Many theories have been developed over the years to help us understand how and why we develop as we do. While some aspects may appear odd and limited by today’s standards there are undeniably at least some parts of these theories which still hold significant relevance. Whether we agree with all that is put forth by these various theorists or not they remain influential in the way in which we make sense of the way we develop.
This paper will discuss and evaluate various theories put forth by some most renowned psychologists it will also discuss how these various developmental theories influence the way that we think about human love relations development while questioning their adequacy in describing how and why we develop in the way that we do.
The value of human development theories goes undisputed; they offer a systematic means to understand the processes that define our existence. They provide a way to categorize data, compare behavior and identify specific patterns. These theories enable us to make generalizations about what it is that we understand. As such they are the basis of recognizing the differences and variations in love relationship development and behavior and thus enable us to make decisions appropriate to the stages that children are going through. Theories also provide a means of gaining insight into future events thus enabling us to anticipate future occurrences (Goldhaber, D.E, 2000). Having an understanding of how we develop can ensure a child is nurtured in the best way according to their culture and family situation (Smith, 2002).
Freud’s psychosexual theories on development and abnormal behavior were controversial, to say the least. Over the years they have received much criticism and not much credence in aiding the understanding of later development (Thurschwell, 2001). Freud’s theories were largely passive and discontinuous. His theory assumed developing individuals to be dominated by their sexual desires. He maintained that one must satisfactorily pass through each stage of his five stages of development with as little parental conflict as possible to get to the next stage unscathed. This aspect of his theory is pretty much accepted although ideas do differ on whether development is quite as rigid in its succession as he suggests.
However, it is his more nurture-based focus on how the influence of early experiences affects later development that is very much influential on how we view development today ( Shaffer, 2002). Most people would not question that early experiences and reactions would affect later development and most theories are based upon this concept to some extent (Thurshwell, 2001).
Erickson began as one of Freud’s followers. However, he disagreed with Freud’s rigid psychosexual stages of development and Freud’s claim that development was limited to early life experiences and so formulated ideas of his own thus becoming a respected theorist of human development in his own right. Although his views differed somewhat, Erikson still based his theories on Freud’s discontinuous psychodynamic conceptions with his first three stages being developed from Freud’s theory ( Berk, 2004). Erikson’s theory is notably implemental for understanding the variances in development among different cultures, as is his view that we continue to change and develop throughout life (Berk, 2004).
Freud and Erikson were similar in their theories of understanding development and their teachings have enabled practitioners and laymen alike to build on their theories and develop new understandings on development. While perhaps not the most influential figures on human development in this present time Freud and Erikson’s contribution was nevertheless fundamental in the way that we look at how we develop (Thurschwell, 2001).
John Bowlby and Mary Ainsworth were also influenced by Freud and other psychoanalytic thinkers (Bretherton, 1992). Their Integrated Attachment theory has been highly influential in our understanding of early parent-child relationships. Besides generating thousands of scientific studies the attachment theory has changed the way that many childcare centers, including hospitals, operate (Bretherton, 1992). It describes the connection between relationships that occur early in our lives and those that happen later, including the relationships formed with peers throughout childhood and adolescence and romantic ones during adulthood (Elliot and Reis, 2003).
This theory has been influential in understanding the importance of forming secure adaptive early parental bonds which in turn enables the developing child to desire autonomy and thus seek out peer relationships and subsequently enter into a relationship where they in turn will become the parent. This is indeed the ideal scenario, and unfortunately, there are many variations to the actual parental child relationship which have an impact on future events and how we in turn interact with others.
However, this theory remains eminent in stressing the importance of forming early bonds between parent and infant and in maintaining a nurturing nonconstraining relationship which will influence how the child will form future relationships as they grow. It also provides an idea on which we can reasonably expect one to develop and prosper through their relationships with others (Weiss, 1982).
As the psychoanalytic theory gained prominence the Learning viewpoint also began to influence human development (Berk, 2004). This theory moves away from the psychoanalytical theories and introduces the views of Watson, Skinner, and Bandura (Berk, 2004). These theorists thought that we develop continuously according to what we learn. Additionally, we can understand how and why we develop through the study of directly observable events, stimuli, and responses (Berk, 2004). Perhaps the most renowned of these theories is the behavioral perspective, founded by Watson who gained notoriety for his classical conditioning studies which have proved fundamental in behavioral psychology as we know it today (Berk,2004).
Behaviorism suggests that it is the way that we respond to our environment, events, and stimuli that determine how we will develop and who we will become (Shaffer, 2002). Furthermore, this theory asserts that cognition has little or nothing to do with how we develop (Wozniak, 1993).
While behaviorism certainly has its place in understanding how we develop it certainly seems ludicrous to assume that we as humans are that vacuous to be entirely devoid of anything innate that makes us who we are. Skinner’s studies resulted in him rejecting Watson’s views on environmental conditioning and developing his learning perspective theory, based on operant conditioning. While he agreed that people respond to their environment he maintained that this was reciprocal and that development and behavior are as much a result of how we manipulate the environment to produce certain consequences (Harrison, 1996).
While much of Watson’s and Skinner’s works were conducted with animals, Bandura maintained that humans did not react in the same way thus making their theories redundant. Bandura agreed with Skinner that operant conditioning is an important aspect of learning however he maintained that humans are cognitive beings and think about the consequences of their behavior (Shaffer, 2002). Despite their differing opinions, these three theorists have been hugely influential in providing a basis for how we think about human development.
Although we should perhaps not take these theories too literally and it may seem obvious that reciprocal environmental events and stimuli coupled with cognitive insight would have an impact on a child’s development these theories have nevertheless given us a viable way in which to measure and monitor it. Piaget is certainly an influential contributor to how we understand human development; his theories are still being followed today in particular by some early childhood education centers. New Zealand plays Center is one organization that has based its free play policy on its teachings.
Although not without its criticisms his schema-based model of development nonetheless provides a solid basis for how we understand children to develop cognitively. The basis of Piaget’s theory is based on assimilation and accommodation. This being the process in which the child uses their existing structures to deal with their environment and how they modify their structures to understand any new environmental demands (Smith, 2002).
Piaget’s theory emphasizes four developmental stages and how children advance through them (Atherton, 2005). Piaget maintains that until they reach certain stages in their cognitive development children are incapable of understanding certain concepts. This theory has had great implications on how we perceive our children to develop, what we expect of our children at different stages in their development, and the various stimuli that we expose them to (Atherton, 2005).
While undoubtedly a worthwhile contributor to how we understand development today Piaget has many critics, Vygotsky being his most prominent (Bhattacharya and Han,2001). While Vygotsky agreed that experience with physical objects is a crucial factor in cognitive development he did not agree that this was all that cognition consisted of (Vygotsky,1978). Vygotsky believed that language forms the basis for cognitive development and that other influences such as family and friends assist in the child’s understanding of the world around them (Vygotsky,1978). Most importantly Vygotsky maintains that biological and cognitive development are intrinsically linked and do not develop independently of each other. His social cognition learning model asserts that culture is the prime detriment of individual development.
Vygotsky maintains that children learn by example and interactions with their surrounding culture and social agents. Peers who have more experience and competencies also contribute significantly to a child’s intellectual development. Vygotsky’s most influential concept is the zone of proximal development, this implies that a difference exists between what a child can do on their own and what they can do with help (Vygotsky, 1978).
Vygotsky’s theory suggests that to develop in normal productive way children must have the interaction and guidance of those who are important in their cultural group. His theory has had great implications for understanding children’s potential and in the way that children are taught. With appropriate adult or peer help, children can often perform tasks that they would otherwise be incapable of achieving. When the level of help is decreased about the child’s increasing competencies this instills the necessary independent problem-solving skills for the future.
Bronfenbrenner taught us that to understand human development we must look at it in the context of not only the individual’s immediate surroundings but also their interaction with the larger environment, regardless of whether the individual is personally involved or not (Smith, 2002). His ecological model of development consists of five environmental systems or ‘layers’ that are fundamental to a child’s development. Bronfenbrenner asserts that in the innermost layer, the mesosystem, behavior is reciprocal, this is also true of the remaining layers however most influential in the mesosystem. To develop successfully Bronfenbrenner maintains, a child needs stability and support throughout the whole structure of their environment (Smith,2002).
The theory of ethology in its simplest form states that all animal species are born with several innate evolutionary behaviors that are imperative for survival. Human ethologists believe that we display a range of preprogrammed behaviors and that if responded to in the appropriate manner development will continue normally, if ignored or responded to negatively, problems may arise.
Like Freud, ethologists believe that early experiences have a profound effect on future development and that we have critical periods for the development of many aspects of the self (Shaffer, 2002). This theory although entirely natural-based has had an impact on how we view development today, although perhaps it is best looked at in an eclectic way by other theories. So far we have seen that many theories influence how we think about how we develop and why. Each has made a substantial although different contribution to a complex and broad subject. It would be impossible to define one theory as being the correct one when all have some relevance for particular aspects of development. In light of this, taking an eclectic view is perhaps the most appropriate way in which to understand how we develop love relations.
Works Cited
Atherton, J. S. (2005) Learning and Teaching: Piaget’s developmental theory. Web.
Bhattacharya, K.& Han,S. (2001).Piaget and cognitive Development. In M.Orey (Ed.),Emerging Perspectives on Learning, Teaching, and Technology. Web.
Bretherton,I. (1992). Developmental psychology 28, 758 – 775. Web.
Elliot, A. J., & Reis, H. T. (2003). Attachment and exploration in adulthood. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 85, 317-331.
Goldhaber, D. E. (2000). Theories of human development: Integrative perspectives. Mountain View, CA: Mayfield.
Harrison, J. (1996). Understanding Children. (2nd ed). Vermont, USA. Arena.
Shaffer, D.R.,(2002). Developmental psychology. (6th ed).Wadsworth,USA.
Smith, A.B., (2002). Understanding Children’s Development. (4th ed). Wellington, NZ.
Vygotsky, L.S. (1978). Mind and Society: The Development of Higher Mental Processes. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
Weiss, R. S. (1982). Attachment in adult life. In C. M. Parkes & J. Stevenson-Hinde (Eds.), The place of attachment in human behavior (pp. 171-184). New York: Basic.
Wozniak, R.H. (Ed.) (1993). Theoretical Roots of Early Behaviorism: Functionalism, the Critique of Introspection, and the Nature and Evolution of Consciousness. London: Routledge/ Thoemmes.