Social and Emotional Development and Disturbance in Children - Essay Example

Social and Emotional Development and Disturbance in Children This essay shall be an attempt to better understand the phenomenon of development in children. The emotional and social dimensions of the child’s development shall be mainly considered while evaluating the influences or factors responsible for the same. After defining the concept of development and the need for ‘change’ in human lives, one of the biggest debates in the field of psychology, the divide between ‘Nature and Nurture’ shall be introduced. After understanding what social and emotional development means, we shall define what would constitute ‘social and emotional disturbance’ in children. A specific ‘disturbance’ in children, i.e. ‘temper tantrums’ shall be closely looked at evaluating whether the same derives its roots from ‘nature’ or ‘nurture’ or both. Before concluding we shall consider if the disturbance under our observation can be better explained by ‘transactional model’. The aim of this paper shall be chiefly to identify the factors responsible for shaping social and emotional development in children. I shall argue that not a single factor can shape a child’s development, yet not every theory by its own strength can serve as an explanation for a child’s development. Therefore, it is the amalgamation of the basic ideas of all theories that would best be able to meet our end. Simply understood, the term ‘development’ can be defined as “changes over time in the child’s understanding of, attitudes towards, and actions with others” (As cited in Smith & Hart 2002 p.3). An essential element inevitable in the process of development of children is ‘change’. Change is not just a forseeable phenomenon in children, they are a prerequisite to development as well. That is because every physical or emotional development entails ‘change’. But what affects this change? Apart from the greater biological mechanism that determine changes in us, certain other factors such as once’s social upbringing and other environmental influences are also responsible. Before we can even start evaluating the causes for the development in children, it is inevitable to find a barrier in having a conclusive take for the same, for, perhaps the biggest debate in the field of psychology, the Nature versus Nurture argument keeps all possible explanation in the state of indeterminacy. Those who supported ‘nature’ claimed that development is essentially the result of the pre-set biological functionings that get encoded from parents to offspring. They argue that “…genetic material may… be responsible for inheriting a particular type of neurological and constitutional make up and the related biochemical composition of one’s physiological or bodily structure” (Mangal 2007 p.266). However those who supported ‘nurture’ argued that “Behavior of all sorts… should always be regarded as one of the learned act or life style earned through the interaction of one’s self with his environment” (Mangal 2007 p.266) and that development should be measured in terms of the effect the environment has brought about in the child. Thus, this debate gave birth to two extreme opponent groups of psychologists. “On the one side, we have those psychologists who believe that heredity is most important, and they are known as nativists. On the other side, we have those who think that learning and environmental influences are more important, and they are known as empiricists” (Hayes 1984 p.24). Those who followed the idea of nativism included Chomsky and Fodor. “Fodor has argued that the vast majority of our concepts are innate. Chomsky’s view, less radical than Fodor’s but radical enough, is that much of our knowledge of natural languages is inborn” (Cowie 1999 p.3). And those who propounded the concept of Empiricism included staunch environmenatlist like Pavlov and Skinner who introduced the ideas of ‘classical’ and ‘opperant’ conditionings in human beings respectively. Closely related to the idea of ‘nature’ was the theory of ‘Interactionism’ which, in psychology, was introduced by Piaget and Vygotsky both of whom believed that development was primarily determined by the level of interaction people maintained with individuals. “Piaget hypothesized that infants are born with schemes operating at birth that he called ‘reflexes’… the infant uses these reflexes to adapt to the environment, these reflexes are quickly replaced with constructed schemes” (Huitt &Hummel 2003). He proposed that human used two processes to adapt to the environment, accommodation and assimilation. Vygotsky shared agreements with Piaget, particularly on the “emphasis on activity as the basis for learning and for the development of thinking” (Wood 1998 p.37). However, he laid “emphasis on the role of communication, social interaction and instruction in determining the path of development” (Wood 1998 p.37). Another school of thought called ‘Trasactional Model of development’ was supported by Someroff & Chandler and was later carried on by Bronfenbrenner. The Transactional model suggests that “the development of a child is… a product of the continuous dynamic interactions between the child and the experience provided by his or her family and social context” (As cited in Davies 2004 p.4). It is often argued that the social and emotional development of children “is shaped not only by the quality of the relationship with the primary caregiver but also by relationships with a range of partners of varying developmental status and different characteristics who are encountered in widely varying social contexts” (As cited in Lerner et al 2003 p.95). Any sort of irregularity in these developmental contexts are likely to ensue in what is known as ‘disturbing behaviours’ in children. R.J Whelen argues that “emotionally disturbed children are characterized by behaviour excess (that which children do too much of and should not) and deficit (that which children should do more of but don’t)” (As cited in Mangal 2007 p.262). One of such disturbing behaviour shall be closely looked at now. I shall consider the disturbing behavior of ‘tamper tantrums’ or the tendency of sudden or prolonged, undesired pangs of anger in children that are abnormal, in order to understand the causes of such irregular behaviours in them. Now the debate of the nature versus nurture constitues the question of whether this particular disturbing behavior of temper tantrums in children is inherently present in them or they have leart it. In other words ‘is the child disturbed or has the child been disturbed’? Mangal (2007) classifies the factors responsible for emotional disturbance among the children into two categories: Organic or biological and Environmental. The biological factors include hereditary influences or genetic factors, neurological or biochemical factors, physiological constitution such as organic injury or disease etc (Mangal, 2007). However, the other side of the coin that he argues about is that “ a child having so-called ‘easy’ temperament may turn into a hostile, aggressive and delinquent character by becoming a victim of mishandling or hostile environmental surroundings” (p.266). Loss of temper in children, therefore, can not be explained sufficiently by biological factors, for, children are not born angry. Yet, it would be unwise to state that nothing, whatsoever, within the child’s character has been passed to him by his heredity. None-the-less, although some part of the child’s angry tantrums can be attributed to have been inherited or biologically generated, he is not fully determined by his biological make-up. Angry tantrums can perhaps be better understood as a result of the child’s interaction with his immediate environment. Potegal and Knutson (1994 p.191) conclude that “tantrums turn out to be largely about conflicts between the child and his or her parents and the child’s resulting anger… tantrums do not occur at random; they occur when there is something to fight about and when it is safe to experiment. In the safety of their homes children sometimes appear to induce tantrums by contrariness or other means, but most tantrums arise because of direct conflict between mother and child”. While it seems justifiable that the child’s interaction with his environment is must of the reasons for his temper tantrums, yet this evaluation considers the child’s character as a vulnerable one and thus, such analysis holds the chances of leaving us with an impoverished view of the child. It is therefore; best to describe the disturbing behavior of tantrums in children inclusive within the debate of nature versus nurture. Rather than looking it as a one-way phenomenon, it can more appropriately be concluded as an act resulting from both nature as well as nurture. That is because both of these factors can play an active role in shaping the character of a child and not to forget, in shaping the ‘temper tantrums’ in them. It could be argued that the child had a history within his family in which members usually had anger tantrums and such habits were inherited or that the child’s behavior could be a result of chromosomal, gene-linked or mental disturbances. Yet, the act can also be explained in terms of what the child would have learnt through his angry parents or friends. Mithen (As cited in Richardson 2000 p.22) argues: A strict division between these – between ‘nature’ and ‘nurture’ – has long been rejected by scientists. Any behavior must be partly influenced by the genetic make-up of the animal and partly by the environment of development. Nevertheless, the relative weighting of these varies markedly between species, and indeed between different aspects of behavior within a single species. The ‘transactional model’ of development that we briefly discussed earlier, apart from the Nature/Nurture debate, can explain better the development of temper tantrums in children. Children’s development is marked by a wide range of social and environment settings that they can’t help but be influenced by, in his interaction with the world. As the child develops, various factors such as the parenting quality, “opportunities and stressors in the child’s and parents’ lives, social circumstances, social institutions, culture, and historical events are all part of a widening circle of influence on who the individual child becomes” (As cited in Davies 2004 p.4). Anger tantrums can not be evaluated in terms of one or two factors, and since its actions are best described by the transactional model which attribute various factors in the child’s social and environmental setting, it can be considered reliable enough. In fact, Henggeler, Schoenwald, & Rowland (2002 p.5) put forth a big list of variables that effect the development and maintenance of ‘antisocial behaviour’ in children: …these factors include individual youth characteristics (e.g., weak verbal skills, favorable attitudes towards antisocial behavior), family functioning (e.g., discipline, affect), caregiver functioning (e.g., mental health, substance abuse), peer relations (e.g., rejection, association with deviant peers), school performance, indigenous family supports, and neighborhood characteristics (e.g., criminal subculture). The transactional model also explains development as a result of an active involvement and initiative taken by the child himself. “…The child, from the beginning, works to organize his experience. Rather than being a passive container into which experience is poured,” (Davies 2004) he constantly creates his or her own environment. Variables such as diversity, difference, multiple pathways, risk factors, vulnerabilities, amplifiers and affordances constantly shape the child’s choices and development. Conclusively, I have primarily argued throughout the paper that the social and emotional development of a child can not be purely defined in terms of one particular perspective and only a comprehensive understanding of children’s behavior as a result of various countable factors, can take us to a fruitful end. I have argued that the influence of both ‘nature’ and ‘nurture’ are equally relevant and important in understanding not just the social and emotional development in children, but also the disturbing behaviors in them. The ‘temper tantrums’ in children that I closely looked at, for that matter, can be a biological or hereditary phenomenon or there are chances that the act is learnt either through provocation or by modeling his or her parents, peers or teachers who are prone to such traits themselves. The state of indeterminacy that the debate of ‘Nature versus Nurture’ results into, demands the need of more comprehensive theories that evaluate a range of social and environmental factors that collectively shape the development and disturbances in children. ‘Interactionism’ is one of them. However, the ‘transactional model’ of development can be considered among others, one of the most reliable and comprehensive theories that explain the process of development in children. Figures in the field of psychology such as Chomsky and Fodor  who supported ‘nature’ and Skinner and Pavlov who supported ‘nurture’; Piaget and Vygotsky  who propagated ‘Interactionism’ and Someroff and Bronfenbrenner  who explained ‘transactional model’ have all influenced my arguments throughout the paper. Works Cited Cowie, F., 1999. Whats Within?: Nativism Reconsidered. New York: Oxford University Press. Davies, D., 2004. Child Development: A Practitioners Guide, 2nd ed., New York: Guilford Press. Hayes, N., 1984. A first course in psychology, 3rd ed. United Kingdom: Thomas Nelson and Sons Ltd. Henggeler, S. W., Schoenwald, S. K., & Rowland, M. D., 2002. Serious Emotional Disturbance in Children and Adolescents: Multisystemic Therapy. New York: Gulford Press. Huitt, W., & Hummel, J., 2003. Piagets Theory of Cognitive Development. (Valdosta State University) Retrieved June 12, 2010, from Educational Psychology Interactive: http://www.edpsycinteractive.org/topics/cogsys/piaget.html Lerner, R. M., Freedheim, D. K., Weiner, I. B., Easterbrooks, M. A., & Mistry, J., 2003. Handbook of Psychology: Developmental Psychology. New Jersey : John, Wiley & Sons, Inc. Mangal, S., 2007. Educating Exceptional Children: An Introduction to Special Education. New Delhi: Prentice-Hall of India Privated Limited. Potegal, M., & Knutson, J. F. (Eds.)., 1994. The Dynamics of Aggression: Biological and Social Processes in Dyads and Groups. New Jersey: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Inc. Richardson, K. ,2000. Developmental Psychology: How Nature and Nurture Interact. London: Macmillan Press Limited. Smith, P. K., & Hart, C. H., 2002. Blackwell Handbook of Childhood Cocial Development. UK: Blackwell Publishers Ltd. Wood, D. J., 1998. How Children Think and Learn: The Social Contexts of Cognitive Development ,2nd ed. UK/ USA/ Australia: Blackwell Publishing. Read More