As ‘schemas’ develop over the years, older children develop cognitively so think in different ways than younger ones. Piaget compared such development to biological evolution, identifying four stages: Sensorimotor, Preoperational, Concrete operations and Formal operations. He believed all children experience this developmental sequence, and none of these stages can be omitted. Children should be taught when they are ready to learn. If pressured to learn too early, they at best are unable to learn, and at worst find learning experiences so unpleasant they give up and refuse to learn in the future (http://www.hku.hk/psychodp/P2/cognitive.rtf).
The ‘Sensorimotor’ stage occurs from 0-2 years. Children’s exploration and learning occurs primarily through immediate perception and physical experiences, dominated by their immediate experiences (Crawford & Walker 2003, p39). During this stage, children differentiate self from objects, and achieve object permanence (realising that things continue to exist even when they do not physically sense them).
‘Preoperational’ occurs, according to Piaget, between 2 – 6 years. Children understand how to use basic logic, but cannot understand how other people may perceive the environment.
The ‘Preoperational’ stage has several stages, namely: Egocentric – having difficulty seeing things from another viewpoint than their own; Centration –focusing attention on one aspect of the situation, rather than seeing it from a different dimension, and Lack of reversibility – failing to understand that working backwards can restore whatever existed before, or that carrying out a second transformation can negate the first (Crawford & Walker 2003, p39). Piaget stated that between the ages of 7 – 12years the ‘Concrete Operation’ stage develops, whereby a child can take account of different perspectives on the environment and undertake more complex logical reasoning. Lastly Piaget introduced the term ‘Formal Operation’ (adolescence, 12yrs+). This is when children have developed the ability to imagine and speculate. Children can conceive new ideas underpinned by reasoning without the need for prior experience.
These ‘higher-order operations’ no longer require the presence of concrete objects at a particular time, but such abilities vary with people and situations. The style and thinking of immature adults are similar to those of children: dichotomous and categorical thinking (‘black and white’ versus ‘shades of grey’), authoritarianism, egocentrism, and Centration (focussing on a single clue in perception and thinking). Hence, development of these stages is essential if we are to become ‘mature’ adults (http://www.hku.hk/psychodp/P2/cognitive.rtf).
Piaget believed that moral feelings develop by taking orders from parents or authority figures, and this occurs only in contexts of respect and fear. Initially the order is effective only when the parent is physically present.
Young children are egocentric; they are unaware of rules in games, don’t bother to check them and cannot cooperate with others. When rules begin to operate, children seven and younger (preoperative stage) regard them as being derived from authority, absolute, sacred and needing no justification. Over sevens (concrete operational stage) realize that rules are agreed upon by equals for the common good and can be changed if they agree. The sense of justice begins to replace that of obedience (http://www.hku.hk/psychodp/P2/cognitive.rtf).
Piaget has made a huge impact on developmental psychology, but has been criticised. Research has demonstrated that children possess many of the cognitive abilities Piaget outlines at ages much earlier than he expected. Improving or altering the method of testing often improved results. Piaget seems to have overestimated people’s formal operational ability: some research suggests that only one third of the population reach this stage.
While Piaget’s theory provides us with a detailed description of development, some have said it does not explain it. Concepts are vague; many areas overlap, suggesting development is perhaps better considered a continuous process. By focusing on their mistakes, Piaget may have overlooked important abilities that children do possess. ()
Different fields have given Piaget’s theory much support over many years. His theory has been modified and criticised, but much of it remains accepted as valid today. Piaget himself modified it to accommodate certain criticisms, and hoped that one day it could be integrated with other theories, such as Bowlby’s.
Bowlby believed that children have an innate instinct to attach to their primary caregiver for survival, and are born with the tendency to display certain behaviours. These behaviours help ensure proximity and contact with the mother (or mother figure), for example crying and smiling. Bowlby called this ‘attachment behaviour’. This supports the evolutionary viewpoint; those babies that stayed close to their mother figure would have best survived. Therefore it could be said that humans have evolved a biological need to behave in this way, supporting the ‘nature’ approach.
However, from the ‘nurture’ side, could it be that attachments are formed with respect to a child’s temperament? If a child has a difficult nature – for example, crying all the time - the parent will respond differently than to a happy, easy baby, disrupting the pattern of attachment formation. Other outside influences must also be taken into account, e.g. babies with special needs. Following Bowlby’s attachment theory, Howe claims ‘if a child receives inconsistent and erratic parental responses when he or she experiences anxiety, that child will fail to develop effective strategies for dealing with anxiety on future occasions’ (quoted in Howe, 1995, p12). Bowlby believed that prolonged separation of the child from the mother (Maternal Deprivation) was a major cause of ‘delinquent’ behaviour and mental health issues. (Crawford & Walker 2003, p44)
Bowlby argued that six months to three years constitutes a critical period in the formation of attachment. He believed that ‘During that time the child needs continuous love and care’ (Cowe 1994, pg 6). His colleague Mary Ainsworth devised a way of measuring the quality of infants’ attachment to their caregivers, known as the ‘Strange situation’ (Crawford & Walker 2003, p45). From using this method, Ainsworth concluded that if their caregivers were emotionally available, sensitive and supportive during the first year, children developed a secure attachment.
A rejecting caregiver will probably have a child who develops an avoidant attachment, and an inconsistent carer one who develops resistant attachment ().
Bowlby’s concept suggested that the primary attachment relationship (Monotropy) creates proximity seeking behaviour, provides an internal working model for all later relationships and offers a secure base for exploration (Bowlby 1992, pg 11). The child can explore the ‘outside world’ knowing that when they return to their ‘secure base’, they will receive physical and emotional support. If confident in their ‘secure base’ as they grow, children steadily venture further from base for increasing spans of time. Bowlby (1951) believed that the ‘evidence is now such that it leaves no room for doubt…that the prolonged deprivation of a young child of maternal care may have grave and far reaching effects on his character and so on the whole of his future life’, (quoted in Howe, 1995 p.47).
Bowlby’s Maternal Deprivation Hypothesis came from a study that Bowlby had carried out himself called ‘Forty-four Juvenile Thieves’ (Haralambos and Holborn 1995). He contrasted 44 young offenders with 44 boys with no criminal record. 32% of the thieves, but none of the control group, were affectionless psychopaths. Bowlby discovered that out of the affectionless psychopaths, 88% of them had been separated from their caregiver for at least one week before they were five and 17% of those who weren’t affectionless psychopaths, were found to be maternally deprived. ()
However, Rutter in 1981 found flaws with Bowlby’s Maternal Deprivation Hypothesis, stating that the data on separation was collected retrospectively and so may not be reliable. Rutter also claimed that some children in the research were only separated for very short periods of time, so it
is very difficult to see how and why it causes a serious situation. Thirdly Bowlby made up the ‘affectionless psychopath’ diagnosis, so his own expectations may have influenced his conclusions.
Rutter (1981) also pointed out that Bowlby’s theory denies the opportunity to reverse the effect of negative early experiences. Attributing problems in behaviour and later life to maternal deprivation denies the impact of other factors, especially privation (chronic lack of basic needs and stimulation). Rutter felt that equally positive experiences in early life do not make a child safe from later emotional damage (stated in Crawford. K & Walker. J, 2003, p.44.)
In conclusion, do the psychological perspectives of Piaget and Bowlby give any evidence to support the nature/nurture debate?
Piaget’s work integrates his two perspectives as a biologist and psychologist, claiming that we are born with innate schemas (building blocks) such as sucking and gripping, and modifying these existing schemas constructs new schemas. This he calls ‘Accommodation’. Piaget suggested that there are four stages of development and that each stage must be successfully completed before a person can move onto the next stage – this we would refer to as nurture.
Bowlby, likewise, claims that we are born with the innate need to attach to a primary caregiver. This he claims is developed through the ability of a baby to give cues such as smiling and crying. This Bowlby claims is ‘nature’. However, attachment can be affected by the mother’s response and can affect the child’s ability to function emotionally in life. Bowlby claims that this could ultimately produce affectionless, psychopathic tendencies.
Bibliography
Bowlby. J (1998) A Secure Base, Clinical Application of Attachment Theory. LONDON, Routledge
Bruce. T & Meggitt.C (1999) Child Care & Education. LONDON, Hodder & Stoughton
Cowie, H. (1994) Child care and attachment’ in Oates, J. (Ed) Personal, Social and Emotional development of children. OXFORD. Blackwell Publishers Ltd.
Crawford. K & Walker. J (2003) Social Work and Human Development. EXETER, Learning Matters Ltd
Haralambos and Holborn (1995) Sociology Themes and Perspectives, Fourth Edition, LONDON, Collins Educational
Howe. D (1995) Attachment Theory for Social Work Practice. LONDON, MacMillan Press Ltd
Rutter, M (1981) Maternal Deprivation Reassessed, 2nd Edition, HARMONDSWORTH, Penguin
Coursework.Info (2004) Bowlby’s Maternal Deprivation Hypothesis.
(2/3/2004)
Coursework.Info (2004) Nature V’s Nurture. Michelle Buckley
(2/3/2004)
Coursework.Info (2004) Piaget’s Theory of cognitive development in children. Azhar Ali
(2/3/2004)
Department of Psychology, The University of Hong Kong
(2 March 2004)
The Wellcome Trust (2003), Nature and Nurture. Marcus Pembrey
(24 February 2004)
Word Count 2198
Susan Pepper Page B.A. Social Work/Human Growth and Development
