Understanding Children's Behavior - Literature review Example

Understanding Children’s Behaviour There have been several individuals who have come up with theories that attempt to explain why people, especially children, grow up to who they are and why or how they develop certain behaviours. This article will examine, compare and contrast a few of these popular developmental theories and evaluate the contribution that these theories have made towards the understanding of children behaviour. Sigmund Freud and Erik Erikson Both the psychosexual and the psychological theories of development, which were the brainchild Sigmund Freud and Erik Erikson, respectively, both tackle the same topic but approach it from different perspectives. Erikson’s theory may have been influenced by Freud’s theory but the two theories differ in many different yet important ways (Sigelman & Shaffer, 1991). According to Freud, children go through the oral stage during their first year of life (Bocock, 2002). This is the stage in which the mouth is their main source of pleasure through tasting, sucking and eating. Erikson defines the same period as a period in which children develop trust or mistrust for their caregivers. From 1-3 years of age, Fraud’s theory states that children pass through the anal stage in which they develop the sense of competence and mastery by controlling their bowel and bladder movements. But according to Erikson, in this age group the children are at the autonomy versus doubt stage where they develop the sense to be self-sufficient by developing control activities like toilet training, talking and eating (Sigelman & Rider, 2008). Fraud’s theory calls the 3-6 years of age stage the phallic stage. The phallic stage involves children focusing their libido energy on the genitals. The children also begin identifying with their parents of the same sex. Erikson however calls this stage the initiative versus guilt stage in which children develop more control over the environment surrounding them. Between the ages of seven and eleven, children are at the latent period. This is according to Freud who states that children suppress the libido energy at this stage and begin focusing their attention and energies on other activities like hobbies, friends and school. Erikson though, states that the children are at the industry versus inferiority stage in which they develop competence skills by gaining new skills (Sigelman & Rider, 2008). The two theories further differ as the adolescence stage; Freud states that the children begin exploring romantic relationships while Erikson states that children are at the identity versus role confusion stage where they develop the sense of the self and personal identities. At the adulthood stage, Freud states that the individuals still undergo the genital stage and further states that the main goal at this stage is for the individual to gain some balance between all the things in life (Bocock, 2002). Erikson meanwhile states that the adulthood period involves the three stages of intimacy versus isolation, generativity versus stagnation and integrity versus despair. Individuals seek out companionship and romantic relationships while at the intimacy versus isolation stage and begin to nature the next generation and make contributions to the society at the generativity versus stagnation stage. At the integrity versus despair stage, senior members of the society reflect back in life with either the sense of bitterness of integrity, depending on the individual’s feelings of having or having not achieved much in life (Wood & Wood, 1999). It can be noted that Erikson’s theory gives competing traits for each stage and the trait that emerges stronger defines the individual’s character. Maslows Hierarchy of Needs Theory from A Humanistic Perspective Abraham Maslow, who is regarded among the originators of the Humanistic Approach, conceived “the Third Force” term to depict the humanistic approach. He emphasized how this differed from the Behaviourist and Psychodynamic perspectives which at his time were the subject of psychology (Orsch, 1990). Maslow suggested the idea of self actualization in humans and emphasized motivation as being the key to exploring and gaining understanding on human behaviour. According to him, the motives of human beings can be arranged according to a pyramid of hierarchy of needs. The basic and strongest needs lie at the bottom of the pyramid and as one moves up the pyramid, the needs are less basic. Once an individual meets a need located at the lower level of the pyramid, the individual develops newer needs located in the next levels of the hierarchy period and the trend continues until the individual is at the self actualization stage. An individual in the self actualization stage is considered as having their full potential. Individuals in this stage, according to Maslow, typically feel that they are at the peak of their lives and experience moments of intense happiness, great awe, bliss, rapture and ecstasy (Jamal & McKinnon, 2006). Comparison of Maslow’s theory with that of Freud and Erikson The main difference between these types of theories is that while Freud and Erikson’s theories are psychoanalytic theories, Maslow’s theory is a humanistic theory. The psychoanalytic approach is founded on the idea that the one’s experiences during the childhood stage greatly influence the development of personality traits in the latter stages of life (Masling, 1990). These theories propose that psychological problems are also caused by childhood experiences. Psychoanalysis is mostly involved with the understanding of unconscious motivations and how these affect the behaviour of human beings. Humanism on the other hand views psychoanalysis as being too pessimistic since it (psychoanalysis) focuses too much on the most tragic emotions and fails to consider the role that personal choice plays in development. Humanistic approach to psychology therefore focused on the potential that each individual holds and stressed on the significance of self actualization and growth (Coon & Mitterer, 2008). The humanistic approach views people as innately good and in addition regard social and mental problems as resultants from factors that cause deviations from this natural occurrence. Abraham Maslow came up with “the third force” as a different way of approaching psychology; the first force being behaviourism and the second psychoanalysis. These three schools of thought are not competing elements in the exploration of psychology but have all contributed in human understanding of the mind and behaviours. The humanistic approach seems to be the most popular approach is psychology studies today. The Nature/Nurture Debate and the Ideas of Behaviour Genetics While there is no dispute about physical characteristics being hereditary, there still exists some uncertainty when it comes to genetic matters and especially their effect on an individual’s personality, intelligence and behaviour. The nature versus nurture debate has been ongoing for sometime now probably due to the fact that, up to date, we are yet to discover just by how much of our traits are determined by either our DNA or by experiences in life. The nature theory proposes that humans behave in accordance to genetic predispositions while the nurture theory proposes that human behaviour is heavily influenced by what they learn from their surrounding. Recent studies into the human genome have shown that both the nature and nurture arguments have some truth but no study has yet shown the extent to which either nurture or nature affects human behaviour or as such, the debate continues (Gillette, 2007). There are some indications that seem to support the notion of behaviours being affected by genetics. In humans, for instance, there is a lucid familial aggregation of mental conditions. Furthermore, brain injuries can alter human behaviours and doctors often modify the behavioural symptoms of mental illnesses, like schizophrenia, by use of drugs that alter the chemistry of the brain (McLnerney, 2008). Some studies on mice have shown that certain behaviours can be created or extinguished by interfering with some genes. There is no singe gene that can determine any particular behaviour (McLnerney, 2008) since behavioural traits are complex and can only be affected by multiple genes that are influenced by numerous other factors. The development of any behavioural traits therefore occurs as a result of both environmental factors and genetics and possessing some genetic variants does not automatically lead to the development of certain behaviours. Genetic factors can either be repressed of enhanced by the presence of particular genetic factors and they can influence whatever role is played by certain environmental factors in the development of certain behaviours (John, Robins & Pervin, 2008). For instance, an individual may posses the gene associated with the development of emphysema from smoking. However if the individual never smokes, then he or she will not develop emphysema. This shows how an environmental factor (smoking) can be influenced by genetics. Discussion of temperament, personality and social emotional issues that affect behaviour The combination of an individual’s customized brain wiring and biological heritage presents itself as the individual’s temperament (Osit, 2008). Temperament, being a trait that is biologically based, is at times considered as a risk factor that can predispose individuals to aggressive and anti social behaviours. Some infants are born with the temperament trait of aggressiveness (Osit, 2008). If a child repeatedly experiences negative consequences, for some period of time, for this aggressive behaviour, perhaps due to the employment of strict rules from parents or guardians, then the possibility of the child’s aggressive behaviour becoming under control increases. If this child were to grow in a family that instead provides positive reinforcements for the aggressive behaviour, then the child is likely to develop with the aggressive behaviour to the adulthood stage. Personality theorists view aggressive behaviour as one that endures over time and manifests itself in different situations. Personality psychologists classify violent people into two groups; under-controlled and over-controlled personality types. Persons with under-controlled personality types show very little inhibitions against aggressive behaviour and easily get angry while the over-controlled personalities show exhibit extreme inhibition against aggressive behaviour (Kazarian, 2001). There have been several studies on social factors and their effect on aggressive behaviours. Some of these studies have shown that children have a higher chance of developing serious aggressive behaviour problems when they grow up in homes that have negative social and emotional issues like poor parental supervision, inconsistent discipline standards, numerous parental conflicts and parental criminal records, mentioning but a few. In fact these variables are used in predicting the development of aggressive behaviour in children (Bray, 1997). The Theories of Ainsworth, Bowlby and Rutter The attachment theory, as is known today, is the brainchild of John Bowlby (Goldberg, Muir and Kerr, 2000). The theory is an ethological, psychological and evolutionary theory that explores the interpersonal relationships between humans. In infants, attachment behaviour is seen when an infant seeks an attachment figure to identify with it situations perceived to be distressful or alarming, and this is regarded as a survival strategy. In the later stages, the child uses the attachment figure as a secure base from which to explore and go back to. The responses of parents to this attachment has been associated with the development of attachment patterns which in turn results in the formation of internal working models that will guide the feelings, expectations and thoughts and behaviours of the individual during the latter stages of life (Goldberg, Muir and Kerr, 2000). Mary Ainsworth is attributed with coming up with a theory that describes numerous attachment styles experienced by infants. According to Ainsworth, the attachments experienced by infants include secure attachments, anxious attachments, avoidant attachments and in latter stages, disorganized attachments (Ainsworth, Waters & Wall, 1978). The 1972 ‘Maternal Deprivation Reassessed’ findings by Michael Rutter evaluated the hypothesis of maternal deprivation as had been propounded by Bowlby earlier. According to Bowlby, infants and young children should experience intimate, warm and continuous relationships with their mothers or permanent substitutes to their mothers and both the child and mother should enjoy and be satisfied by this relationship (Goldberg, Muir and Kerr, 2000). This theory by Bowlby was both seen as controversial and influential. In 1981, Rutter produced a monograph which, together with his other earlier written papers, significantly contributed to the understanding of the attachment theory by amassing further evidence that addressed the numerous underlying psychological and social mechanisms that revealed that Bowlby’s theory was only partially correct. By highlighting other deprivation forms, Rutter proposed that the trait of anti-socialism was not only connected to maternal deprivation but in addition, it is connected to family discord. Conclusion As mentioned by this article, behaviour is a complex trait making understanding it also a complex affair. There have been many theories formed to help us understand behaviour issues and though some may seem to be contradicting each other, they have all contributed a lot in our today’s understanding of the behaviour trait since each has approached the issue from a different perspective. References Ainsworth, M.D., Waters, E. and Wall, S. (1978), Patterns of attachment: a psychological study of the strange situation, London: Routledge. Bocock, S. (2002), Sigmund Freud, London: Routledge. Bray, N. (1997), International Review of Research in Mental Retardation, Volume 21, California: Academic Press. Coon, D. and Mittere, J.O. (2008), Introduction to Psychology: Gateways to Mind and Behavior, California: Cengage Learning. Gillette, A. (2007), Eugenics and the nature-nurture debate in the twentieth century, Hampshire: Palgrave MacMillan. Goldberg, S., Muir, R. and Kerr, J. (2000), Attachment Theory: Social, Developmental, and Clinical Perspectives, London: Routledge. Jamal, A. and McKinnon,H. (2006), The Power of Giving, Mumbai: Jaico Publishing House. John, O.P., Robins, R.W. and Pervin, L.A. (2008), Handbook of personality: theory and research, New York: Guilford Press. Masling, J. (1990), Empirical Studies of Psychoanalytic Theories, London: Routledge. McLnerney, J., (2008), Behavioural Genetics, retrieved on 18th May, 2010. Available at: http://www.ornl.gov/sci/techresources/Human_Genome/elsi/behavior.shtml Kazarian, S.S. (2001), Introduction to Psychology for Law Enforcement, Toronto: Edmond Montgomery Publication. Orsch, R. (1990), Before the gates of excellence: the determinants of creative genius, Cambridge: CUP Archive. Osit, M., (2008), Generation Text: Raising Well-Adjusted Kids in an Age of Instant Everything, New York: AMACOM. Sigelman,C. and Rider, E. (2008), Life-Span Human Development, California: Cengage Learning. Sigelman, C. and Shaffer, D.S. (1991), Life-span human development, Volume 1990, Califonia: Brooks/Cole Publishing Company. Wood, S.E. and Wood, E.G. (1999), The World of Psychology, Massachusetts: Allyn and Bacon. Read More