is not new, the articles in this issue reflect the increasing sophistication in separating the influences of racial and ethnic status from cultural status. Other research in this SI addressed cultural influences on development, focusing on specific cultural groups, comparisons across culturally different groups, or differences due to acculturation processes. Their studies add to a relatively long history of research on cultural features associated with children’s development, especially among Latino and Asian American children. Halgunseth, Ispa, and Rudy (2006) provided the most comprehensive review of the cultural foundation for Latino parenting in which parenting styles are understood based on the socialization goals indigenous to this cultural group. Halgunseth et al. offered cultural explanations for why Latinos tend to use greater parental control but do not exhibit some of the negative effects associated with high parental control that has been found for White American parents. Findings from Updegraff, McHale, Whiteman, Thayer, and Crouter (2006) also speak to the importance of adult supervision of adolescent youth. In particular, these investigators found that the amount of unsupervised time that Latino adolescents spent with peers was associated with adjustment problems. Because no comparison group was included, Updegraff et al. were unable to discern whether the strength of the association between unsupervised time and adjustment was stronger for Latinos than for other groups. Other researchers demonstrated that developmental principles are consistent across cultural group differences. For example, Cabrera et al. (2006) reported that a parenting construct for promoting development in other populations was associated with development for Latino groups. An important trend in the field is the separation of cultural socialization from racial socialization for African Americans. Authors of two articles in this issue (Caughy et al., 2006; McHale et al., 2006) 1132 Quintana et al. separated two kinds of socialization: (a) cultural socialization indicated, for example, by presence of Africentric cultural items (e.g., toys, books, clothing) in the home and (b) racial socialization indicated by parents preparing their children for racial bias and promoting racial mistrust. The findings from these two articles empirically differentiated between cultural and racial socialization: Racial socialization was more strongly related to negative outcomes (e.g., external locus of control) and less strongly related to positive outcomes (e.g., cognitive development) than was cultural socialization. These results reinforce the importance of separating cultural socialization from racial socialization in empirical work with African American populations as well as with other racial minority groups. In another SI article, Cole, Tamang, and Shrestha (2006) investigated the interaction of culture and race in child development. Their findings raise the intriguing possibility that cultural socialization practices may prepare children for the relative privileged or stigmatized positions their groups hold in hierarchical societies. Cole et al. focused on two cultural groups in Nepal, both of which are considered collectivistic in their cultural orientations but hold different social positions in a caste system within their larger society. Cole et al. showed how differences in children’s emotional socialization were connected to either the minority or dominant status of their respective group. Children in the dominant group were socialized in ways that encouraged their mastery and persistence in academic tasks, and children in the minority group were socialized in ways that encouraged the expression of shame and deference. Whereas most of the research on ethnic or racial minority children has identified possible cultural processes to explain differences in their socialization, Cole et al. are one of the few who investigated a racialized component of cultural socialization. Spencer (2006) noted the absence of, but also the critical need for, research into how racially dominant children are socialized with respect to racial privilege. Similarly, few researchers have investigated the implications for cultural socialization of children in racially privileged groups, in which their culture is presumed to be normative and other cultures are viewed as non-normative. Although there has been some investigation into the cultural foundation for the development of children of European descent based on comparisons between putative individualistic and collectivistic groups (e.g., Harkness, Raeff, & Super, 2000), much of this research has confounded cultural values (i.e., individualism) with racial privilege. That is, little attention has been given to distinguishing cultural differences from racial privilege. In short, the field appears to be making progress in disentangling race and ethnicity from culture, but further work is needed to extend this approach to studying the developmental consequences of how ethnic or racial status interact with cultural status. Disentangling Immigration Status From Culture Immigration and cultural status are often confounded in developmental research, but as evidenced by two articles in this issue (Leventhal, Xue, & Brooks-Gunn, 2006; Tseng, 2006) there is movement toward separating these two statuses. These SI studies suggested there are developmental advantages associated with immigrant status. This advantage can be understood by reference to Ogbu (1994), who suggested that immigrants have several advantages such as being voluntary minorities. This positive frame of reference may help immigrant groups compensate for their status as cultural and linguistic minorities. Previous research has, however, confounded immigrant status with culture. It is possible that some of the positive characteristics that have been attributed to some cultural groups over others (e.g., the academic performance of African American youth vs. Asian American youth) may reflect differential proportions of recent immigrants. Tseng challenged the stereotype that the greater interest in math and science associated with Asian immigrants to the United States, relative to Latinos or African Americans, is necessarily due to differences in cultural values. Instead, she found across various ethnic and cultural groupsFincluding Latinos, African Americans, and Asian Americans Fthat immigrant youth and adolescent offspring of immigrants chose university majors with higher concentrations of math and science compared with third-generation youth from these same ethnic groups. Although some differences between groups may be due to cultural values, Tseng documented that some differences in academic preferences and activity are due to generat ...
Purchase answer to see full attachment
Student has agreed that all tutoring, explanations, and answers provided by the tutor will be used to help in the learning process and in accordance with Studypool's honor code & terms of service.

Final Answer



Lifespan Development
Student’s Name
Institutional Affiliation




1st Article: The Role of Culture in social development over the lifespan: An interpersonal
relations approach
The article's main highlights are the advantages and problems in relation to
developmental cultural psychology life span. Several assumptions are made such as human
development begins at birth and stops during death. The second assumption posits that culture
affects human development and the converse is true. Comparing psychological using diverse
cultural contexts allows universality testing and takes into account the specific cultural aspects of
these processes. This allows overcoming ethnocentric bias and giving a chance to disentangle the
confounding variables (Trommsdorff, 2000). Some contextual situations that are assumed
supposedly to impact development such as socio-economic structure, family systems, and
cultural values can be controlled without accounting fully for their complexity and context.
Human behavior changes like biological processes includes the production of hormones
in puberty, old age biological changes and are interconnected with socio-cultural factors. Human
development is affected by Social-cultural conditions and changes and vice versa is also true.
This can lead to change and cultural stability. Adolescent changes and adult development affect
the family system. This is basing on the changing gender roles and in the long-run affects the
population demographic structure. It later affects younger and older generation development
options. It also affects the social-economic changes such as the development of new social
institutions like elderly care systems. Intergeneration relations also changes together with
individual development changes.



3rd Article: Child health and Human development over the lifespan.
Human development and child health topic are wide which starts from pregnancy,
delivery, childhood, adolescence, adulthood, and finally, end of life. Several health issues affect
children before birth through young adulthood. They include childhood illnesses, accidents, and
injuries, eating and obesity as well as teenage independence. Childhood research does not end
with adolescence since human development is a lifespan issue. This led to the emergence of
pediatrics since the health problems were different from the adults together with their response to
illnesses (Bricker, Omar & Merrick, 2011). This has also led to the child health research-creation
which has also led to a better understanding of health trends and welfare, care and life quality.
However, these studies are expensive and have huge logistics involved hence making them hard
to conduct.
Conception is the start of a healthy development which involves parental health and
genetic composition. This continues up to conception and via the pregnancy period. New issues
start developing after delivery such as breastfeeding, screening of newborns, immunizations and
healthcare app...

Dr_ace (3443)

Really great stuff, couldn't ask for more.