Four social psychological lenses for developmental psychology

Abstract

How can the advances of social and developmental psychology be integrated? This conceptual paper proposes to examine four basic theoretical models of social situations through which learning and development have been observed in the post-piagetian tradition: the psychosocial triangle, the frame, models of transfer and transitions, and models integrating the notion of cultural instrument. We show different dynamics highlighted by series of studies using these models. We finally discuss the notions of development and of the person emerging through such social developmental approaches. The wide field of social developmental psychologyHow can social psychologists account for changes that people undergo through their interaction with others and their world? And how can developmental psychologists, interested in the genesis of new forms of understanding, take account of the social world in which people live?Over the past decades, important contributions have integrated social and developmental perspectives in psychology (among which Baltes & Staudinger, 1996; Carpendale & Müller, 2004;Durkin, 1995;Duveen, 1997;Mercer, 1995;Perret-Clermont, Carugati, & Oates, 2004;Resnick, Levine, & Teasley, 1991;Rogoff, 1998;Wegerif, Mercer, & Dawes, 1999) and retraced the historical and theoretical evolution of this integration (see Valsiner, 1998;Valsiner & Van der Veer, 2000). In this paper, as a contribution, we propose to identify four basic theoretical models of social situations through which development has been observed in post-piagetian studies. Our analysis is conceptual rather than historical. The four models we identify have been structuring series of studies, addressing specific questions. Today these models coexist; as they offer contrasting "lenses" on the socially shared reality, they are chosen by researchers to guide different empirical studies. Like lenses, these models enable to see different phenomena: a virus cannot be examined with the same lens than a conflict in the workplace, nor can individual memory be studied in the same way than collective remembering. None of these lenses is better than the other; only each enables a specific

Imagination in people and societies on the move: A sociocultural psychology perspective

“…The notions of context and environment have been widely criticised for being too open or necessarily relational (Grossen, 2001; Marková, 2015); I will not refute or address these criticisms here, but simply say that these terms have to be further specified when used. I will use the concept of setting to designate specific social arrangements in material/geographical locations, in which people act, interact and experience the world: a classroom or a house constitute such settings (Zittoun & Perret-Clermont, 2009). Again, settings have spatial, material and social specificities, which are organised by certain rules, implicit or explicit, and that makes that people may be more or less competent within, etc.…”

Social Inclusion and Exclusion of a Young Child: A Cultural–historical Perspective of an International Mid-semester Transition into an International School in Malaysia

“…She makes direct eye contact with Zeb and rejects the number line by pushing it away. Zittoun and Perret-Clermont (2009) argue that 'resistance to learning is often a resistance to an object which is perceived as threatening a person's sense of who she is or her belonging to a group defining her identity' (p. 393). Tilly rejects the object (number line), where it is inferred that she is rejecting learning the mathematical concepts Zeb is offering to support her with.…”

[Apresentação] Dossiê: Psicologia dialógica

“…A constituição pessoal é compreendida como processo na fronteira com o social (Lopes de Oliveira, 2013) e, nessa medida, o que contribui para o desenvolvimento individual também afeta, em maior ou menor medida, o desenvolvimento social, contribuindo para o avanço cultural da humanidade e vice--versa. Portanto, o desenvolvimento subjetivo é visto como resultado de relações sociais internalizadas (Fávero, 2005;Zittoun & Perret-Clermont, 2009).…”