What SIP are you? Social Information Processing Profiles among Kindergartners

• In Event: Social Learning and Information Processing

Abstract

Children’s social information processing (SIP), their ability to understand the social world, plays a pivotal role in their socio-emotional trajectories (e.g., Lansford et al., 2016). Research has chiefly adopted a variable-centered approach to explore associations between distinct dimensions of SIP and children’s functioning (e.g., Ziv & Arbel, 2020, 2021). Little is known about how the dimensions of SIP operate in tandem to shape children’s socio-emotional trajectories. Inspired by Crick and Dodge’s (1994) formative model of SIP, we aimed to typify sub-groups of children based on multidimensional assessment of SIP. We focused on kindergarteners - a critical period in development because it is the age of entry into elementary school. We also explored plausible determinants of SIP patterns, specifically parents’ perceived closeness to their children and the child’s sex, found to associate with SIP dimensions in prior research (e.g., Ziv & Arbel, 2020).
Our sample included 311 children (152 girls, Mage 5.72 years, SD= 0.53). For 301 children, we had mothers’ reports on relationship closeness with the child and teachers’ reports on the child’s prosocial behaviors. For a sub-sample of 115 children, we also had fathers’ reports on relationship closeness. The sample was diverse in terms of socio-demographic characteristics. SIP dimensions were measured using the SIP Interview, preschool version (SIPI-P; Ziv et al., 2011). Teachers reported on the child’s prosocial behavior using the Strengths and Difficulties Questionnaire, teacher version (SDQ; Goodman, 1997). Parents reported on perceived relationship closeness using the short-form Child–Parent Relationship Scale (CPRS; Pianta, 1992). Reliability was good for all measures.
We used Latent Profile Analysis (LPA) to capture sub-groups of children based on 8 indicators; hostile attribution, competent/aggressive/inept evaluation of situations, competent/aggressive/inept response construction, and teacher-reported levels of prosocial behaviors. We performed analyses in Mplus (8.4) and identified four profiles (Table 1). Based on content and model fit indices, a 3-profile solution was selected (Table 2). Profile 1 (n=45) was characterized by higher than sample mean inept response generation and low aggressive and competent response generation; this profile was labeled ‘Inept’. Profile 2 (n=201) was characterized by higher than sample mean prosocial behavior, competent evaluation of situations, and competent response generation. This profile also had a lower than sample mean aggressive and inept response generation and was labeled ‘Prosocial-Competent’. Profile 3 (n= 65) had lower than sample mean prosocial behavior, higher aggressive response generation, and lower competent response generation. The profile was labeled ‘Aggressive’.
We used the BCH procedure to compare differences across subgroups in the mothers’ and- separately fathers’ relationship closeness and child sex. Mothers’ experience of closeness was significantly higher for mothers of ‘Prosocial-Competent’ children than those of ‘Aggressive’ children (Wald test = 5.67, p=0.02). All other differences were non-significant.
Results highlight the contribution of multidimensional characterization of children’s SIP. Notably, it provides a nuanced classification of sub-groups of children. In addition to its intellectual merit, it enables practitioners to fit interventions boosting social cognitive functioning to the specific weakness and strengths of each sub-group (e.g., Inept vs. Aggressive)

Authors

• Reout Arbel, University of Haifa
  Presenting Author

• Yair Ziv, University of Haifa

• Amanda Czik