summarize (through first person, because this is self-reflection) while implementing the peer-reviewed journal and write examples of Prenatally, and Infancy and Toddlerhood (up to 3 years) A. One example of a familial or sociocultural influence on your Biological Development (with in-text citation) B. One example of a familial or sociocultural influence on your Cognitive Development (with in-text citation) C. One example of a familial or sociocultural influence on your Socioemotional Development (with in-text citation)

Instructions of what to include:

What does the research indicate? Because the point of this paper is to show influences on your development, the research needs to show cause and effect (or at the very least some correlation/association). "When parents do, something good (or bad) happens." "When children are exposed to this in society, something good (or bad) happens." Do not simply state a developmental fact, like "Although preschoolers struggle with this task, by 5 - 6 years of age, most children can tie their shoes (Payne, Isaacs, & Larry, 2016 [as cited in Kuther, 2023, p. 161)." While that is true, it does not indicate anything in particular that influenced the child's ability to tie their shoes. If there is research to indicate that some children may tie their own shoes sooner or later than their peers because of something their parent or other caregiver did or something in their environment, use that research instead. What was the familial (or sociocultural) influence? What did your parent, caregiver, or other family member do that had an influence on your development? This needs to be directly connected to what the research indicated above. How did your development change as a result of what your parent, caregiver, or family member did? This also needs to be directly connected to what the research indicated.

Reference:

A. Familial Influence on Biological Development:

During infancy, a familial influence on my biological development was the emphasis on breastfeeding. My mother actively engaged in the practice of breastfeeding, providing essential nutrients and forming a strong physical bond. This active interaction contributed to my early physical health and attachment security.

Mothers who breastfeed have lower rates of diabetes, cardiovascular disease, depression, arthritis, and cancer (Louis-Jacques & Stuebe, 2018; Sattari et al., 2019). A mother's milk is tailored to her infant and has the right amount of fat, sugar, water, and protein needed for the baby's growth and development. Most babies find it easier to digest breast milk than formula. In addition, breast milk contains immunizing agents that protect the infant against infections, and breastfed infants tend to experience lower rates of allergies and gastrointestinal symptoms as well as have fewer visits to physicians (Cabinian et al., 2016; Turfkruyer & Verhasselt, 2015). Breastfeeding for more than 6 months is associated with reduced risk of childhood obesity and cancer, especially lymphomas (Amitay et al., 2016; Qiao et al., 2020; Victora et al., 2016). Exclusively breastfeeding during the first 4 to 6 weeks of life may be associated with longer telomeres, protective caps on chromosomes that predict lifespan longevity, at age 4 and 5 (Wojcicki et al., 2016).

Integrate from peer-reviewed journal:

• Betancourt, E. A. V., Urrego, . M. J., Munevar, A. M. C., Ospina, J. M., Prado, D. V., Arias, L. S. A., Tex, C. C. M., Pachn, A. T., Carvajal, A. B., & Paredes, C. O. (2017). association between affection and nutrition in infants from 0 to 12 months in mario correa rengifo hospital. Annals of Nutrition and Metabolism, 71, 827.

A link between breastfeeding and eating factors was found regarding maternal sensitivity, secure and disorganized attachment between mother and child. Positive associations between the duration of lactation and the sensitivity of the mother to establish an adequate attachment are evidenced. In order to recognize the nutritional importance, it is necessary to evoke the leading role of the mother as it represents everything that provides the baby: not only food, but immaterial aspects such as love and well-being.

Research Indication:

The research on familial influence on biological development, particularly regarding breastfeeding, indicates that infants who are breastfed experience numerous health benefits. Breastfeeding has been associated with lower rates of maternal diseases, such as diabetes, cardiovascular disease, depression, arthritis, and cancer. The composition of breast milk provides essential nutrients tailored to the infant's needs, contributing to optimal growth and development. Breastfed infants also exhibit lower rates of allergies and gastrointestinal symptoms, have enhanced protection against infections due to immunizing agents in breast milk, and may experience long-term health benefits such as reduced risks of childhood obesity and certain cancers.

Example: Familial Influence on Biological Development:

During infancy, a familial influence on my biological development was the emphasis on breastfeeding. My mother actively engaged in the practice of breastfeeding, providing essential nutrients and forming a strong physical bond. This active interaction contributed to my early physical health and attachment security.

Description of Influence and Effect on Development:

My mother's decision to breastfeed had a profound impact on my early development. The act of breastfeeding not only provided me with the necessary nutrients for physical growth but also established a strong emotional bond between us. The skin-to-skin contact and nurturing environment during breastfeeding contributed to a secure attachment, fostering a sense of trust and emotional well-being.

As a result of breastfeeding, I may have experienced fewer health issues during infancy, such as allergies or gastrointestinal symptoms. The immunizing agents present in breast milk likely provided added protection against infections, leading to fewer visits to physicians. The potential long-term benefits, such as a reduced risk of childhood obesity and certain cancers, could have influenced my health trajectory into later stages of development.

It's important to note that while the familial influence was positive in this scenario, individual experiences can vary, and the impact of breastfeeding on development may be influenced by various factors such as maternal health, socioeconomic status, and cultural practices.

B. Familial Influence on Cognitive Development:

We have seen that, from birth, infants attend to speech sounds. Through exposure to speech they rapidly tune into the language they hear, learning the sounds that comprise their language. How is language learning influenced by exposure to two languages? Brain scans suggest that 12-month-old bilingual infants' responses to language are similar to those of monolingual infants, suggesting that they are on the same timetable for language learning (Ferjan Ramrez et al., 2017). Notably, bilingual infants tend to retain the ability to discriminate phonetic speech sounds of other languages long after monolingual peers have narrowed their perception to native language sounds (Sebastian-Galles & Santolin, 2020).

Language development is promoted through exposure to speech during frequent, high-quality social interactions. The proportion of each language bilingual infants hear can vary day-to-day, depending on who is caring for them and with the proportion of infant-directed versus other-directed speech they hear (Orena et al., 2020). In bilingual babies the amount of infant-directed speech heard in one-to-one interactions influences the growth of that language but is unrelated to growth of the second language (De Houwer et al., 2018). Hearing lots of high-quality Spanish in interactions with a caregiver predicts the growth of Spanish but not English. Bilingual infants' brain responses to hearing each language varies with the amount and quality of speech they hear in each (Garcia-Sierra et al., 2011). Whether in one language or two, language growth is related to the quality and quantity of infant-directed speech (Kalashnikova & Carreiras, 2022).

Typically infants exposed to two languages from birth babble and produce their first words at the same rate as those exposed to one language. Bilingual infants' vocabulary development is similar to that of monolingual infants (Hhle et al., 2020; Ramrez & Kuhl, 2016). Although bilingual infants show a smaller vocabulary than monolingual infants on a single language, when both languages are considered, bilingual children do not lag behind monolingual peers (Hoff et al., 2012). Combined across both languages, bilingual children's vocabulary tends to be equal or greater than that of monolingual children (Hoff & Core, 2015).

Integrate from peer reviewed journal:

• Barac, R., & Bialystok, E. (2011). Cognitive development of bilingual children. Language Teaching, 44(1), 36-54. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0261444810000339

There has always been a common-sense view that the number of languages that children learn, whether through natural exposure or educational intervention, has consequences for their development. The assumption was that these consequences were potentially damaging. Even now, after approximately 50 years of research on the topic, parents remain concerned about their children's development when it includes a bilingual experience. It is now clear that although parents were correct that speaking more than one language has consequences, the assumption about the nature of these consequences is not: the outcome of the experience is in fact the opposite of what many early researchers claimed and what many contemporary parents intuitively believe. In contrast to early warnings about negative consequences, bilingualism turns out to be an experience that benefits many aspects of children's development. Although there are documented delays in acquiring some formal aspects of each language, such as vocabulary (Bialystok Reference Bialystok, Luk, Peets and Yang2010), bilingualism has either no effect (intelligence) or positive effects (metalinguistic awareness, cognitive development) on development.

There are many reasons why the early research was consistent in its negative conclusions, but two of them are (a) the way in which the question was formulated and (b) the methodology used to conduct the research. Regarding the first, the early research focused primarily on intelligence as defined by standardized test scores. It is not at all clear what is measured by such tests, but we do know that IQ scores are strongly influenced by such factors as socioeconomic status (SES). Furthermore, IQ is a conglomerate measure that tells us little about specific aspects of intellectual functioning. In this sense, there is no compelling reason to expect that bilingualismper se, or at least bilingualism on its own, would influence IQ score outcomes. In the early studies, bilingual children actually scored lower than monolinguals on these tests, but it soon became apparent that the problem was in the second factor mentioned above, namely, methodology. In most studies, bilingual children were lower SES than monolinguals; when subsequent studies controlled for SES, IQ differences between groups disappeared. Similarly, bilingual children often have poorer verbal skills in the language of testing than monolingual children, a factor that was not considered in comparing performance on tests that typically have a high verbal component.

The field has progressed through the examination of different domains in search of bilingual effects on development. Following the early studies on measures of standardized intelligence, during the 1970s and 1980s interest turned to language acquisition and to metalinguistic development in particular. This was a sensible place to seek evidence of bilingual effects on development, and, indeed, the studies showed almost uniformly positive outcomes for bilinguals. Learning two languages in childhood changed the way in which children could think about language. Such metalinguistic insights are a central component of academic success in that they are in part what schools are designed to teach. Therefore, another line of research examined the effect of bilingualism on school achievement, in particular on literacy and mathematical abilities. Along with this, research began investigating the impact of new educational programs in which a language not necessarily used in the home was the medium of school instruction. Research in immersion education began in the late 1960s, but more focused studies on literacy and mathematical abilities were more prevalent in the 1990s.

Research Indication:

The research indicates that language development in infants is influenced by exposure to speech sounds from birth. Bilingual infants, exposed to two languages, show similar language learning patterns as monolingual infants. Brain scans suggest that at 12 months, bilingual infants' responses to language align with those of their monolingual counterparts. Interestingly, bilingual infants retain the ability to discriminate phonetic speech sounds of other languages for a longer duration compared to monolingual peers.

Language development is promoted through frequent, high-quality social interactions. The amount and quality of speech, particularly infant-directed speech, influence language growth. In bilingual infants, the proportion of each language they hear can vary day-to-day, and the quantity of high-quality speech in each language influences their language development. Despite potential variations in vocabulary size in individual languages, bilingual children, when considering both languages, tend to have vocabularies equal to or greater than monolingual children.

Example: Familial Influence on Cognitive Development:

In the context of familial influence on cognitive development related to language acquisition, let's consider a hypothetical example:

Description of Influence and Effect on Development:

Growing up in a bilingual household, my parents made a conscious effort to expose me to both languages, English and Spanish. Both parents consistently engaged in high-quality social interactions, speaking to me in their respective languages. The exposure to infant-directed speech in both English and Spanish was a consistent and intentional effort by my parents.

The familial influence on my cognitive development was significant. The exposure to two languages from birth allowed me to rapidly tune into speech sounds in both languages, learning the distinct sounds that comprised each language. Brain scans conducted at 12 months might reveal responses similar to those of monolingual infants, indicating that I was on the same timetable for language learning.

As a result of this familial influence, I developed a strong foundation in both English and Spanish. The intentional exposure to high-quality speech in each language facilitated my ability to discriminate phonetic speech sounds, contributing to a well-rounded language development. Despite potentially having a smaller vocabulary in each language compared to monolingual peers, the combined vocabulary across both languages was equal to or greater than that of monolingual children.

This example highlights the positive impact of familial influence on cognitive development, emphasizing the importance of intentional exposure to multiple languages in a nurturing and high-quality social environment.

my development changed significantly as a result of the intentional efforts made by my parents in exposing me to two languages from birth. The specific actions taken by my parents, and the broader societal influence on bilingualism, played a crucial role in shaping my cognitive development. Here are some key ways in which my development changed:

• Bilingual Language Proficiency:
  • Change: I developed proficiency in both English and Spanish from an early age.
  • Effect: This linguistic proficiency allowed me to communicate effectively in two languages, providing cognitive advantages such as enhanced problem-solving skills and flexibility in thinking.
• Cognitive Flexibility:
  • Change: Exposure to two languages encouraged cognitive flexibility, as I learned to switch between languages depending on the context or the person I was interacting with.
  • Effect: Cognitive flexibility is a valuable skill that can extend beyond language use, aiding in various cognitive tasks and adapting to different situations more easily.
• Phonetic Discrimination Skills:
  • Change: Brain scans suggested that I retained the ability to discriminate phonetic speech sounds of other languages for a longer duration compared to monolingual peers.
  • Effect: This heightened sensitivity to phonetic distinctions could contribute to enhanced auditory processing skills, potentially influencing proficiency in music, language learning, and other auditory-based activities.
• Cultural Awareness:
  • Change: Exposure to two languages often involves exposure to two cultures, fostering cultural awareness and sensitivity.
  • Effect: Growing up with an understanding of and appreciation for multiple cultures may contribute to open-mindedness, empathy, and an ability to navigate diverse social environments.
• Combined Vocabulary Strength:
  • Change: Despite potentially having a smaller vocabulary in each language compared to monolingual peers, the combined vocabulary across both languages was equal to or greater than that of monolingual children.
  • Effect: This could lead to a broader and more diverse vocabulary, potentially influencing academic success, communication skills, and overall cognitive abilities.

In summary, the intentional efforts of my parents to expose me to two languages, combined with the societal acceptance and support for bilingualism, led to positive changes in my cognitive development. These changes included enhanced language proficiency, cognitive flexibility, phonetic discrimination skills, cultural awareness, and a robust combined vocabulary. The family's actions and the societal context contributed to a rich and diverse cognitive landscape that influenced various aspects of my development.

C. Socioemotional Development (Familial Influence):

Stranger Wariness

Many infants around the world display stranger wariness (also known as stranger anxiety), a fear of unfamiliar people. In many, but not all, cultures, stranger wariness emerges at about 6 months and increases throughout the first year of life, beginning to decrease after about 15 months of age (Bornstein et al., 2013; Sroufe, 1977). Locomotion, infant success in crawling or walking, tends to precede the emergence of stranger wariness, suggesting interconnections among motor and emotional development (Brand et al., 2020). From an evolutionary perspective, stranger wariness may have emerged to protect infants as they became able to initiate new interactions with unknown and potentially unsafe adults (Hahn-Holbrook et al., 2010).

Whether infants show stranger wariness depends on the infants' overall temperament, their past experience, and the situation in which they meet a stranger (R. A. Thompson & Limber, 1991). The pattern of stranger wariness varies among infants. Some show rapid increases and others show slow increases in stranger wariness; once wariness has been established, some infants show steady decline and others show more rapid changes. Twin studies suggest that these patterns are influenced by genetics, because the patterns of change are more similar among monozygotic twins (identical twins who share 100% of their genes) than dizygotic twins (fraternal twins who share 50% of their genes) (Brooker et al., 2013).

Among North American infants, stranger wariness is generally expected by parents and caregivers. However, infants of the Efe people of Zaire, Africa, show little stranger wariness. This is likely related to the Efe collective caregiving system, in which Efe babies are passed from one adult to another, relatives and nonrelatives alike (Tronick et al., 1992). The infants form relationships with the many people who care for them (Meehan & Hawks, 2013). In contrast, babies reared in Israeli kibbutzim (cooperative agricultural settlements that tend to be isolated) tend to demonstrate widespread wariness of strangers. By the end of the first year, when infants look to others for cues about how to respond emotionally, kibbutz babies display far greater anxiety than babies reared in Israeli cities (Saarni et al., 1998). In this way, stranger wariness may be adaptive, modifying infants' drive to explore in light of contextual circumstances (Easterbrooks et al., 2012).

Stranger wariness illustrates the dynamic interactions among the individual and context (LoBue & Adolph, 2019). An infant's emotionality and temperamental style, tendencies toward social interaction, and, of course, past experience with strangers are important. Parental expectations and anxiety also matter. Infants whose mothers report greater stress reactivity, who experience more anxiety and negative affect in response to stress, show higher rates of stranger wariness (Brooker et al., 2013; Waters et al., 2014). Characteristics of the stranger (e.g., his or her height), the familiarity of the setting, and how quickly the stranger approaches influence how the infant appraises the situation (LoBue et al., 2019). Infants are more open when the stranger is sensitive to the infant's signals and approaches at the infant's pace (Mangelsdorf, 1992). Not all infants show stranger wariness. Instead, whether, how, and how long infants demonstrate emergence of stranger wariness is the result of the complex interplay among individual characteristics, experiences, and context (LoBue & Adolph, 2019).

Over the first few months of life, infants display the full range of basic emotions. As their cognitive and social capabilities develop, they can experience complex social emotions, such as embarrassment. The social world plays a role in emotional development. Adults interact with infants, provide opportunities to observe and practice emotional expressions, and assist in regulating emotions. Much of emotional development is the result of the interplay of infants' emerging capacities and the contexts in which they are raised.

Integrate from peer reviewed journal:

Developmental changes in infant-stranger interaction** Mangelsdorf, S. C. (1992). Developmental changes in infant-stranger interaction. Infant Behavior & Development, 15(2), 191-208. https://doi.org/10.1016/0163-6383(92)80023-N

Although considerable attention has been given to the phenomenon of "stranger anxiety," we still do not know some of the behavioral characteristics of strangers associated with infants' wariness of strangers and how these may change with development. We also have not systematically examined the ways in which adults may vary their behavior as a function of the age of the child. The following study addresses these issues. Seventy-five infants (25 in each group of 6-, 12-, and 18-month-olds) were videotaped interacting with three strangers sequentially. One stranger (the "standard stranger") interacted with all of the infants first. The other strangers (N = 50) each interacted with three infants, one from each age group. The videotapes were coded for various aspects of infant and stranger behavior. Six-month-olds were more positive with strangers who showed more positive affect and who did not touch them. In contrast, 12- and 18-month-olds' reactions were related to aspects of the stranger behavior such as controllability and sensitivity. Strangers behaved very differently with 18-month-olds than with the younger infants, allowing them more control in the interaction. Maternal reports of their infants' reactions to strangers obtained before the laboratory visit were significantly related to infant behavior observed in the lab.

Research Indication:

The research indicates that stranger wariness, a common socioemotional development in infants, is influenced by various factors, including an infant's overall temperament, past experiences, and the situation in which they encounter strangers. Cultural and familial practices also play a significant role, as seen in variations across different societies.

Example: Familial (or Sociocultural) Influence on Stranger Wariness:

Description of Influence and Effect on Development:

In my family, the approach to stranger wariness was influenced by cultural norms and familial practices. Both of my parents were part of a close-knit community where collective caregiving was a common practice. This communal caregiving system involved not only immediate family members but also extended relatives and nonrelatives who actively participated in raising and caring for infants.

Influence:

The familial influence was characterized by the collective caregiving system. In our community, it was common for infants to be passed from one caregiver to another, creating a network of individuals involved in the child's care. This practice significantly differed from the more individualized caregiving commonly seen in North American cultures.

Effect on Development:

As a result of this communal caregiving influence, infants like me were exposed to a multitude of caregivers, both relatives and nonrelatives, from an early age. This practice likely contributed to a lower level of stranger wariness. Instead of encountering unfamiliar individuals as potential threats, I, along with other infants in the community, developed a familiarity and comfort with a diverse array of caregivers.

Changes in Development:

• Reduced Stranger Wariness: The communal caregiving approach resulted in a reduced level of stranger wariness. Infants in the community were accustomed to interacting with various caregivers, leading to a more open and accepting attitude towards unfamiliar faces.
• Increased Social Comfort: Exposure to a broad network of caregivers likely enhanced social comfort and adaptability. Infants became more open when encountering strangers, as the practice of collective caregiving emphasized sensitivity to the infant's signals and approached interactions at the infant's pace.
• Cultural Adaptation: The communal caregiving practice reflected the cultural norms of the community. This cultural adaptation influenced not only individual infant development but also the broader social dynamics within the community, fostering a sense of shared responsibility for childcare.

In summary, the familial influence of communal caregiving practices had a significant impact on the socioemotional development of infants, leading to reduced stranger wariness and increased social comfort in unfamiliar situations. This example highlights the intricate interplay between familial practices, cultural norms, and socioemotional development in shaping an individual's early experiences with strangers.