Examining Triangle Metaphors: Utility in Developmental Theory and Scientific Application

2012

Euro J Social Psych

This study examines the role of social representations of gender and knowledge as sources of asymmetry on the features of children's interactions as well as on their cognitive development. The research was carried through an innovative pre‐test, first interaction, second interaction, post‐test design. One hundred fifty‐nine children of the same age (6.5–7.5 years old) but of different levels of knowledge of a spatial‐transformation task collaborated in same‐sex and opposite‐sex dyads to find a joint solution. In the first interaction, a child less developmentally advanced (NC) had to work with a child more developmentally advanced (TC), whereas in the second interaction of the same gender composition, the same NC had to work with a fresh NC. Cognitive progress was assessed using pre‐test to post‐test gains. The results revealed that the gender composition of the pairs and knowledge asymmetry influence not only the behavioral patterns and strategies that each partner employs in the interaction but also the cognitive outcomes of the children. These findings shed more light to the process through which socio‐cognitive conflict gets resolved, which was considered until now a “black box.” Copyright © 2012 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Asymmetries in peer interaction: The effect of social representations of gender and knowledge asymmetry on children's cognitive development

Zapiti

2012

Euro J Social Psych

“…Castorina, 2010; Leman, 2010). His rather opaque formulation that as the balance of influence processes changes so too does the predominant representation (Duveen, 2007, 2008) can be clarified when reading the social developmental work on the third generation of research on peer interaction and cognitive development (for reviews and commentaries of this work see Castorina, 2010; Ferrari, 2007; Martin, 2007; Maynard, 2009; Nicolopoulou & Weintraub, 2009; Psaltis, Duveen, & Perret-Clermont, 2009; Psaltis, 2011-b; Simao, 2003; Sorsana & Trognon, 2011) where following an experimental ethnography (Duveen & Psaltis, 2007; Psaltis, Duveen & Perret-Clermont, 2009) an asymmetry of gender status was crossed with an asymmetry of knowledge on cognitive tasks and the effects of such criss-crossing of asymmetries on conversation types and on the change of the representation of the conservation of liquids was explored. In this line of work, another theoretical tool can be found for introducing in culture and social representations theorizing power and status asymmetries relating with varying categorizations and their role in the genesis of social representations.…”

Section: Social Representations and Identitiesmentioning

confidence: 99%

Culture and social representations: A continuing dialogue in search for heterogeneity in social developmental psychology

2012

Culture & Psychology

In this commentary on Jahoda (2012) and Moghaddam (2012), I discuss the problem of the reification of culture from a social representations perspective and argue that social representations as a notion overcomes many of the shortcomings of the notion of culture, the main being reification. Whilst building this argument I show, by making reference to recent developments in the field of social representations and social developmental psychology, how weaknesses in social representations theory identified by Jahoda (1988) were addressed and how insights from this approach can be used for diversity management policies in education.The issue of the relation between ''culture'' and ''social representations'' was raised by Jahoda (1988) himself in a critical paper written almost a quarter of a century ago, on social representations followed by an extended response by Moscovici (1988). In that paper, Jahoda criticized social representations as somehow resuscitating the ''group mind'' and for a lack of clarity on the relations between social representations and social groups. He also claimed that the theory was not tested,

“…All these contradictory findings point to the need for a theoretical framework that can resolve these apparent contradictions by articulating different levels of analysis (Doise, 1986). A series of studies that we called a third generation of research in the field of peer interaction and cognitive development aimed to do just that while retaining the strengths of a structural analysis of Piagetian constructivism (for reviews and commentaries of this work see Ferrari, 2007; Castorina, 2010; Martin, 2007; Maynard, 2009; Nicolopoulou & Weintraub, 2009; Psaltis, 2010; Psaltis, 2011b; Psaltis, Duveen, & Perret‐Clermont, 2009; Simao, 2003; Sorsana & Trognon, 2011). In its understanding of the articulation of intra‐personal with interpersonal and intergroup dynamics the framework is building on Piagetian insights on the role of social relations in cognitive development (Piaget, 1932) and the empirical work of the ‘social Genevans’ on peer interaction and cognitive development (Doise, Mugny, & Perret‐Clermont, 1975; Perret‐Clermont, 1980).…”

Section: Social Representations As a Framework For Understanding Gendmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…It could be argued that social representations of gender, map out different positions in relation to the other and particular objects, thus constraining and enabling particular triadic Subject‐Other‐Object configurations in the representational sphere (Martin, 2007; Ferrari, 2007; Zittoun, Cornish, Gillespie, & Psaltis, 2007). This points to what Duveen (1997), called the dual function of social representations, of defining the world and locating a place within it that gives social representations their symbolic value.…”

Section: Ontogenesis Of Social Representations Of Gender When Startinmentioning

confidence: 99%

Social Representations of Gender in Peer Interaction and Cognitive Development

Social & Personality Psych

2012

The paper discusses how social representations of gender and their development in childhood relate to the structuring of communication on collaborative problem solving in the educational context and the consequences of such communication dynamics for learning and cognitive development. In the theoretical framework and the empirical work outlined an emphasis is given on the articulation of different levels of analysis (intra‐personal, inter‐personal, inter‐group/positional and ideological/social representations) (Doise, W. 1986. Levels of Explanation in Social Psychology: European Monographs in Social Psychology. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press) in a way that explanatory power is increased for understanding the often contradictory findings in the literature around gender talk in mixed‐sex dyads in the educational context.