Learning Objectives
By the end of this section, you will be able to:
- Describe the nature of friendships and peer status in middle childhood
- Discuss the influence of family during middle childhood
- Describe features of aggression and bullying in middle childhood
- Analyze the positive and negative aspects of media use in middle childhood
Colton and Parker have been best friends since first grade. Now in fifth grade, they are inseparable. Colton always helps Parker when she needs extra help with schoolwork, and Parker always helps Colton when he is feeling shy and nervous around other kids. Despite their differences, Parker and Colton have a lot in common; they grew up on the same street and both enjoy skateboarding, eating pizza, and telling jokes.
Lately, Parker has had problems with a bully at school, who has been teasing her about her long braids. Colton has helped Parker stand up to the bully, supporting her when she’s feeling down. Thanks to their friendship, Parker has felt more resilient and braver.
A new streaming channel in which skateboarders try tricks on logs has captivated the two friends. Parker really wants to go skateboarding in the woods after school, but Colton is nervous that skating on logs and tree stumps might be more dangerous than the videos let on. He’s trying to come up with a way to convince his friend to stay at the skate park where there are other people around.
In this unit, you learn more about friendships, bullying, and the role of the media in the elementary school years.
Friendships and Peer Status
Our capacity to form and develop friendships changes in middle childhood in some fundamental ways. Proximity and similarity are still important criteria for friends, but similarity is no longer superficial or based on just demographic characteristics (Afshordi & Liberman, 2021). In middle childhood, children begin to select friends with shared interests (Afshordi & Liberman, 2021), like favorite music, shows, and hobbies, but they also rely on social cognition and relationship skills. Children who display high levels of empathy, altruism, and cooperation tend to attract more friends and playmates. A child who is outwardly aggressive or extremely withdrawn and shy may be overlooked as a possible friend or struggle with loneliness. Friendships in middle childhood can be particularly helpful in the goal of finding acceptance and inclusion and learning the rules of social and emotional engagement (Parker & Gottman, 1989).
Friendships grow in middle childhood as children begin to focus more on having positive, reciprocal friendships and developing trust with varying degrees of friendship (Maunder & Monks, 2019). Friendship has several functions: (1) it provides children with a sense of self-worth and value, (2) it is associated with learning new social and emotional skills and finding new interests, (3) it promotes resilience in children by providing companionship and support, and (4) it influences development through shared cultures and experiences (Bukowski, 2001; Parker & Gottman, 1989). Children who have at least one close friend at this age are more likely to display confidence, emotional stability, and positive coping techniques (Maunder & Monks, 2019). They also tend to have high levels of academic achievement, cognitive focus, and problem-solving and perspective-taking skills. Finally, children with more friends are more likely to experience high peer status, peer acceptance, and wider opportunities for play and inclusion (Maunder & Monks, 2019).
One way for researchers to assess peer status is to use research on peer social evaluations (van den Berg et al., 2015). Children receive a copy of their class roster and are asked to select all the classmates with whom they like spending time, and those with whom they dislike spending time. Researchers then count the number of positive and negative nominations given to each child and sort them into four categories: popular, rejected, controversial, or peer-neglected (Figure 8.6). (The classifications are not shared with the children and are used only for research purposes.) Children who receive many positive and few negative nominations are considered to be popular or well-liked in their classroom. In this context, a popular child describes a child who receives multiple positive nominations indicating that they are liked by many children. These children tend to display more prosocial and cooperative behaviors, have a high level of empathy, and apply positive coping techniques.
Those who receive few positive and many negative nominations are considered to be a rejected child by their peer group and might be actively excluded, victimized, bullied, and ridiculed. Sometimes rejected children display high levels of aggression and hostility or low levels of cooperation. Or they may have a visible disability, a developmental delay, or poor hygiene or belong to an ethnic, linguistic, or gender minority. Children who experience peer rejection are at risk of developing higher levels of depression, loneliness, and isolation (Sakyi et al., 2015). However, when rejected children have at least one good reciprocal friendship, they may be protected from these negative risks (Pedersen et al., 2007). Peer rejection that is the result of bias and social exclusion can also be prevented through creating a positive and inclusive school environment (Lynn Mulvey et al., 2017).
Children with a high number of both positive and negative nominations are well-liked in their peer group but strongly disliked by some others. They are considered a controversial child and may be more likely to use relational aggression to covertly intimidate some classmates while behaving cooperatively with others (van den Berg et al., 2015). They may be class leaders who are noticed by everyone, trendsetters, outspoken children, class clowns, or those whom some aspire to be like.
Children who receive a smaller number of both positive and negative nominations are categorized as an average child, which puts them in the largest category. Finally, children with a low number of positive and negative nominations are considered to be a peer-neglected child. They are more likely to be shy, quiet, and withdrawn from the peer group. Although they do not have bullies or enemies, they do not have friends or close allies either. They may be new to a school or have a high level of absenteeism and thus be relatively unknown by others. Early research speculated that children who experience peer neglect may also feel higher levels of anxiety, loneliness, and isolation (Newcomb et al., 1993). However, more recent research has found that peer-neglected children may actually look much more like the average or popular children and are simply nominated less (Marinucci et al., 2023; Muñoz–Silva et al., 2020).
Parents play a role in establishing the way their children are perceived by their peers. Essentially, children generalize to their peers the social behaviors they learned with their parents. In particular, the parenting style children experience influences their relationships with their peers (Rose et al., 2022). Children who have authoritarian parents (strict and harsh) tend to be less popular than children with authoritative parents (warm and responsive). The quality of friendships in children has also been linked to the quality of attachment they had with their parents earlier in life (Wong et al., 2020). Children who had a secure attachment with a parent have more positive peer relationships (Delgado et al., 2022).
Family Influences
Although peers grow more influential during middle childhood as children strive toward greater independence, family dynamics, family structure, and sibling relationships still have significant impacts on development.
Family Dynamics
As children strive for independence, they often spend more time with their peers and less with their families (Rueger et al., 2016). However, parents continue to exert social influence in the lives of their children. Parents’ primary role is now nurturing rather than providing companionship (Schacter & Margolin, 2019), and they tend to spend time with their children engaged in homework and tasks around the house. These interactions help children learn important life skills. Parents also tend to guide children differently than when the children were younger. They may begin to give them more of a say in the decision-making process (Lansford, 2022). For example, they may allow a child to provide ideas about when they will complete homework and chores.
Parents continue to play an important role in the well-being of children across a variety of family types (Fallesen & Ghler, 2019). Strengths in parenting and families that contribute to child well-being include frequent positive interactions and shared family time, parental flexibility, parent-child communication, and parental support of children’s self-regulation (Buehler, 2020). For example, children whose parents are active in their lives (such as spending time together in fun activities and helping with homework (Figure 8.7)) tend to have better self-reported well-being (Li & Guo, 2023). Additionally, open family communication reduces perceived stress and is related to lower parent-child conflict in middle childhood and adolescence (Jiménez et al., 2019).
An authoritative parenting style, high in both warmth and structure, is associated with healthier child outcomes (Baumrind, 1991). For example, in both European and Latin American countries, high parental warmth, whether authoritative or indulgent, was associated with healthier child self-concept and better emotional development than low warmth parenting styles (Fuentes et al., 2022). Parents begin to play new roles in children’s lives by scaffolding children in taking more responsibility for themselves and granting children greater autonomy as they near the end of middle childhood (Benito–Gomez et al., 2020; Huston & Ripke, 2006). As a result, parents are likely to benefit from being flexible to the changing needs of their children in this stage by maintaining support while providing children with some freedom to become more independent (Teuber et al., 2022).
Family Structure
Since 1960, the number of children living in households with two parents has steadily decreased. In 2019, about 70 percent of households with children had two parents, 26 percent had a single parent, and 4 percent had a grandparent or other nonparent as the primary caregiver. Among single-parent households, most children live with their mother; only 5 percent live with their father (Anderson et al., 2022) (Figure 8.8).
Many single-parent households are the result of divorce, although the death of a parent, adoption, and parenthood through sperm donation or surrogacy also account for some. Children in single-parent households are more likely to live in poverty (Damaske et al., 2017) and to have physical and mental health problems, behavior problems, and poorer academic achievement (Taylor & Conger, 2017). However, most are well-adjusted, particularly when the parent is single by choice (Golombok & Tasker, 2015).
A growing number of children are being raised by parents who identify as lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender, or queer (LGBTQ+) (Gates, 2015). Although most are the biological children of their parents, LGBTQ+ parents are more likely to adopt children. Research on adopted children who have faced adversity also shows these children often show resilience following adoption at similar levels (Costa et al., 2021). Research has found no differences between the development or psychosocial adjustment of children with same-sex parents and that of other children (Patterson, 2017).
Other family structures include blended and multigenerational families. Blended (or step) families consist of a couple who has at least one child from a previous marriage. In 2019, approximately 7 percent of U.S. children lived with at least one stepparent, and 17 percent lived with at least one half-sibling (Anderson et al., 2022). This structure may present some unique challenges for children. They must develop new relationships with the stepparent and possibly with stepsiblings as well. They may also experience a more complicated family structure or guidelines (Jensen & Sanner, 2021). Stepparents and biological parents may also disagree about parenting decisions, which can lead to conflict. As with many other family structures and types, there can be a wide range of levels of closeness between caregivers and children. When children in blended families face many transitions resulting in instability and a lack of closeness with a caregiver, it can reduce their overall well-being (Raley & Sweeney, 2020). However, when children feel close to their caregiver and have greater family stability, they have greater emotional and social well-being.
Multigenerational families consist of households in which three or more generations live together. Over the past two decades, the number of such households in the United States has increased, due in many cases to financial pressures. Approximately 7.2 percent of family households in the United States were multigenerational in 2020, and 8.4 percent of children under the age of eighteen years lived with their grandparents (U.S. Census, 2023). Multigenerational households are becoming more common and may offer extra support to all members of the family in cognitive functioning and social and emotional support (Lee et al., 2021).
Sibling Relationships
Almost 80 percent of U.S. children have one or more siblings (Gao, 2015), and as they grow into middle childhood, they increasingly spend more time with siblings than with parents. Siblings are a major influence on child development.
Although there can be many benefits to having a sibling, sibling relationships can also have a negative impact. Sibling rivalry may increase during middle childhood because children are engaged in more social comparison (Geerts–Perry et al., 2021). However, sibling conflict can be associated with behavior problems and poorer mental health (Buist & Vermande, 2014). Sibling conflict and aggression tend to increase when there is conflict or other adversity in the family such as death or illness (Tucker et al., 2019). But sibling relationships can also be a source of social support and a helpful context for learning social skills such as conflict resolution (Paine et al., 2022) (Figure 8.9). A warm and friendly social relationship is linked to fewer behavior problems and more prosocial behaviors (Geerts–Perry et al., 2021). When families have higher levels of warmth and communication, siblings are more likely to have less conflicts and better sibling relationships.
For children who grow up with no siblings, most research shows similar outcomes. In fact, growing up an “only” child may even offer children some small advantages in academic achievement and mental health (Chen et al., 2024; Li et al., 2021). As with many of the various family structures, a great deal of child and family well-being depends more on parenting choices, styles, and stability than on a particular family structure.
Aggression
Although aggression typically decreases during middle childhood, some children continue to be aggressive into adolescence (Evans et al., 2021). Aggression can be either proactive or reactive (Lohbeck, 2022). In proactive aggression, aggression is intentional and committed with the intent to harm; it is believed to be learned behavior. Children who engage in it typically use aggression with a goal in mind, such as bullying another child to establish social dominance. In contrast, reactive aggression is unplanned and happens in response to either real or imagined provocation, typically when a child is frustrated or angry.
Aggression can also be either physical or relational (Murray–Close et al., 2024). The inflicting of intentional harm on others or property, or the intimidation of or threat of harm to people and property is physical aggression. Children in middle childhood also begin to experience relational aggression, which consists of behaviors that can hurt social relationships such as gossip, the starting and spreading of rumors, exclusion by peers, and threats to end a friendship or relationship (Swit & Slater, 2021). Although physical aggression peaks during early childhood and then decreases, relational aggression is more likely to be stable (Blakely–McClure & Ostrov, 2016). Girls tend to experience more relational aggression, which is more associated with poorer self-concept (Björkqvist, 2018). Boys and girls use verbal aggression at similar levels, though there are slight gender differences in other forms of aggression with boys engaging in more physical aggression, while girls engage in more indirect aggression (Björkqvist, 2018; Blakely–McClure & Ostrov, 2016).
Aggression in children can be the result of many different problems. In middle childhood, physical aggression typically happens during free play, when children can choose their own activity and therefore may need to negotiate or resolve conflict on their own. For instance, if a group of children playing on a field disagree over whether a score should be counted, yelling, pushing, and shoving might occur. Children who have a tendency to act out or react with hostility and who experience peer rejection are more likely to display aggression (Yue & Zhang, 2023). Children with parents who use harsh punishment are also more likely to be aggressive (Waller et al., 2018).
Physical aggression also occurs when children are frustrated (Murray–Close et al., 2024), such as when they leave a smaller school for a larger one, as happens in some school districts at the sixth-grade transition between elementary and middle school. Younger students might be intimidated by the older ones in higher grades or even by students from other elementary schools who are jostling for the popular statuses. Aggressive behavior may result as children sort out their social status rankings in this new setting.
Jealousy of others is a common social emotion in middle childhood, but a child who responds by attacking another’s reputation or threatening to withhold or harm friendships may feel particularly insecure in their relationships with others (Long & Li, 2020). Children who display higher levels of relational aggression are more likely to be controversial or have prominent peer status, to have high but fragile self-esteem, and to desire to be dominant or a leader among their peers (Weidmann et al., 2024).
Children who are victimized by relational aggression tend to feel betrayed, alone, and isolated and to develop a lack of trust in others (Swit & Slater, 2021). However, perpetrators of relational aggression are at risk of forming only superficial relationships with others, feeling paranoid, and lacking trust in others (Swit & Slater, 2021). Children can cope with peer victimization by seeking support, building positive relationships, practicing assertiveness, and using coping techniques such as deep breathing, mindfulness, and talking about their feelings to manage the emotional impact of poor peer interactions. Improving children’s self-concept may also be a promising way to reduce both the negative impact of relational aggression and the likelihood of children engaging in relational aggression (Blakely–McClure & Ostrov, 2016).
Bullying
Encountering one act of physical or social aggression is an unpleasant and harmful experience. However, bullying is a repetitive pattern of social and/or physical aggression in which a person with more power harms another with less (Gladden et al., 2014). There are several types of bullying, including physical, verbal, and cyberbullying. Bullying is fairly common during childhood. Almost 35 percent of U.S. children report being bullied at least one to two times in the last twelve months, according to the Data Resource Center for Child and Adolescent Health 2021–2022 data (Child and Adolescent Health Measurement Initiative, 2024).
Physical bullying consists of bodily harm, property damage, or the threat of harm to coerce, control, or scare others (Armitage, 2021). Verbal bullying is calling another person names, demeaning them, and trying to cause emotional harm (Armitage, 2021). Finally, cyberbullying makes use of technology, online images, videos, and texts to cause emotional stress in another person (Armitage, 2021). Children often have regular access to multiple devices such as cell phones, computers, tablets, and video game systems that can be used for cyberbullying (Evangelio et al., 2022). Cyberbullying differs from more traditional forms of bullying in several important ways: (1) the digital platform can reach a wider audience, which increases the potential for a negative impact on the victim; (2) it can be anonymous, which makes it easier to be a perpetrator and a victim; and (3) the bullying act is more permanent because it can remain in cyberspace indefinitely (Olweus & Limber, 2018). For example, a demeaning video can be watched repeatedly and quickly reach a large audience. The impersonal nature of the computer screen can also desensitize users to others’ feelings and increase boldness in otherwise timid or cautious individuals.
Link to Learning
Since bullying increases during middle childhood, caregivers should have strategies to help. The Choose Kindness Project parent playbooks provide resources for parents and caregivers of both children who are bullying and those who are being bullied.
Children who are victimized by cyberbullying as well as more traditional forms of bullying are more likely to experience symptoms of depression and anxiety, to have low self-esteem and more suicidal ideations, and to demonstrate lower academic performance (Evangelio et al., 2022). Bullying can also have a negative impact on physical health and sleep and eating patterns (Armitage, 2021).
Intersections and Contexts
Bullying Around the World
Across the world, almost one-third of students have been bullied at school in the past month (UNESCO, 2019). Physical bullying tends to be the most common, except in Europe and North America where relational, also known as psychological, bullying is most prevalent. Cyberbullying is prevalent as well, with older children being more at risk (UNESCO, 2019).3 Some children are also more likely to be victims of bullying regardless of where they live. In particular, girls, children with disabilities, LGBTQ+ children, and refugee children experience higher levels of bullying and violence in schools (Human Rights Watch, 2020).4 In some places, teachers perpetrate the bullying; in others, the school and teachers do not have the training or resources to respond effectively (Human Rights Watch, 2020).
Bullying can also extend to other forms of aggression and violence. Children are also often victims of sexism, homophobia, transphobia, and ableism in schools in many countries of the world. Human Rights Watch suggests that governments need to pass binding laws to keep students safe in school and online. The organization further calls for greater coordination between child protective and health-care services as well as anonymous and widespread reporting services.
A growing form of bullying globally is cyberbullying. A survey conducted in thirty countries found that one in three children report having been a victim of online bullying, and 20 percent said they had skipped school because of cyberbullying and violence (UNICEF, 2019). Social media is the most common place children are bullied online. Despite commonly held beliefs that cyberbullying among school-aged children primarily occurs in higher-income countries, 34 percent of children in sub-Saharan Africa say they have been victims (UNICEF, 2019). To combat this growing problem, the United Nations Children’s Fund is calling for new policies to protect children, for social media companies to address the problem, and for teachers and parents to be trained to prevent and respond to bullying (cyberbullying and traditional bullying).
The school climate can affect bullying behavior; for example, a school that enforces a strong punishment without rehabilitating bullying behavior tends to increase rather than decrease the behavior (Gaffney et al., 2021). Some more effective bullying programs focus on a tiered approach to shifting bullying interventions away from punishment and toward school-wide prevention instead (Craig & Pepler, 2007). The first tier of action encourages the entire school community—students, teachers, principals, and other staff—to speak out about bullying, to intervene in bullying cases, and to establish secure ways of reporting bullying. The second tier focuses on specific groups of students who may be at heightened risk for engaging in bullying behavior. Workshops, guest speakers, and curriculum events are aimed at developing healthy relationship skills and lowering the risk of bullying. Finally, the third tier consists of rehabilitation, social skills training, and psychotherapy for students who have exhibited high levels of bullying behavior and those who have been victimized.
Researchers found that the most effective way to prevent bullying in children is to educate and train adults who work directly with children to recognize and respond immediately and appropriately to incidents of bullying (Pepler & Cummings, 2016). Effective programs are more likely to reduce bullying when multiple forms of intervention are used and when peers and parents are included in working to reduce and prevent bullying in schools (Gaffney et al., 2021).
Media Influences in Middle Childhood
Media influences our views on clothes and fashion trends, politics, science, social issues, gender, race, money, and other topics. Researchers strive to learn how children consume digital media, demographic differences in their consumption habits, and the impact of digital media on their development.
Use of Digital and Social Media
Media use has increased dramatically over the past decade. About 50 percent of U.S. children have their own smartphone by the age of ten years (Richter et al., 2022), 86.7 percent of ten-year-olds regularly use the internet, and many children begin regularly using social media during middle childhood (Pew Research Center, 2018). A large number watch more television than the amount recommended by psychologists and pediatricians (no more than two hours per day) (Scherger, 2023). Children also regularly stream videos and engage with interactive apps on their devices. Common Sense Media (2022) reported a 17 percent increase in entertainment screen use by both preteens and teens from 2019 to 2021 up to around five and a half hours per day. Radesky et al. (2020) found that only a third of parents could accurately estimate the amount of screen time to which their children are exposed.
While the terms digital media and social media may be used interchangeably in everyday usage, they are different. Digital media is any electronically distributed content and can include material on search engines like Google and marketplaces like Amazon. Social media is a type of digital medium consisting of “interactive technologies that facilitate the creation and sharing of information, ideas, interests, and other forms of expression through virtual communities and networks” on a mass level (APA, 2024). That includes platforms like YouTube, TikTok, Instagram, Facebook, and others.
Boys and girls spend about the same amount of time using digital media, but they use different types (Cardoso–Leite et al., 2021). Boys report spending more time on screens overall, particularly playing video games and watching videos, while girls average more time screen time for socialization such as texting and video chatting (Nagata et al., 2022). There are also racial differences. Black and Hispanic children spend more time with screens than White or Asian children (Nagata et al., 2022).5 Higher screen use by children is also found when the parents use screens heavily themselves and in lower income households (Nagata et al., 2022).
Viewing online videos was reported to be the favorite activity, more than playing video games, visiting social media, browsing websites, creating content, or video chatting. Social media use among preteens increased greatly between 2019 and 2021. Some of this rise was likely due to the COVID-19 pandemic, when many children stayed connected to peers through digital means. However, screen time has not dropped since COVID-19 restrictions were lifted (Hedderson et al., 2023). Of interest though, children are using screen time in a variety of ways including recreational viewing, socializing and video chatting with friends and family, and for educational uses including educational games or completing schoolwork remotely (Hedderson et al., 2023).
Impact of Digital Media
Parents, teachers, and other concerned adults may wonder about the influence of hours of screen time on a variety of child characteristics like attention, cognition, social skills, relationship building, and communication. Empirically measuring such effects and drawing scientific conclusions about them are difficult for several reasons. However, the National Institute of Child Health and Human Development (NICHD) has funded several studies to measure the impact of screen time on child development (National Institute of Child Health and Human Development – Director’s Corner, 2023; National Institute of Child Health and Human Development – Director’s Corner, 2024).
Research has identified several risks associated with excessive screen time. For example, higher screen use was associated with more obesity in children and adolescents because children are more sedentary and snack more while using screens (Tripathi & Mishra, 2020). Media use is also associated with attention problems and lower academic performance, particularly when children are multitasking (using multiple forms of media simultaneously, like listening to music while interacting with peers on social media) (Cardoso–Leite, 2021). Finally, time spent using digital media has also been linked to mental and physical health problems including depression, social anxiety, and sleep difficulties (Eirich et al., 2022).
Still, there are benefits to interacting with digital media, including exposure to new ideas and easy access to information and awareness of current events (Reid et al., 2016). Screen time in school was related to positive learning outcomes when the screen time had a clear pedagogical purpose with appropriate lesson planning (Pitchford & Outhwaite, 2019). Digital media also allow students to interact and collaborate with each other on school assignments and other projects (Reid et al., 2016). Children and adolescents looking for a community when they feel excluded use social media to connect with others. For example, LGBTQ+ children have used social media to find social support (Fish et al., 2020). Some research shows that playing video games is associated with faster reaction times and better mental health (Cardoso–Leite et al., 2021).
Life Hacks
Evaluating Children’s Use of Video Games
Children are growing up in a digital world. More than 90 percent of children over the age of two years regularly play video games (Alanko, 2023). During middle childhood, many spend one and a half to two hours a day in this activity, in addition to interacting with screens and digital media in other ways. As a result, many caregivers wonder whether they should be limiting the time children spend on video games.
The answer is complicated. First, research shows some clear benefits to playing video games. When played with others, they are helpful for making social connections, learning social skills, and improving cognitive skills (Kovess–Masfety et al., 2016). However, if too much time is spent on video games, less is available for other important and healthy activities like doing schoolwork, interacting with family, engaging in physical activity, and getting enough sleep (Oliveira et al., 2020). The stimulation from video games can also overload children’s sensory systems.
For these reasons, experts, including the American Academy of Pediatrics (Hill et al., 2016), recommend setting some limits on how much time children play video games. Caregivers should ensure that children are still engaging in family meals or other family time, completing their chores and homework, and getting enough exercise through active play. Unstructured play time is very beneficial, so caregivers should also ensure that children have enough media-free time to engage in creative, imaginative activities. Finally, caregivers should also familiarize themselves with the video games their children are playing, to ensure the content is age appropriate. The Entertainment Software Rating Board (ESRB) provides ratings on physical games and apps to which children might be exposed and can be a helpful tool for caregivers.
References
Afshordi, N., & Liberman, Z. (2021). Keeping friends in mind: Development of friendship concepts in early childhood. Social Development, 30(2), 331–342. https://doi.org/10.1111/sode.12493
Alanko, D. (2023). The health effects of video games in children and adolescents. Pediatric Review, 44(1), 23–32. https://doi.org/10.1542/pir.2022-005666
American Psychological Association (2024) Social media and the internet. https://www.apa.org/topics/social-media-internet
Anderson, L. R., Hemez, P. F., & Kreider, R. M. (2022). Living arrangements of children: 2019 [Report]. U. S, Census Bureau. https://www.census.gov/content/dam/Census/library/publications/2022/demo/p70-174.pdf
Armitage, R. (2021). Bullying during COVID-19: the impact on child and adolescent health. British Journal of General Practice, 71(704), Article 122. https://doi.org/10.3399/bjgp21X715073
Baumrind D. (1991). Effective parenting during the early adolescent transition, In P. A. Cowan & E. M. Herington (Eds.), Advances in Family Research Series: Family Transitions (pp. 111–163). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Inc. https://doi.org/10.4324/9780203772393-11
Benito–Gomez, M., Williams, K. N., McCurdy, A., & Fletcher, A. C. (2020). Autonomy–supportive parenting in adolescence: Cultural variability in the contemporary United States. Journal of Family Theory & Review, 12(1), 7–26. https://doi.org/10.1111/jftr.12362
Björkqvist, K. (2018). Gender differences in aggression. Current Opinion in Psychology, 19, 39–42. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.copsyc.2017.03.030
Blakely–McClure, S. J., & Ostrov, J. M. (2016). Relational aggression, victimization and self–concept: Testing pathways from middle childhood to adolescence. Journal of Youth and Adolescence, 45, 376–390. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10964-015-0357-2
Buehler, C. (2020). Family processes and children's and adolescents' well‐being. Journal of Marriage and Family, 82(1), 145–174. https://doi.org/10.1111/jomf.12637
Buist, K. L., & Vermande, M. (2014). Sibling relationship patterns and their associations with children’s competence and problem behavior. Journal of Family Psychology, 28(4), 529–537. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0036990
Bukowski, W. M. (2001). Friendship and the worlds of childhood. New Directions for Child and Adolescent Development, 91, 93–105. https://doi.org/10.1002/cd.7
Bukowski, W. M., Cillessen, A. H. N., & Velásquez, A. M. (2012). Peer ratings. In B. Laursen, T. D. Little, & N. A. Card (Eds.), Handbook of developmental research methods (pp. 211–228). New York, NY: The Guilford Press.
Cardoso–Leite, P., Buchard, A., Tissieres, I., Mussack, D., & Bavelier, D. (2021). Media use, attention, mental health and academic performance among 8 to 12 year old children. PLOS ONE, 16(11), Article e0259163. https://doi.org/10.1371%2Fjournal.pone.0259163
Chen, P., Rao, S.– Y., Zhang, W., Jiang, Y.– Y., Xiang, Y., Xiang, N. X., Li, Y.– Z., Zhu, H.– Y., Su, Z., Cheung, T., Zhang, Q., Ng, C. H., & Xiang, Y.– T. (2024). Mental health status among children and adolescents in one-child and multichild families: a meta–analysis of comparative studies. Current Opinion in Psychiatry, 37(3), 147–161. https://doi.org/10.1097/yco.0000000000000935
Child and Adolescent Health Measurement Initiative. (2024). 2021-2022 National Survey of Children’s Health (NSCH) data query. Data Resource Center for Child and Adolescent Health supported by the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, Health Resources and Services Administration (HRSA), Maternal and Child Health Bureau (MCHB). Retrieved from https://www.childhealthdata.org/browse/survey/results?q=10523&r=1
Common Sense Media (2022). Infographic. The Common Sense Census: Media Use by Tweens and Teens, 2021. https://www.commonsensemedia.org/research/the-common-sense-census-media-use-by-tweens-and-teens-2021
Costa, P. A., Tasker, F., & Leal, I. P. (2021). Different placement practices for different families? Children's adjustment in LGH adoptive families. Frontiers in Psychology, 12, Article 649853. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2021.649853
Craig, W. M., & Pepler, D. J. (2007). Understanding bullying: From research to practice. Canadian Psychology/Psychologie Canadienne, 48(2), 86–93. https://doi.org/10.1037/cp2007010
Damaske, S., Bratter, J. L., & Frech, A. (2017). Single mother families and employment, race, and poverty in changing economic times. Social Science Research, 62, 120–133. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ssresearch.2016.08.008
Delgado, E., Serna, C., Martínez, I., & Cruise, E. (2022). Parental attachment and peer relationships in adolescence: A systematic review. International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health, 19(3), Article 1064. https://doi.org/10.3390/ijerph19031064
Eirich, R., McArthur, B. A., Anhorn, C., McGuinness, C., Christakis, D. A., & Madigan, S. (2022). Association of screen time with internalizing and externalizing behavior problems in children 12 years or younger: a systematic review and meta–analysis. JAMA Psychiatry, 79(5), 393–405. https://doi.org/10.1001%2Fjamapsychiatry.2022.0155
Evangelio, C., Rodriguez–Gonzalez, P., Fernandez–Rio, J., & Gonzalez–Villora, S. (2022). Cyberbullying in elementary and middle school students: A systematic review. Computers & Education, 176, Article 104356. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2021.104356
Evans, S. C., Dίaz, K. I., Callahan, K. P., Wolock, E. R., & Fite, P. J. (2021). Parallel trajectories of proactive and reactive aggression in middle childhood and their outcomes in early adolescence. Research on Child and Adolescent Psychopathology, 49, 211–226. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10802-020-00709-5
Fallesen P., & Ghler M. (2019). Family type and parents’ time with children: Longitudinal evidence for Denmark. Acta Sociologica, 63, 000169931986852. http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/0001699319868522
Fish, J.N., McInroy, L.B., Paceley, M.S. et al. (2020). “I’m kinda stuck at home with unsupportive parents right now”: LGBTQ youths’ experiences with Covid–19 and the importance of online support. Journal of Adolescent Health, 67(3), 450–452. https://doi.org/10.1016%2Fj.jadohealth.2020.06.002
Fuentes, M. C., Garcia, O. F., Alcaide, M., Garcia–Ros, R., & Garcia F. (2022). Analyzing when parental warmth but without parental strictness leads to more adolescent empathy and self-–oncept: evidence from Spanish homes. Frontiers in Psychology, 13, 821. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2022.1060821
Gaffney, H., Ttofi, M. M., & Farrington, D. P. (2021). What works in anti–bullying programs? Analysis of effective intervention components. Journal of School Psychology, 85, 37–56. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jsp.2020.12.002
Gao, G. (2015). Americans’ ideal family size is smaller than it used to be. Pew Research Center. Retrieved from http:/www.pewresearch.org/fact-bank/2015/05/08/ideal-size-of-the-american-family
Gates, G. J. (2015). Marriage and family: LGBT individuals and same–sex couples. The Future of Children, 25, 67–87. https://doi.org/10.1353/foc.2015.0013
Geerts–Perry, A. T., Riggs, S. A., Kaminski, P. L., & Murrell, A. (2021). Psychological well–being and family functioning in middle childhood: The unique role of sibling relational dynamics. Journal of Family Issues, 42(12), 2965–2985. https://doi.org/10.1177/0192513X21993191
Gladden, R. M., Vivolo–Kantor, A. M., Hamburger, M. E., & Lumpkin, C. D. (2014). Bullying surveillance among youths: Uniform definitions for public health and recommended data elements, version 1.0. [Report]. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. https://stacks.cdc.gov/view/cdc/21596/cdc_21596_DS1.pdf
Golombok, S., & Tasker, F. (2015). Socioemotional development in changing families. In M. H. Bornstein (Ed.), Handbook of Child Psychology and Developmental Science (pp. 1–45). Wiley. https://doi.org/10.1002/9781118963418
Hedderson, M. M., Bekelman, T. A., Li, M., Knapp, E. A., Palmore, M., Dong, Y., Elliott, A. J., Friedman, C., Galarce, M., Gilbert–Diamond, D., Glueck, D., Hockett, C. W., Lucchini, M., McDonald, J., Sauder, K., Zhu, Y., Karagas, M. R., Dabelea, D., Ferrara, A., & Environmental Influences on Child Health Outcomes Program (2023). Trends in screen time use among children during the COVID-19 pandemic, July 2019 through August 2021. JAMA Network oOpen, 6(2), Article e2256157. https://doi.org/10.1001/jamanetworkopen.2022.56157
Hill, D., Ameenuddin, N., Chassiakos, Y. L. R., Cross, C., Radesky, J., Hutchinson, J., Boyd, R., Mendelson, R., Moreno, M. A., Smith, J., & Swanson, W. S. (2016). Media use in school-aged children and adolescents. American Academy of Pediatrics, 138(5), Article e20162592. https://doi.org/10.1542/peds.2016-2592
Human Rights Watch (2020, November 5) Bullying, violence common in schools worldwide: Governments should urgently tackle education–related abuses. https://www.hrw.org/news/2020/11/05/bullying-violence-common-schools-worldwide
Huston, A. C., & Ripke, M. N. (Eds.). (2006). Developmental contexts in middle childhood: Bridges to adolescence and adulthood. Cambridge University Press. https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511499760
Jensen, T. M., & Sanner, C. (2021). A scoping review of research on well‐being across diverse family structures: Rethinking approaches for understanding contemporary families. Journal of Family Theory & Review, 13(4), 463–495. https://doi.org/10.1111/jftr.12437
Jiménez, T. I., Estévez, E., Velilla, C. M., Martín–Albo, J., & Martínez, M. L. (2019). Family communication and verbal child–to–parent violence among adolescents: The mediating role of perceived stress. International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health, 16(22), 4538. https://doi.org/10.3390/ijerph16224538
Kovess–Masfety, V., Keyes, K., Hamilton, A., Hanson, G., Bitfoi, A., Golitz, D., Koç, C., Kuijpers, R., Lesinskiene, S., Mihova, Z, Otten, R., Fermanian, C., & Pez, O. (2016). Is time spent playing video games associated with mental health, cognitive and social skills in young children?. Social Psychiatry and Psychiatric Epidemiology, 51(3), 349–357. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00127-016-1179-6
Lansford, J. E. (2022). Annual research review: Cross–cultural similarities and differences in parenting. Journal of Child Psychology and Psychiatry, and Allied Disciplines, 63(4), 466–479. https://doi.org/10.1111/jcpp.13539
Lee, H., Ryan, L. H., Ofstedal, M. B., & Smith, J. (2021). Multigenerational households during childhood and trajectories of cognitive functioning among US older adults. The Journals of Gerontology: Series B, 76(6), 1161–1172. https://doi.org/10.1093/geronb/gbaa165
Li, D., & Guo, X. (2023). The effect of the time parents spend with children on children's well-being. Frontiers in Psychology, 14, Article 1096128. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2023.1096128
Li, M., Cai, M., Zhong, H., & Liu, H. (2021). Comparisons of academic achievements of one–only children vs. children with siblings in China. Current Psychology: A Journal for Diverse Perspectives on Diverse Psychological Issues, 40, 5658–5671. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12144-020-01263-5
Lohbeck, A. (2022). Reactive and proactive aggression among children and adolescents: a latent profile analysis and latent transition analysis. Children, 9(11), Article 1733. https://doi.org/10.3390/children9111733
Long, Y., & Li, Y. (2020). The longitudinal association between social status insecurity and relational aggression: Moderation effects of social cognition about relational aggression. Aggressive Behavior, 46(1), 84–96. https://doi.org/10.1002/ab.21872
Lynn Mulvey, K., Boswell, C., & Zheng, J. (2017). Causes and consequences of social Exclusion and peer rejection among children and adolescents. Report on Emotional & Behavioral Disorders in Youth, 17(3), 71–75. https://www.researchgate.net/publication/327020556_Causes_and_Consequences_of_Social_Exclusion_and_Peer_Rejection_Among_Children_and_Adolescents
Marinucci, M., Pancani, L., & Riva, P. (2023). Exploring the peer status prototypes: A large–scale latent profile analysis on high‐school students from four European countries. Scandinavian Journal of Psychology, 64(1), 40–52. https://doi.org/10.1111/sjop.12863
Maunder, R., & Monks, C. P. (2019). Friendships in middle childhood: Links to peer and school identification, and general self-worth. The British Journal of Developmental Psychology, 37(2), 211–229. https://doi.org/10.1111/bjdp.12268
Muñoz–Silva, A., De la Corte de la Corte, C., Lorence–Lara, B., & Sanchez–Garcia, M. (2020). Psychosocial adjustment and sociometric status in primary education: Gender differences. Frontiers in Psychology, 11, Article 607274. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2020.607274
Murray–Close, D., Lent, M. C., Sadri, A., Buck, C., & Yates, T. M. (2024). Autonomic nervous system reactivity to emotion and childhood trajectories of relational and physical aggression. Development and Psychopathology, 36(2), 691–708. https://doi.org/10.1017/s095457942200150x
Nagata, J. M., Ganson, K. T., Iyer, P., Chu, J., Baker, F. C., Gabriel, K. P., Garber, A. K., Murray, S. B., & Bibbins–Domingo, K. (2022). Sociodemographic correlates of contemporary screen time use among 9-and 10-year-old children. The Journal of Pediatrics, 240, 213–220. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jpeds.2021.08.077
National Institute of Child Health and Human Development – Director’s Corner. (2023, February). Understanding how digital media affects child development. https://www.nichd.nih.gov/about/org/od/directors_corner/prev_updates/digital-media-child-development-feb2023
National Institute of Child Health and Human Development – Director’s Corner. (2024, March). Elucidating the effects of digital media on children.https://www.nichd.nih.gov/about/org/od/directors_corner/prev_updates/effects-digital-media-children-march2024
Newcomb, A. F., Bukowski, W. M., & Pattee, L. (1993). Children's peer relations: a meta-analytic review of popular, rejected, neglected, controversial, and average sociometric status. Psychological bulletin, 113(1), 99. https://doi.org/ 10.1037/0033-2909.113.1.99
Oliveira, C. B., Pinto, R. Z., Saraiva, B. T., Tebar, W. R., Delfino, L. D., Franco, M. R., Silva, C. C. M., & Christofaro, D. G. (2020). Effects of active video games on children and adolescents: A systematic review with meta‐analysis. Scandinavian Journal of Medicine & Science in Sports, 30(1), 4–12. https://doi.org/10.1111/sms.13539
Olweus, D., & Limber, S. P. (2018). Some problems with cyberbullying research. Current Opinion in Psychology, 19, 139–143. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.copsyc.2017.04.012
Paine, A. L., Hashmi, S., Howe, N., Johnson, N., Scott, M., & Hay, D. F. (2022). “A pirate goes nee-nor-nee-nor!” Humor with siblings in middle childhood: A window to social understanding?. Developmental Psychology, 58(10), 1986–1998. https://doi.org/10.1037/dev0001403
Parker, J. G., & Gottman, J. M. (1989). Social and emotional development in a relational context: Friendship interaction from early childhood to adolescence. In T. J. Berndt & G. W. Ladd (Eds.), Peer relationships in child development (pp. 95–131). John Wiley & Sons. https://www.researchgate.net/publication/232444421_Social_and_emotional_development_in_a_relational_context_Friendship_interaction_from_early_childhood_to_adolescence
Patterson, C. J. (2017). Parents' sexual orientation and children's development. Child Development Perspectives, 11(1), 45–49. https://doi.org/10.1111/cdep.12207
Pedersen, S., Vitaro, F., Barker, E. D., & Borge, A. I. (2007). The timing of middle–childhood peer rejection and friendship: Linking early behavior to early–adolescent adjustment. Child Development, 78(4), 1037–1051. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-8624.2007.01051.x
Pepler, D., & Cummings, J. (2016). Bullying in early childhood. In O. N. Saracho (Ed.), Contemporary Perspectives on Research on Bullying in Early Childhood Education (pp. 35–59). IAP Information Age Publishing. https://psycnet.apa.org/record/2016-61788-003
Pew Research Center (2018). Teens: Social Media & Technology. Retrieved from https://www.pewresearch.org/internet/2018/05/31/teens-social-media-technology-2018/
Pitchford, N. J., & Outhwaite, L. A. (2019). Secondary benefits to attentional processing through intervention with an interactive maths app. Frontiers in Psychology, 10, Article 2633. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2019.02633
Radesky J. S., Weeks, H. M., Ball, R., Schaller, A., Yeo, S., Durnez, J., Tamayo–Rios, M., Epstein, M., Kirkorian, H., Coyne, S., & Barr, R. (2020) Young children's use of smartphones and tablets. Pediatrics, 146(1), Article e20193518. https://doi.org/10.1542/peds.2019-3518
Raley, R. K., & Sweeney, M. M. (2020). Divorce, repartnering, and stepfamilies: A decade in review. Journal of Marriage and Family, 82(1), 81–99. https://doi.org/10.1111/jomf.12651
Reid Chassiakos, Y. L., Radesky, J., Christakis, D., Moreno, M. A., Cross, C., Hill, D., Ameenuddin, N., Hutchinson, J., Levine, A., Boyd, R., Mendelson, R., & Swanson, W. S. (2016). Children and adolescents and digital media. Pediatrics, 138(5), Article e20162593. https://doi.org/10.1542/peds.2016-2593
Richter, A., Adkins, V., & Selkie, E. (2022). Youth perspectives on the recommended age of mobile phone adoption: Survey study. JMIR Pediatrics and Parenting, 5(4), Article e40704. https://doi.org/10.2196/40704
Rose, A. J., Borowski, S. K., Spiekerman, A., & Smith, R. L. (2022). Children's friendships. In P. K. Smith & C. H. Hart (Eds.), The Wiley‐Blackwell handbook of childhood social development (3rd ed., pp. 487–502). Wiley Blackwell. https://doi.org/10.1002/9781119679028.ch26
Rueger SY, Malecki CK, Pyun Y, Aycock C, & Coyle S (2016). A meta–analytic review of the association between perceived social support and depression in childhood and adolescence. Psychological Bulletin, 142, 1017–1067. https://doi.org/10.1037/bul0000058
Sakyi, K. S., Surkan, P. J., Fombonne, E., Chollet, A., & Melchior, M. (2015). Childhood friendships and psychological difficulties in young adulthood: An 18‐year follow‐up study. European Child and Adolescent Psychiatry, 24(7), 815–826. https://doi.org/10.1007%2Fs00787-014-0626-8
Schacter, H. L., & Margolin, G. (2019). The Interplay of Friends and Parents in Adolescents' Daily Lives: Towards A Dynamic View of Social Support. Social development (Oxford, England), 28(3), 708–724. https://doi.org/10.1111/sode.12363
Scherger, S. (2023). 6 tips to reduce children’s screen time. Speaking of Health: Mayo Clinic Health Systems. Retrieved from https://www.mayoclinichealthsystem.org/hometown-health/speaking-of-health/6-tips-to-reduce-childrens-screen-time
Swit, C. S., & Slater, N. M. (2021). Relational aggression during early childhood: A systematic review. Aggression and Violent Behavior, 58, Article 101556. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.avb.2021.101556
Taylor, Z. E., & Conger, R. D. (2017). Promoting strengths and resilience in single–mother families. Child Development, 88(2), 350–358. https://doi.org/10.1111/cdev.12741
Teuber, Z., Tang, X., Sielemann, L., Otterpohl, N., & Wild, E. (2022). Autonomy–related parenting profiles and their effects on adolescents’ academic and psychological development: A longitudinal person–oriented analysis. Journal of Youth and Adolescence, 51(7), 1333–1353. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10964-021-01538-5
Tripathi, M., & Mishra, S.K. (2020). Screen time and adiposity among children and adolescents: a systematic review. Journal of Public Health (Berlin), 28, 227–244. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10389-019-01043-x
Tucker, C. J., Finkelhor, D., & Turner, H. (2019). Patterns of sibling victimization as predictors of peer victimization in childhood and adolescence. Journal of Family Violence, 34(8), 745–755. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10896-018-0021-1
UNESCO. (2019). Behind the numbers: Ending school violence and bullying. https://www.unicef.org/documents/behind-numbers-ending-school-violence-and-bullying
UNICEF. (2019). UNICEF poll: More than a third of young people in 30 countries report being a victim of online bullying. https://www.unicef.org/press-releases/unicef-poll-more-third-young-people-30-countries-report-being-victim-online-bullying
US Census. (2023). Several generations under one roof. Retrieved from https://www.census.gov
van den Berg, Y. H., Burk, W. J., & Cillessen, A. H. (2015). Identifying subtypes of peer status by combining popularity and preference: A cohort-sequential approach. The Journal of Early Adolescence, 35(8), 1108–1137. https://doi.org/10.1177/0272431614554704
Waller, R., Hyde, L. W., Klump, K. L., & Burt, S. A. (2018). Parenting is an environmental predictor of callous–unemotional traits and aggression: A monozygotic twin differences study. Journal of the American Academy of Child and Adolescent Psychiatry, 57(12), 955–963. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jaac.2018.07.882
Weidmann, R., Atherton, O. E., & Robins, R. W. (2024). Bidirectional associations between self-esteem and relational aggression from 5th to 11th grade. European Journal of Personality, 38(2), 123–140. https://doi.org/10.1177/08902070221141581
Wong, T. K., Konishi, C., & Cho, S. B. (2020). Paternal and maternal attachment: A multifaceted perspective on adolescents’ friendship. Journal of Child and Family Studies, 29(1), 217–226. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10826-019-01552-z
Yue, X., & Zhang, Q. (2023). The association between peer rejection and aggression types: A meta–analysis. Child Abuse & Neglect, 135, Article 105974. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chiabu.2022.105974