SFL 210 final

Development of Social Competence Paper
Joy Marie Prior
Brigham Young University
SFL 210, Section
183841836









The purpose of this paper is to apply the research and theories from Human Development lectures into practice by describing eight socially competent characteristics of an adolescent and identifying the development or lack of these characteristics in young children. After identifying, defining, and giving a brief example of eight characteristics of a socially competent adolescent there is an analysis of the competence of these characteristics in young adults ages three to four followed by specific factors that seem to make some children more socially competent than their peers.
Summary of Social Competence
Honest
Individuals should be honest with themselves. It is simpler to characterize the traits of dishonesty in order to define honesty, because dishonesty is to engage in behavior that the individual recognizes and defines as morally wrong (Mayhew, Hubbard, Finelli, Harding, Trevor, Carpenter, Donald, 2009, page 441). An example of dishonesty is cheating on an exam, and justifying the action either because others are doing it, out of fear of failing, or by blaming others (Rogers, 2010, page 243). In this same example an honest individual would be not cheat on the exam even if everyone else is and accept the score as a result of his or her own actions.
Develop Intimate Friendships
Socially competent individuals can develop intimate friendships. A friendship is a relationship between two people that does not demand or pretend perfection, recognizes individual thoughts and feelings, and exemplifies honesty and unity (Hanks, 1984). One example of friendship is when two teenagers go to a college late night party and after realizing there is obscene behavior the two decided to go home instead of remain at the party.
Turn-about
Turn-about is important to develop. This is the socially sequence of altering the talk and the silence among the parties in a conversation, and the way such transfers are coordinated (Sacks, Schegoloff, & Jefferson, 1974, page 696). An example of turn-about is when at parent teacher conferences the teacher asks a student how they feel about the material in class and the student not only answers the direct question but includes a follow up question or statement of the same nature, such as how the teach feels about the student’s participation (Schegoloff & Jefferson, 1974, page 696).
Delay Gratification
A social competent child can delay gratification. Delay gratification is the ability to prioritizing goals in such a manner that one can resist momentary temptations in a given situation in order to obtain longer term goals (Fish Bach & Shah, 2010, page 820). An example of delaying gratification is when someone sacrifices watching a favorite television series in order to complete term paper that will affect the individuals final grade in a class (Fish Bach & Shah, 2010, page 821).
Distribution of Justice
Individuals should reason through the motivations of the distribution of justice. The distribution of justice is the reasoning that justifies divided resources, particularly limited resources, in a group depending on need, power, or function (Froehlich & Oppenheimer, 1994, page 147). An example of the distribution of justice is if teenage students feel that a teacher should be speed more special attention, energy, and time with a student who does not understand the material or to continue to teach the entire class at the same level (Tirri, 1998).
Emotional Self-regulation
In adolescents an individual should be maintains emotional self-regulation. Someone has emotional self-regulation when that individual is able to initiate emotional and behavioral changes during emotionally intensive situations in order to meet goals and manage impulses (Dennis, 2010, 84) An example of emotional self-regulation is a part-time cashiers who works a few hours after school is dealing with a difficult customer but despite an increased heart rate the cashier remains polite and cordial with the customer (Bono, 1999, 177).
Share
A well developed individual is able to share. An individual is able to share when that person can give personal material possessions to benefit another, particularly when sources are limited or during confrontation (Birch, 1986, page 387). An example of sharing is when a student donates a portion of his or her personal earnings to a charity (Poulos, 2010, page 403).
Compromising
Someone who can reach a compromise in a confrontational situation is socially developed. A compromise is a solution agreed to by all parties, and a compromising individual is capable of discovering and supporting mutually accepted solutions (Morrison, 2008, Page 974). An example of compromising is when a group of students who carpool to school agree that each member will pay for a portion of the monthly gas bill (Geoke, 2010).
Observations of in Young Adults
Honest
In my observations none of the children portrayed dishonesty, and I assumed from this observations that the children were developing honesty. The children did not try to sneak a toy into their backpack, take something from the shelf without asking, or lie to a teacher. The lack of dishonesty caused me to conclude that the children were capable honesty.
Develop Intimate Friendships
The children interacted with one another but none of the children seamed to have intimate or personal, but playful friendships. While at recess Child C played in the group, with the girls, with the boys, with the children on the tricycles and with the children on the slide and did not express a strong personal connection with any particular child. This leads me to believe that Child C is developing the ability to have friendships but that ability is not fully developed.
Turn-about
Turn-about seemed particularly immature in all of the children. Although Child C communicated the most with peers Child C used short sentences such as: “hurry,” “I don’t want to play that,” or “let’s go”. In contrast Child A even when Child A’s guardian came Child A did not answer a single question verbally but with head nods and by pointing his finger. None of the children seemed capable of turn-about.
Delay Gratification
I observed times that the children were capable of delayed gratification, but only in very minimal examples. When it was time to go outside and play for recess Child A was the second child in line. It was apparent that Child A wanted to go out a play, but instead of rushing out of the door Child A waited patiently until the teacher opened the door and said that it was alright to go out.
Distribution of Justice
When the children divided snacks or toys among themselves it was because they were prompted by a teacher. I wonder if the children are capable of distributing justice or if the children are simply obeying. At snack time Child B ate the gram-cracker and all the children got the same size of gram-cracker. Although Child B was content with the way the gram-crackers were distributed Child B was not involved in the distribution, and I was unable to observe a situation when the children would need to be the distributor. Emotional Self-regulation
The children were capable of self-regulation for short periods of time, and none of the children had tantrums or needed to be soothed. When Child A was listening to the teacher read a story Child A sat quietly, with legs crossed, and did not speak to the other children. I believe that the preschool’s schedule helped the children to develop self-regulation because it each activity was relatively short.
Share
The children were able to share when prompted. Child B was playing with the balls while outside on the playground even though there were children around Child B did not pass the ball until the teacher asked if the children wanted to play catch. Once prompted Child B enjoyed playing catch, and that leads me to believe that the children were capable of sharing but still developing the ability to initiate sharing.
Compromising
The children did not compromise, because there did not seem to be a desire to compromise. While playing Child C wanted to play in the sandbox and called a friend over but when the friend did not response Child C joined the other children. Instead of attempting to compromise the children moved on. The lack of this development could be linked to the inability to develop intimate friendships, because the children did not seem to care enough about specific relationships to desire a compromise.
The Most competent Child
Child C
From my observations I would say that Child C was the most socially competent child. It was really interesting to see that because Child C was social with the other children Child C had more opportunities to work on developing positive social behavior. Because Child C was on the interacting with the other children there were opportunities to build vocabulary, share, compromise, and interact. In contrast Child B preferred to play with the teacher even when there were children near by. Child B did not go out and interact with the other children. These observations made the 'snowball' affect a reality.
After completing the research for the eight characteristics in socially competent adolescents and making observations in the Brigham Young University preschool for the development of these characteristics it was interesting to see the obvious, subtle, and lack of development of these eight characteristics in the young adults. It was particularly interesting to note that Child C was probably the most socially competent because Child C was able to interact well with peers Child C was able to practice and develop better pro-social competence. This practice in young adulthood seems to be putting Child C on a very positive path that will lead Child C to becoming a very socially competent adolescent.








References
Fishbach, Ayelet, Shah, James Y. (2010 ). Self-Control in Action. Journal of personality and social psychology, 90, 820-832.
Stein, Mark S. (1958). Distributive Justice & disability utilitarianism against egalitarianism. New Haven: Yale University Press.
Markovits, Daniel (2005). Quarantines and distributive Justice. The Journal of Law, Medicine & Ethics, 33, 323-344.
Mayhew, Matthew J., Hubbard, Steven M., Finelli, Cynthia J., Harding, Trevor S ., Carpenter, Donald D. (2009). Using Structural Equation Modeling to Validate the Theory of Planned Behavior as a Model for Predicting Student Cheating. The Review of Higher Education, 32, 441-468.
Rogers, Laura (2010). Ethical dilemmas in education: standing up for honesty and integrity. Journal of moral education, 39, 243 -248.
Gutierrez, Lorinda A. (2007). The development of READY-A (Ready Inventory for Adolescents): an assessment of adolescent relationship competence. Provo, Utah: Brigham Young University.
Hanks, Marion D. (1984). Marriage. Latter Day Saints General Conference, 47.
Sacks, Harvey, Schegoloff, Emanuel A., Jefferson, Gail (1974). Language: A Simplest Systematics for the Organization of Turn Taking for Conversation. Linguistic Society of America, 50, 696-735.
Schegloff, Emanuel A. (2000) Overlapping talk and the organization of turn-taking for conversation. Language in Society, 29, 1-63.
Birch (1986). Preschool Children's Food Sharing with Friends and Acquaintances. Child development, 57, 387-395.
Poulos (2010). Influence of modeling, exhortative verbalization, and surveillance on children's sharing. Developmental psychology, 6, 402-408.
Morrison (2008). The relationship between emotional intelligence competencies and preferred conflict-handling styles. Journal of nursing management, 16, 974 -83.
Geoke, Morey (2010). Children and Marital Conflict Resolution. Journal of family psychology, 21, 744 -753.
Fawcett (1992). Conceptual models and nursing practice: the reciprocal relationship. Journal of advanced nursing, 17, 224-228.
Shpayer, Makov (2009). Journalists and Police Detectives in Victorian and Edwardian England: An Uneasy Reciprocal Relationship. Journal of Social History, 42, 1527-1897.
Dennis, Tracy (2010). Emotional Self-Regulation in Preschoolers. Developmental, 42, 84 -97.
Bono, Joyce E. (2010). Personality and Emotional Performance. Journal of occupational health psychology, 12, 177-192.