Toward an Applied Social Ethology: A Case Study of Social Skills Among Blind Children

  • Henry Markovits
  • F. F. Strayer

Abstract

One of the more important questions in developmental research concerns the effects of various forms of socializing experiences upon the acquisition of interactive skills among normal and atypical children. Programs of social integration for the atypical have been developed that focus upon particular aspects of the child’s behavior which are thought to reflect an important part of general social competence. However, even assuming that we can define such general social competence, relatively little is known about the potential socialization processes that underlie social skill acquisition. Such knowledge is especially lacking for atypical children (Klein, 1977; Wynne, Ulfelder, & Dakoff, Note 1). In this respect, classical human ethology has already provided useful information concerning behavioral adaptations of atypical children (Hutt & Hutt, 1970; Tinbergen, 1974). Given its emphasis on direct observation of naturally occurring activity and its avoidance of premature theoretical constructs, social ethology promises to provide equally important normative information on the emergence of social skills among young children.

Keywords

Lution Reso Plague Ethol 

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Reference Note

  1. 1.
    Wynne, S., Ulfeder, L. S., & Dakoff, G. Mainstreaming and early childhood education for handicapped children: Review and implications of research (Final Rep., Contract OEC-74–9056). Washington, D.C.: Bureau of Education for the Handicapped, 1975.Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Misshakian, E. A. Aggression and dominance relation in peer groups of children six to forty-five months of age. Paper presented at the annual conference of the Animal Behavior Society, Colorado, June 1976.Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    Strayer, F. F. Attention, popularity and dominance: A cross-sectional study of preschool social organization. Paper presented at the biennial meeting of the Society for Research in Child Development, Boston, April 1981.Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    Gauthier, R. A cross-sectional study of agonistic interaction and peer dominance in the preschool. Paper presented at the biennial meeting of the Society for Research in Child Development, Boston, April 1981.Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    Gauthier, R., & Strayer, F. F. A cross-sectional study of asymmetrical status structures among preschool children. Paper presented at the biennial conference of the International Society for the Study of Behavioral Development, Toronto, 1981.Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    Markovits, H., & Strayer, F. F. A cross-sectional study of cohesive structures in the preschool peer group. Paper presented at the biennial conference of the International Society for the Study of Behavioral Development, Toronto, 1981.Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    Delorme-Sehoof, F., Strayer, F. F., & Precourt, P. An ethological analysis of social behavior of handicapped children in mainstreamed preschools (Research Memo). Montreal: University of Quebec, Laboratoire d’Ethologie Humaine, 1980.Google Scholar

References

  1. Abramoviteh, R. The relation of attention and proximity rank in preschool children. In M. Chance & R. Larsen (Eds.), The social structure of attention. London: Wiley, 1976.Google Scholar
  2. Abramoviteh, R., & Strayer, F. F. Preschool social organization. Agonistic spacing and attentional behaviors. In P. Pliner, T. Kramer, & T. Alloway (Eds.), Recent advances in the study of communication and affect (Vol. 6). New York: Plenum Press, 1978.Google Scholar
  3. Altmann, J. Observational study of behavior: Sampling methods. Behavior, 1974, 49,227–267.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Barker, M. A. A technique for studying the social material activities of young children. Monographs of the Society for Research in Child Development (No. 3). New York: Columbia University Press, 1930.Google Scholar
  5. Barker, R. G. Explorations in ecological psychology. American Psychologist, 1965, 20, 1–14.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Bateson, P. P. G., & Hinde, R. A. Growing points in ethology. Cambridge, England: Cambridge University Press, 1976.Google Scholar
  7. Bernstein, I. S. Primate status hierarchies. In L. Rosenblum (Ed.), Primate behavior: Developments in field and laboratory research. New York: Academic Press, 1970.Google Scholar
  8. Blurton-Jones, N. Characteristics of ethological studies of human behavior. In N. Blurton-Jones (Ed.),Ethological studies of child behavior. Cambridge, England: Cambridge University Press, 1972.Google Scholar
  9. Blurton-Jones, N., & Leach, G. M. Behavior of children and their mothers at separation and greeting. In N. Blurton-Jones (Ed.),Ethological studies of child behavior. Cambridge, England: Cambridge University Press, 1972.Google Scholar
  10. Bowlby, J. Attachment and loss (Vol. I): Attachment. New York: Basic Books, 1969Google Scholar
  11. Bowlby, J. Attachment and loss (Vol.11): Separation. New York: Basic Books, 1973.Google Scholar
  12. Brannigan, C. R., & Humphries, D. A. Human non-verbal behavior, a means of communication. In N. Blurton-Jones (Ed.),Ethological studies of child behavior. Cambridge, England: Cambridge University Press, 1972.Google Scholar
  13. Chance, M. R., & Jolly, C. J. Social groups of monkeys and men. London: Cape, 1969Google Scholar
  14. Chittenden, G. E. An experimental study in measuring and modifying assertive behavior in young children. Monographs of the Society for Research in Child Development, 1942, 7(1).Google Scholar
  15. Crook, J. H. Social organization and the environment: Aspects of contemporary social ethology. Animal Behavior, 1970,18, 197–209.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Dawe, H. C. Analysis of two hundred quarrels of preschool children.Child Development, 1943,5, 139–157.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Delorme-Schoof, F., & Precourt, P. Etude de l’adaptation sociale d’enfants handicappes et d’enfants normaux en milieux de garderie.Apprentissage et Socialisation (in press).Google Scholar
  18. DeVore, I. Primate behavior: Field studies of monkeys and apes. New York: Holt, Rinehart & Winston, 1965.Google Scholar
  19. Emmerich, W. Continuity and stability in early social development.Child Development, 1964,35, 311–332.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  20. Force, D. J. Social status of physically handicapped children.Exceptional Children, 1956,23 (3), 104.Google Scholar
  21. Fraiberg, S. Insights from the blind. New York: Basic Books, 1977.Google Scholar
  22. Geliert, E. Stability and fluctuation in the power relationships of young children. Journal of Abnormal and Social Psychology, 1961, 62, 8–15.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Geliert, E. The effects of change in group composition on the dominant behavior of young children.British Journal of Social and Clinical Psychology, 1962, 1, 168–181.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Grant, E. C. Human facial expression. Man, 1969,4, 525–536.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Harlow, H. F., & Harlow, M. K. The affectional systems. In A. Sehrier, H. F. Harlow, & F. Stollnitz (Eds.),Behavior of non-human primates (Vol. 2). New York: Academic Press, 1965.Google Scholar
  26. Hinde, R. R. The biological bases of human social behavior. New York: McGraw-Hill, 1974.Google Scholar
  27. Hütt, S. J., & Hütt, C. Behavior studies in psychiatry. Oxford: Pergamon Press, 1970.Google Scholar
  28. Ipas, J., & Matz, R. D. Integrating handicapped preschool children within a cognitive oriented program. In M. J. Guralnick (Ed.),Early intervention and the integration of handicapped and nonhandicapped children. Baltimore: University Park Press, 1978.Google Scholar
  29. Jay, P. C.Primates: Studies in adaptation and variability. New York: Holt, Rinehart & Winston, 1968.Google Scholar
  30. Jolly, A. The evolution of primate behavior. New York: Macmillan, 1972.Google Scholar
  31. Klein, J. Teaching the special child in regular classrooms. Urbana, 111.: ERIC Clearinghouse on Early Childhood Education, 1977.Google Scholar
  32. Krasnor, L. R., & Rubin, K. H. The assessment of social problem-solving skills in young children. In T. Merluzzi, C. Glass, & M. Genest (Eds.), Cognitive assessment. New York: Guilford Press, 1981.Google Scholar
  33. Kummer, H. Primate societies: Group techniques in ecological adaptation. Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1971.Google Scholar
  34. Leach, G. M. A comparison of the social behavior of some normal and problem children. In N. Blurton-Jones (Ed.),Ethological studies of child behavior. Cambridge, England: Cambridge University Press, 1972.Google Scholar
  35. McGrew, W. C. Glossary of motor patterns of four-year-old school children. In S. Hütt & C. Hütt (Eds.), Direct observation and measurement of behavior. Springfield, 111.: Thomas, 1970.Google Scholar
  36. McGrew, W. C. An ethological study of children’s behavior. New York: Academic Press, 1972.Google Scholar
  37. Omark, D. A., Strayer, F. F., & Freedman, D. G. (Eds.). Dominance relations: An ethological view of human conflict and social interaction. New York: Garland Press, 1980.Google Scholar
  38. Piaget, J. The moral judgement of the child. New York: Free Press, 1948.Google Scholar
  39. Piaget, J. The origins of intelligence in children. New York: International Universities Press, 1952.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Porter, R. H., Ramsey, B., Tremblay, A., Iaccobo, M., & Crawley, S. Social interactions in heterogeneous groups of retarded and normally developing children: An observational study. In G. P. Sackett & H. C. Haywood (Eds.), Observing behavior (Vol. I): Theory and applications in mental retardation. Baltimore: University Park Press, 1980.Google Scholar
  41. Richardson, S. A., Hastorf, A. H., Goodman, N., & Dombusch, S. M. Cultural uniformity in reaction to physical disabilities. American Sociological Review, 1961, 26, 241–247.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. Richardson, S. A., Ronald, L., & Kleck, R. E. The social status of handicapped and nonhandicapped boys in a camp meeting.Journal of Special Education, 1974, 8(2), 143–152.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. Shirley, M. M. The first two years: A study of twenty-five babies.Institute of Child Welfare Monograph Series (No. 7). Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press, 1933.Google Scholar
  44. Sluckin, A., & Smith, P. Two approaches to the concept of dominance in preschool children. Child Development, 1977,48, 917–923.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. Smith, P., & Connolly, K. Patterns of play and social interaction in preschool children. In N. Blurton-Jones (Ed.),Ethological studies of child behavior. Cambridge, England: Cambridge University Press, 1972.Google Scholar
  46. Strayer, F. F. Social ecology of the preschool peer group. In W. A. Collins (Ed.), The Minnesota symposia on child psychology (Vol. 13). Hillsdale, N.J.: Erlbaum, 1980.Google Scholar
  47. Strayer, F. F. The organization and coordination of asymmetrical relations among young children: A biological view of social power. In M. D. Watts (Ed.), New directions for methodology of social and behavioral science. San Francisco: Jossey Bass, 1981.Google Scholar
  48. Strayer, F. F., & Strayer, J. An ethological analysis of social agonism and dominance relations among preschool children. Child Development, 1976, 47, 980–988.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  49. Tinbergen, N. On the aims and methods of ethology. Zeitschrift fur Tierpsychologie, 1963, 20, 410–433.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  50. Tinbergen, N. Ethology and stress disease. Science, 1974,185, 20–27.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  51. Tinbergen, N. Ethology in a changing world. In P. P. G. Bateson & R. A. Hinde (Eds.), Growing points in ethology. Cambridge, England: Cambridge University Press, 1976.Google Scholar
  52. Vaughn, B., & Waters, E. Social organization among preschooler peers: Dominance, attention and sociometric correlates. In D. Omark, F. F. Strayer, & D. Freedman (Eds.), Peer-group power relations: An ethological perspective on human dominance and submission. New York: Garland Press, 1978.Google Scholar
  53. Washburn, P. A scheme for grading the reaction of children in a new social situation. Journal of Genetic Psychology, 1932,40, 84–88.Google Scholar
  54. Wilson, E. O. Sociobiology: The new synthesis. Cambridge, Mass.: Belknap, Harvard University Press, 1975.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag New York Inc. 1982

Authors and Affiliations

  • Henry Markovits
  • F. F. Strayer

There are no affiliations available

Personalised recommendations