Normative_Development

Given that we all experience our lives differently, can normative development exist' According to Baltes, Lindenberger and Staudinger (2006) there are seven basic components of normal healthy human development. This essay will analyse and critique these concepts of healthy human development in combination with the common debates in developmental psychology of nature vs. nurture, activity vs. passivity, continuity vs. discontinuity and universality vs. context specific. Supported by the literature, this discussion will outline certain norms that are attributed to development and will show that such parameters can be very useful tools when determining the need for medical, educational or psychological support in appropriate cases. According to Sigelman & Rider (2009) human development can be categorised into three domains, physical, cognitive and psychosocial. The domains of physical development and cognitive development are empirically quantifiable and therefore lend themselves more easily to measurement. Psychosocial development is more subjective and abstract and therefore is less easily measured in finite terms. Using these concepts as a guide, two influential theories of development will be compared: Piaget’s constructivist theory of cognitive development (Lourenco & Armando 2006; Sigelman & Rider 2009; van Geert 1998) and Vygotsky’s theory of sociocultural influence (Rodina, 2006; Sigelman & Rider 2009; van Geert 1998). Finally the question of whether normative development can exist in the context of the universal cultural differences will be discussed. Normative is defined by the Oxford English Dictionary as “establishing, relating to, or deriving from a standard or norm, especially of behaviour” However what is standard or normal' It may be argued that what is considered to be normal for one individual or one group of people may not be considered normal for another (Sigelman & Rider 2009). Also within any normal measurement, there is high and low variance from the average or expected value of what is being measured. Any measure within this standard deviation is still considered to be within the normal range (Geoffrey, Sloan and Wyrwich 2003). Therefore there are often large variances between values that are considered to be normal, making the concept of normal subjective in its nature. However, despite this subjectivity decades of research by many theorists have postulated parameters for normal human behaviour. These parameters are very useful tools because once an understanding is gained of how human’s normally behave in certain situations then therapists can gain a greater understanding of how to deal with behaviours that fall outside of these parameters and are considered unhealthy (Sigelman & Rider 2009). Development is defined by Sigelman & Rider (2009, p. 2) as “systematic changes and continuities in the individual that occur between conception and death …” This definition suggests that human development continues throughout the entire life cycle encompassing both periods of stability, with little change, and regular patterns of change. The concept of healthy human development being a process that continues throughout life, taking different directions, sometimes changing and sometimes remaining stable is supported by Baltes et. al. (2006) among their proposed assumptions about healthy human development. Therefore given that the term normative involves a range of values that can be interpreted subjectively and that development continues throughout the entire life span, normative development must be multifaceted and complex. A discussion of this complexity involves the debates common to psychology research of nature vs. nurture, activity vs. passivity, continuity vs, discontinuity and universality vs. context specific. As stated in this essay question all people experience their lives differently. The debate of whether people are influenced in their development more by the biological factors of their birth ie. by nature, or whether they are shaped by their environment has concluded with the accepted decision that both factors have substantial influence on how people develop (Sigelman & Rider 2009 ). Additional to this debate is whether or not people take an active part in shaping their own experiences, referred to as activity, or whether they allow the factors within their environments to shape their development for them, passivity. An active or passive life approach has a major influence on how each person’s life evolves and continues to develop. Despite biological factors of birth or the factors involved in their upbringing people will either choose to challenge their environment or they will allow the environment in which they live to determine how they act. Each choice will result in different outcomes. Some of these outcomes my result in people exhibiting behaviours or standards that are different from their normal social groups, subcultures or culture. Sigelman & Rider (2009) state that each group of people set up their own sets of what are considered to be normal standards within their group. These groups can be as small as eg. a family unit or a group of teenagers in a small country town or a large as an entire nation. Many people within groups will abide by these norms while others will shape their own futures more actively. However while this behaviour may be considered abnormal because it does not fit into accepted cultural norms it may not be unhealthy. The ability to change and adapt to environmental influences whether they are viewed as detrimental or enhancing is described as plasticity (Baltes et. al. 2006, Sigelman & Rider 2009). Plasticity is one of the factors described by Baltes et. al. (2006) as one of the requisites for healthy human development Many changes occur across a lifetime and occur in many different ways. Often changes are gradual and quantifiably measurable and these are described as continuity. Discontinuity changes a person in a qualitative way and is described as more abrupt then gradual (Sigelman & Rider 2009). Qualitative changes can be subtle and may be less easily detectable eg. personality changes. In a meta-analysis of 92 longitudinal studies of 6 personality traits that were studied over life times Roberts, Walton & Viechtbauer (2006) found that even though changes can be subtle personality does change over lifetimes shaped and influenced by the continuity and discontinuity in people’s lives. Another study by Robins, Trzesniesski, Gosling, Tracy & Potter (2002) showed that self-esteem fluctuates over the life span with the inflated self-esteem of childhood diminishing over time through adolescence then developing again according to a person’s ability to deal with their circumstances. Healthy development over a life span involves both gains and losses, which inevitably involve change of some kind. Baltes et. al. (2006) suggests that gains and losses occur together. A gain in one area can be accompanied by a loss in another eg. a new unpleasant experience, something gained, may result in the loss of innocence or naivety. As with other facets of development, these gains and losses and changes continue through all phases of human development from infancy through to late adulthood. They can be either minor with small resultant changes, as in continuity, or they can involve major historical events or natural disasters and be discontinuous. Some people live through wars or economic depressions and disasters of nature such as tsunami’s or cyclones or devastating bush fires. Individuals or societal groups can manage disasters such as these either actively or passively, viewed as gains or losses. Each society and each individual will respond to these disasters according to their own resilience and coping management skills. Events such as these, either minor or major, are described by Pulkkinen and Caspi (2002) as transition stages where people have an opportunity to re-evaluate their lives and redefine their values adding to their life-experience. Therefore it can be seen that all people experience their lives differently. Human lives are shaped by a variety of factors including biological makeup, environmental frameworks, personality traits such as activity, passivity and plasticity, whether changes exhibit continuity or discontinuity and how these changes are handled and then lives redefined. Within this complex and multifaceted framework decades of research has defined behaviours that indicate normative healthy patterns. Also within this complexity it is suggested that development takes three main forms. According to Sigelman & Rider (2009) human development falls into three main domains, physical, cognitive and psychosocial. Physical development is easily measured with infants growing rapidly through to when growth stops in late adolescence or early adulthood. Normal values for growth are easily measured and abnormalities are detected quickly. Biological and cultural factors are the main indicators for growth patterns. The discussion of cognitive and psychosocial development is handled by this essay by comparing and contrasting two prominent theorists, Jean Piaget and Lev Vygotsky. According to Sigelman & Rider (2009) the work of Jean Piaget in the 1920’s was fundamental in devising a theory of cognitive development in children. Piaget was the first to recognise that children develop through a series of thinking styles and that the stages of childhood thinking were qualifiable. Using this qualitative analysis he was able to define specific stages of early childhood development that would give parents, teachers and doctors and therapists guidelines for managing any concerns with children’s growth patterns. Piaget’s theories were called constructivism because he believed that children constructed their actions and behaviours according to the experiences they were receiving from their environment (Sigelman & Rider 2009; van Geert 1998)). Piaget’s theories have provided the world with what are considered to be normal standards for childhood cognitive development from which perceived abnormalities in childhood can be treated. Piaget’s constructivist theory defined four stages of cognitive development in children in what he called an “invariant sequence” (Sigelman and Rider 2009. p 46). This means that all children progress through these stages in the order outlined by Piaget without skipping a stage or going backwards at any stage. From this research normal parameters for child development were proposed. A deviation outside of the standard deviation for these normal values would be cause for concern. Piaget believed that children construct their own learning by trying to make sense of the environment in which they find themselves. What then of the children who live in vastly different cultures from the ones Piaget studied and described' If the environments in which they found themselves were vastly different from the middle-class European children of Piaget’s studies (Piaget, 2007) then would their stages of development also not be vastly different' Piaget’s theories have been well respected by fellow theorists however they are no longer as universally accepted as they once were. Modern developmental theories continue to support the premise devised by Piaget that both factors of nature and the way in which children are nurtured allow them to be active in constructing their own learning and development in quantifiable ways. However while Piaget’s work has been widely supported it is no longer completely supported (Lourenco and Armando 1996; van Geert 1998). Lourenco and Armando (1996), in an article written in defense of Piaget’s work state that critics of Piaget say his theory is “…empirically wrong, epistemologically weak and philosophically naïve…” (p. 143). The main criticisms of his findings are that they are not widely supported by ongoing data, that by establishing age norms they underestimate the competence of some children and that they do not take wider social and cultural factors into consideration. This discussion of social and cultural differences is addressed more fully by the theories of Lev Vygotsky. A contemporary of Piaget, a Russian psychologist Lev Vygotsky developed a fundamentally different theory of cognitive development encompassing the vast number of cultural and social difference universally (Sigelman & Rider 2009; van Geert 1998). Vygotsky proposed that children develop knowledge and skills by social interaction with adults in their environments. This is a view of development that can be considered in the context of the many and varied cultures, subcultures and societies around the world. Vygotsky proposed that the social interactions and social tools, such as language, that children were exposed to within their societies and cultures influenced the development of their thoughts (Rodina 2006; Sigelman & Rider 2009; van Geert 1998). One of the main psychological debates that has been inferred throughout this paper but not yet discussed is that of universality vs context specific. Can developmental patterns truly cover all the many and varied cultures throughout the world' Or can they only be specific to certain context’s, groups, societies or cultures' Norenzayan & Heine (2005) undertook to investigate whether or not psychological universal attributes do exist and if so to what degree. The research describes universal psychological attributes as “core mental attributes that are shared at some conceptual level by all or nearly all non-brain damaged adult human beings across cultures” (p. 763). Using an empirical methodology to analyse psychological patterns from different cultures these researchers suggest that psychological research historically has concentrated on samples from “middle-class, technologically advanced, primarily Western college-aged” (p. 779) subjects and the next stage in psychological research is the continued expansion to encompass the world’s huge diversity of cultures. Another meta-analysis testing cultural differences was undertaken by Liu, Wellman, Tardif & Sabbagh (2008) testing theory of mind in Chinese children. Involving more than 3000 Chinese children this meta- analysis concluded that theory of mind develops universally. Even though we all experience our lives differently, normative development can exist. Developmental psychology research and debates explain that despite the complex and multifactorial nature of human development certain parameters can be defined. These parameters are easier to define for quantifiable behaviours such as growth and cognition and these provide helpful measures for parents, teachers, doctors and therapists to decide when and if support may be needed. However parameters are not so easy to determine for psychosocial factors considering people’s individual coping strategies and especially taking vast universal cultural differences into consideration. However as the very nature of the term normative is subjective there will always be large variances within normal parameters. References Baltes, P. B., Lindenberger, U. & Staudinger, U. M. (2006) Life span psychology: Theory and application to intellectual functioning. Annual Review of Paychology. 50, 471-507. Geoffrey, N. R., Sloan, J. A. and Wyrwich, K. W. (2003) Interpretation of changes in health-related quality of life: The remarkable universality of half a standard deviation. Medical Care. 41 (5), 582-592 Liu, D., Wellman, H. M., Tardif, T. and Sabbagh, M. A. (2008) Theory of mind development in Chinese children: A meta-analysis of false-belief understanding across cultures and languages. Developmental Psychology 44(2), 523-531 Lourenco. O. & Machado, A. (1996) In defense of Piaget’s Theory: A reply to 10 common criticisms. Psychological Review 130(1), 143-164 Norenzayan, A. and Heine, S.J. (2005) Psychological universals: What are they and how can we know' Psychological Bulletin 131(5), 763-784 The Oxford English Dictionary. http://oxforddictionaries.com/definitions/normal accessed 26.07.2011 Pulkkinen, L. & Caspi, A. (2002) Personality and paths to successful development : an overview. In Paths to successful development: Personality in the life course. L. Pulkkinen & A. Caspi (eds). West Nyack, N.Y: Cambridge University Press Piaget, J. (2007) The child’s conception of the world. Lanham, MA: Rowman and Littlefield Roberts, B. W., Walton, K. E. and Viechtbauer, W. (2006) Patterns of mean- level change in personality traits across the life course: A meta- analysis of longitudinal studies. Psychological Bulletin. 132 (1), 1-25. Robins, R. W., Trzesniewski, K. H., Tracy, J. L., Potter, J. and Gosling, S. D. (2002) Global self-esteem across the life span. Psychology and Aging. 17 (3), 423-434. Rodina, K.A. (2006). The Neo-Vygotsykian approach to early communication: A cultural, historic and activity based concept of otogeny.Nordic Psychology 58(4); 331-354 Sigelman, C. K. & Rider, E. A. (2009) Life- Span Human Development (6th ed.). Belmont, CA: Wadsworth Cengage Learning van Geert, P. (1998) A dynamic systems model of basic developmental mechanisms: Piaget, Vygotsky, and beyond. Psychological Review, 105 (4), 634-677