4.1 Article

Five-year old children?s responses to story stem assessments predicts their reflective functioning at 16 years: Re-visiting the London Parent-Child Project

Journal

COGNITIVE DEVELOPMENT
Volume 64, Issue -, Pages -

Publisher

ELSEVIER SCIENCE INC
DOI: 10.1016/j.cogdev.2022.101251

Keywords

Reflective functioning; Doll play; Story stem themes; Theory of Mind; Longitudinal research

Ask authors/readers for more resources

This paper explored the relationship between children's responses to story-stem beginnings at age 5 and their responses to the Adult Attachment Interview at age 16. The results showed that prosocial themes and non-physical punitive themes in doll play significantly influenced reflective functioning at age 16.
This exploratory paper considered children's responses to story-stem beginnings at age 5-years and their later responses to the Adult Attachment Interview (AAI) at age 16-years, where reflective functioning was reliably scored as the outcome variable of interest. Forty-five youth participated in the report who were representative, in attachment terms, of the full sample pre-viously reported on (Steele et al., 1996; Steele et al., 2003; Steele & Steele, 2005). After con-trolling for verbal skills at age 5 years of age, in a linear regression procedure, two summary aggregate scores of doll play responses were shown to significantly, in non-overlapping ways, influence reflective functioning scores at age 16 years. These were: (1) prosocial (sharing and caring) themes, beta = 0.34, and (2) non-physical punitive (limit setting) themes, beta = 0.45; with 23% of the variance in reflective functioning accounted for by these play variables from 11 years previous. Discussion focuses on the relevance of Baumrind's model of parenting to the observed results, in addition to the value of longitudinal attachment research that highlights sources of resilience and social cognition in adolescence.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.1
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available