Developmental Psychology

Lecture One

1. Nature or Nurture

Locomotor development

Is learning to walk simply a matter of maturation or is experience

required?

Herbians: babies are strapped to cradle and carried on mum’s back for
12 months of their life but no impact on timing of crawling and
walking relative to Australian babies

Sudden Infant Death Syndrome related to babies sleeping on their

stomach and parents prevent them from going on their stomach, infants
loses chance to strengthen muscles to push themselves up and saw a
massive delay in locomotor development in which they started
crawling and walked much later

Critical periods

Times during development when certain experiences are crucial for a

particular feature of development to emerge

Sensitive periods

Times during development in which experience is optimal for the

development of a particular function, but it is not crucial

Rat-tail suspension paradigm (antigravity treatment)

Rat is suspended by its tail in the cage with its back legs off the ground
thus back legs doesn’t get any normal locomotor movement

At different periods of development, rats are given this antigravity

treatment

When deprived of normal back leg movement during early days of

development, impacts swimming ability during the period of
 deprivation but once it is stopped, stroke duration normalises and then
they catch up to normal swimming really quickly – sensitive period

When deprived later on in development, it is more detrimental than

earlier, rats were drowning (critical period) but if deprived in certain
periods (P8-13), impact is great but they can catch up if deprivation is
removed

Walking: effects much more profound and permanent; if deprived

during days 20-30, the angle of ankle is much greater in those
suspended (since deprivation of normal back leg experience makes
them walk on their tip toes but if deprivation is removed, still
continues to walk on their tip toes) and walking abilities is disrupted
permanently – critical period

2. Universal or culturally influenced

Some developmental processes are seen in all children in all cultures
whereas other processes are culturally bound

Motor reflexes are universal and are designed to maximise their chance
of survival: rooting – stroking cheek of newborn baby will cause them
to turn their heads to stimulus and open mouth, improves breast-
feeding; sucking – ensures survival through feeding

Postural/locomotor reflexes (unsure of their use for adapting): Palmar

Grasp – place finger in babies’ hands and their fingers will grasp it;
maybe it is to set up relationship? Stepping – put baby’s feet on hard
surface and they start to move their feet but this disappears after the
first 2-3 months; Moro (startle) reflex – when you pretend to drop
baby, they place their arms up, this reflex disappears after the first 6
months; maybe it is to slow them down from falling?

3. Continuity or discontinuity
Change is very gradual and quantitative, changes in amount of skill but
not necessarily nature of the skill – continuous
 Step like, stage like changes in development – discontinuous

Major variability and individual differences in different stages so it is

hard to see changes between stages, on the surface it seems like there
are distinct stage-like developmental changes

Stepping and walking – muscle movement reflex is the same as those

when they are walking; stepping reflex and newborns walking shows
that muscle movement involved in walking is continuous

Lecture Two

Aim: to understand the mechanisms that cause these change; to look at the nature of
the nature/nurture debate

Dominant vs. Recessive genes

Dominant genes express phenotype even when seen in heterozygous state e.g.
brown eyes: BB, Bb; whereas recessive genes only express the phenotype
when seen in homozygous state e.g. grey/blue/green eyes: bb

Disorders caused by dominate genes

Huntington’s disease – rare neurogenerative disease, onset around 40; motor

difficulties, cognitive decline, increased tendencies in mental disorders

Huntington’s disease is a dominant disease

Mother who has Huntington’s disease (Hh) and father who does not (hh)

H h

h Hh hh

h Hh hh
 Therefore 50% child would have Huntington’s disease, however if
child does not have HD, then their offsprings would not either

Disorders caused by recessive genes

Phenylketonuria (PKU) – inability to metabolise phenylalanine (artificial

sweetener); cognitive deficits, seizures, shortened lifespan

Mum and dad do not have PKU but is a carrier

R r

R RR Rr

r Rr rr

Therefore 25% child would have PKU but no big deal, babies are
screened for and if they have it then they are not given any artificial
sweetener

HD and PKU are caused by single genes however most traits or characteristics are
polygenic – the likelihood that a particular gene will be expressed also depends on the
environment

Sex Determination: Turtles

The temperature at which eggs are incubated completely determines its

genetic makeup of offspring

Lower than 29C: 100% of eggs will be male

Higher than 30C: 100% of eggs will be female

At threshold temperature of 29.5C: 50% will be male and 50% will be female

Sex Determination: Humans

Humans have 22 pairs of chromosomes with last pair being the sex
chromosome
If it is X from mum and X from dad  XX female

If it is X from mum and Y from dad  XY male

Female outcome is default, in order for XY foetus to develop male

characteristics; it must be exposed to certain factors in the environment

Early gestation

0-7 weeks

Internal and external gentalia are not differentiated

Foetus has precursors to female and male sex organs (Mullerian

ducts, Wolffian ducts)

8 weeks

A gene on the Y chromosome controls teste development

Testosterone causes in Wolffian system to develop and

Mullerian system is absorbed whereas in absence of
testosterone, precursors to female organs develop which does
not require any special hormonal conditions for their genitalia
to develop

Androgen Insensitivity Syndrome (AIS)

XY genetically but raised as girls until puberty

Body does not detect and respond to male hormones

External genitalia female but no internal female organs (undescended

testes)

Female gender identity, heterosexual orientation

Congenital Adrenal Hyperplasia (CAH)

XX genetically, exposed to excessive levels of male hormones

prenatally
 Varying degrees of genital masculinisation, most often surgically
removed

Behavioural Genetics

- To understand how genetic and environmental factors interact to produce

individual differences in behaviour (phenotypes)

Phenotype

Gene Environment

IQ and breastfeeding

IQ

Fatty acids in breast milk are Children who are breast-fed have higher IQ
important in brain development than those who are not

FADS2 Breastfeeding
Do differences in FADS2 gene
moderate the effect of breastfeeding on
cognitive development?

FADS2 gene

Homozygous (CC or GG)

Heterozygous (CG)

Gene x Environment interaction

 Children who were breastfed had higher IQs BUT only if they had the
C allele

Atypical Development

Depression

Drugs to treat depression target Stressful life events influence the onset and
serotonin (5-HTT) course of depression

5-HTT transporter Stressful life events

Do differences in 5-HTT gene moderate the
effect of stress on the development of
depression?

5-HTT gene

Short version or long version of the gene

Homozygous (SS or LL)

Heterozygous (SL)

Gene x Environment interaction

Life stress predicted depressive episode but only in carriers of the short
allele

It is probably not as simple as genes x environment

Gene x Gene x Environment Interactions

Gene x Gene X Early Environment x Late Environment

Many genes and many environmental factors interact to produce developmental

change
Genes usually don’t do anything by themselves; they need to be “turned on” or
“expressed” in response to some environmental factor

Nature x Nurture interact to produce most phenotypes

Lecture 3

Aim: the stages of prenatal development from conception of birth, developmental

consequences of preterm birth and interventions

Fertilisation

The sperm meets the egg in Fallopian tube

266 days – gestation

Germinal Period

From conception through implantation

14 days

Embryonic Period

3rd-8th weeks

Formation of major organs

Foetal Period

9th week until birth

Organ systems being to function; organisms grow

The Germinal Period

Zygote travels towards uterus

Divides and forms blastocyst, from 16 to 64 cells by day 4

Implants on the walls of uterus after one week after conception

Sorts themselves into different layers: inner – embryo, outer – embryo support
system
 Signals end of germinal period

The Embryonic Period

The blastocyt implants in the uterine wall

Layers of cells differentiate to become

Ectoderm (out layer): nervous system, skin, and hair

Mesoderm (middle layer): muscles, bones and circulatory system

Endoderm (inner layer): digestive system, lungs, urinary tract and

other vital organs

Cell division and growth is very rapid, 100,000 times larger

Foetus in an amniotic sac attached to placenta

Placenta is source of nutrients via umbilical chord

The Foetal Period

The last 7 months

Bones replace cartilage (marks the transition between two periods)

A period of rapid growth and refinement of organ systems

Foetus is more responsive

Behaviour becomes increasingly regular and integrated

Becomes viable between 22-28 weeks

6 months

Capable of responding to light

 Able to hear sound

Sound level in the uterus is 75db

The mother’s voice and heartbeat are best heard

Tongues have taste bud

7 months

Third trimester

Foetus begins putting on weight in the form of fat just beneath the skin

Growth slows down

The Preterm Infant

Born at 36 weeks or earlier and low birth weight (<2500g)

Causes: chromosomal abnormality, maternal age, health condition of mother,

short cervix, brain damage, abnormalities

In Australia, 5-10% occur before 37 weeks: indigenous mothers, young

mothers (less than 20 years), old mothers (older than 40 years), multiple
births, and first time mothers

To keep baby in the wound for as long as possible, optimal

Lung development is the biggest issue, not producing surfactant (keeps air
sacs open) on their own before 37 weeks of age

If known, mothers are given steroids to speed lung development

Limit of Viability

The age at which infants have a 50% chance of surviving their first year

Currently: 24 weeks
 Is it worth providing medical care to infants that have a very high chance of
not surviving?

Predicting outcome

Gestational age (traditionally)

Research by Tyson and colleagues showed other factors to consider: birth

weight, gender (girls do better than boys born prematurely), multiple or
singleton (twins/triplet do worse than single borns), steroids

At 23 weeks

Relatively heavy girl, singleton with steroids given = 80% survival rate

Relatively small boy, twin with no steroids given = 20% survival rate

Interventions

Adapting the neonatal intensive care unit (NICU) environment

Containment and lighting (86% US NICU)

Kangaroo care (98% US NICU)

Skin to skin contact

Accelerates development of regulatory processes: sleep development,

better feeding/growth, and earlier discharge

Good for parents to be close to their infants

Tactile-kinaesthetic stimulation (massage) (38% US NICU)

Benefits for preterm: stimulate growth; decreases stress behaviours,

earlier discharge

Prenatal development occurs sequentially

Germinal – Embryonic – Foetal

Preterm birth represents a major anomaly in the foetal environment

Outcome is multi factorial; it is not solely determined by gestational age

Research into interventions has changed NICU practices and improved

outcomes for infants

Lecture Four

Aim: changing of infant’s perceptual abilities and how perceptual narrowing shapes
the way infants view the world

“One great bloomy buzzy confusion” - not true

Vision

40 times worse than adults

Babies’ visual acuity improves over the first few months

Newborns can see all colours, but have difficulty distinguishing them if they
are equally bright

Infants prefer to look at

o Patterned over plain

o Complex over simple
o Red objects over other colours
o Face over non-face stimuli (they prefer this the most)

Initially the visual system is underdeveloped and they can’t see much so they
prefer to look at thing high in contrast

They also prefer stimuli that are meaningful and faces are the most meaningful
stimuli as facial expressions communicate a lot of social information

Audition
 Foetuses can hear in the womb and learn about what they hear

Newborns show a preference for their mother’s voice

Babies can recognise a particular story that was read to them when they were
in the womb

The Cat in the Hat Study

In the last 6 weeks of pregnancy, a story was read twice a day
Tested with high amplitude sucking procedure
Learnt to change the strength and speed with which they suck a
pacifier in order to be reinforced with a particular sound
Certain sounds are more reinforcing than others
Sounds that are more similar to what they heard in womb are
more reinforcing e.g. mother reading the same story they had
heard before

Olfaction

One of the first senses to develop; developed within a few weeks

Newborns are attracted to the smell of breast milk at birth
They orient towards pad with breast milk
Adaptive
Infants learn to recognise the smell of their mother’s breast milk
Learnt over time (up to 6 weeks of age, they are reliably
distinguishing)
Can distinguish the breast milk between mother’s and stranger’s
If not breast-fed, they are not able to distinguish

Taste
Taste receptors on the tongue develop prenatally
Fluid changes with diet of mothers – babies preferred carrot juice when mum
had carrot juice when baby was in womb
Taste preferences change with age
 Newborns prefer sweet over salty (breast milk is little more sweet than cow
milk)
4 month olds prefer salty flavours to sweet
Sour or bitter tastes evoke negative reactions
Sucking movement to sweet
Bitter reaction similar to that of adults: curl lips and clench face
Touch
Newborns show reflexive reactions to touch
E.g. rooting reflex
Designed to maximise likelihood to feed properly
Brush their cheeks, turns towards stimulation and opens their mouth
Produced because brushing by cheeks are done by breast  breast feeding
Touch also plays an important role in establishing relationships with caregivers
E.g. massage and infants of depressed mothers

Perceptual narrowing
Vision appears to undergo most changes during development but still shows
preference to relevant stimuli
Infants outperform adults at many perceptual discrimination tasks: face
perception, speech perception, and intermodal perception
However, they gradually lose these over time and the range of perceptual
stimuli they can distinguish are lost through experience
Face Perception
Young infants are able to discriminate faces from every species and face of the world
As they gain more experience with human faces, they lose the ability to discriminate
other faces
How do we know?
Visual Paired-Comparison Task
Measure looking time and preferences for looking
Show two identical faces until they get bored
Then pair original face with novel face, and measure looking time
again
 They should look more at the new face
Familiarisation: look at stimuli and get bored
Test-trial 1: pair original face with new monkey face
Test-trial 2: switch, new monkey face with old one
Novelty preference, looking longer at new face, can tell difference
between them
Other species effect
6 months, 9 months and adults tested on monkey and human discrimination
task
All groups were very good at discriminating between human faces
However the older the infant got, the worse they were at discriminating
between monkey faces
By 9 months they lose the ability to discriminate between monkey faces
Other-face effect
Caucasian infants – 3, 6, 9 months
Tested with Chinese, Middle Eastern and Caucasian faces
3 months were very good but by 6 months, they were not able to
distinguish between Chinese faces and by 9 months, they were not able
to distinguish the Chinese and Middle Eastern faces
They were only able to distinguish faces from their own race
Chinese infants – 3, 6, 9 months
Similar pattern when tested with African, Caucasian and Chinese faces
3 months: all faces
6 months: Chinese and Caucasian
9 months: Chinese (only their own race)
Perceptual narrowing is worldwide phenomenon

Speech Perception
Young infants can discriminate phonemes from every language in the world
With continued exposure to native language, they lose the ability to discriminate
sounds from other languages
How do we know? Conditioned head turn procedure (CHT)
 Conditioned infant to turn heads to hear a change in sound they are
hearing played through speakers
Infants listening to string of sound, the sound changes once in a wile,
when it changes, we see an activate of toy
Infants learn that sound changes cause an activation of toy and they
turn their heads to look at it
During training phase, tone and language sounds presented were those
infants could discriminate
Test phase, they used sounds that they are not sure infants can detect
We measured how many correct turns, when there is a turn and they
made a false turn or missed a turn
Discriminating phonemic contrasts
Not part of everyday language of the environment of infant
English speaking infants are as good as Native Indian adults at
discriminating Thompson contrasts whilst English adults cannot
Longitudinal data: same infants are tested and infants lose this ability
to discriminate these phonemes of other languages around the age of
10 months
English infants presented to discriminate: Hindi, Salish
Obvious shift from 8-10 months in which at 8 months they
could discriminate but at 10 months they couldn’t
Much like face processing development, with hearing we also
see perceptual narrowing
They also lose ability to discriminate languages that they are
not exposed to daily and this happens around the time when
infants are beginning to speak their own language

Intersensory Perception
Young infants can discriminate between different languages from visual input
alone
As they gain experiences with how their own language “looks”, they lose this
ability
English/French discrimination
Habituated to one language, change the video to a different language,
if they start looking at new language, then discriminated
Age Group: 4 months
 Monolingual household: yes
Bilingual household: yes
Age Group: 6 months
Monolingual household: yes
Bilingual household: yes
Age Group: 8 months
Monolingual household: no
Bilingual household: yes
Perceptual narrowing is experience-based phenomenon
Gets stronger with experience and connection is weakened through decrease in
experience – synaptic pruning

Face perception
Longitudinal design: same infants tested at 6 and 9 months
Follow up: if provide infants with experience, they will keep the ability
Took this group of infants and tested at 6 months and looked at their
ability to discriminate
During the following 3 months, infants were given two different types
of picture books
Experimental group: picture books with monkey faces
Control group: picture book with no monkey faces
At 9 months, they were tested on their ability to discriminate: control
group could not distinguish monkey faces whereas experimental group
could
These infants were tested on monkey faces they had seen in the picture
book but they were also able to discriminate new monkey faces that
were presented at the test at 9 months
The experience of seeing picture books with monkey faces was
sufficient to prevent synaptic pruning
Perceptual development is an experience-dependent process
With experience, the brain tunes and becomes an expert in processing the specific
environment it has been born into
Lecture Five
Aims: to address methodological challenges in studying memories in infants and to
illustrate age-related changes in encoding, retention, and retrieval using studies of
operant conditioning
How do we know that infants remember? They cannot tell us so we need to
design tasks that allow infants to show us that they remember
Infant motor skills are also very limited so we have to be careful
But we do see rapid development during the first two years so it is also
hard to design tasks for children that vary largely in age
What can babies do?
Newborn – look at pictures e.g. visual paired comparison
Newborn – sucking on a pacifier e.g. high amplitude sucking
3-6 months – kick their feet e.g. mobile conjugate reinforcement
6-12 months – manipulation of objects e.g. deferred imitation
Visual Paired-Comparison Task
Familiarisation or habituation
Novelty preferences in terms of discrimination
Delay/Retention interval
Test: familiar stimulus is paired with a novel stimulus
Memory = novel preference and forgetting = null preference
High amplitude sucking
Operant conditioning
Infants learn the contingency between their sucking behaviour and
reinforcement (i.e. hearing their mother’s voice)
Sounds that are similar to what infants heard in the womb are the most
reinforcing e.g. reacting to storybook read by mother when they were
still in the womb towards end of prenatal period
Mobile Conjugate Reinforcement
Mobile attached to leg with a string/ribbon
Operant conditioning
Infants learn the contingency between their kicking behaviour and
movement in an overhead mobile i.e. reinforcement
 Rate at which they kick = rate at which mobile moves hence it is called
a conjugate procedure
Delay/Retention Interval and then test
Deferred Imitation
At 6 months of age, infants have developed more complex motor skills
Infants are shown The Puppet Task
Three actions are involved: remove the mitten, shake it and then replace the
mitten
No practice and no verbal cueing is involved
Performance of infants in a demonstration group is compared to a control
group that didn’t see the three actions and only saw the puppet
Retention is demonstrated, as infants in demonstration group are more likely
to show these three actions than the control group
Tasks that index memory development in different ages
Depends on their motor abilities of the age group

What develops in memory development?

We can see principles of memory development apply irrespective of the
activity used
Encoding: older infants learn faster than younger infants
Retention: older infants remember for longer than younger infants
Retrieval: older infants are able to retrieve memories in different situations
than are younger infants
Mobile Conjugate Reinforcement (young infants) and the Train Task (6-18 months)
Only exemption that are used widely across age groups
Learning contingency between their action and consequence
Learning and retention rate of these tasks have shown to be identical
Train task is seen as an extension to the Mobile Conjugate Reinforcement
They are identical but are different in nature of learning
MCR=conjugate, rate of kicking = rate of mobile movement
Train task is not conjugate, it is not the harder they press the lever, the faster
the train will move but rather it is just lever press = train goes around track
Operant Conditioning Paradigms
Day 1: Training
1 minute of non-reinforcement: baby’s foot is not connected to mobile
and this shows their base line kicking  6 minutes of reinforcement:
leg is connected to mobile and kicking will produce movement in
mobile  1 minute of NR: shows us how much they have learnt
during reinforcement session in which they had experience that kicking
will produce movement in mobile
Day 2: Training
1 minute of NR  6 minutes reinforcement  1 minute NR
(immediate test): shows us how much they have learnt
DELAY
Session 3: Test
1 minute NR: acts a delayed test of how much they remembered after
the delay  6 minutes of reinforcement  1 minute of NR
Day 1 – initial 1 minute NR = baseline
Day 2 – initial 1 minute NR = immediate test
Day 3 – initial 1 minute NR = long term retention test
How we operationalise retention and forgetting?
1min NR(immediatetest)
1. Baseline ratio =
1min NR(baseline)
If BR>1, infant has learnt the contingency
If BR=1, infant has not learnt the contingency

 1min NR(longtermretentiontest)
2. Retention ratio =
1min NR(immediatetest)
If BR=1, perfect retention, no forgetting
If BR<1, some forgetting

Note: if kick rates at the long-term retention test does not differ from
baseline = complete forgetting
Infants forget this task rapidly
2 months old remember for 24 hours
3 months old remember for 1 week
6 months old remember for 2 weeks
Why? Is it because memory isn’t stored in a stable state in younger infants, or
if stored properly, is it because they are having problems retrieving it?
 Reactivation Treatment
Mobile Conjugate Reinforcement
Day 1: Training
1 minute NR (non reinforcement)  6 minutes of
reinforcement  1 minute NR
Day 2: Training
1 minute NR  6 minutes of reinforcement  1 minute NR
(immediate test)
DELAY
Session 3: Reminder
Watch mobile moving
Session 4: Test
1 minute NR  6 minutes of reinforcement  1 minute NR
On Day 13, a reminder is shown to infants but what is needed for
reminder? Is it mobile moving or is it just the mobile itself, or is it the
lady that was present during training or perhaps just hanging
something next to bed?
4 groups: all reminded on Day 13 in different ways – moving, non-
moving, no mobile, no reminder
Last 3 conditions had all forgotten by Session 4
Seeing moving mobiles allowed infants to remember
Mobile had to be exactly the same as that during training as well as
context – conditions must be the same during reminder and training
phase
Thought question: is infant’s forgetting a storage or retrieval issue?
It is more retrieval because once you get a reminder; it allows easier retrieval
and thus more remembering
Principles of Infant Memory Development
Older infants learn faster
Older infants remember longer
Older infants are better at retrieving memories when stimulus or context cues
have changed
Lecture Six
Aim: how the concept of self and self esteem changes with age and to introduce
research designed to bolster self esteem may not always be beneficial
The Self
Young infants do not have a sense of self as an individual separate from other
individuals
Mirror Self Recognition Test
Put a bit of lipstick on their nose and place in front of mirror
If they touch their nose then they have developed self-recognition
In order to exhibit self recognition, they must recognise themselves in
the mirror and be motivated to brush off the flaw on their face
Self-Representation
2 years of age: estimate can be varied
3 years of age: describe themselves and how they feel (self
representation)
Self Concept
Young children describe themselves in very concrete terms
Physical appearance, abilities and what they like
Often inflated perceptions of their abilities
Difficulty distinguishing between their ideal self and real self
Does not compare their abilities to others until about 4½ when they
become vulnerable to self-evaluations and lower self esteem
Self Esteem
Judgements of worth, liking and satisfaction
Domains: scholastic, athletic, social, physical appearance and conduct
Some argue these domains are global
The impact of these domains on self esteem depends on the degree to which
an individual judges the domain to be important e.g. if I’m not good at sport
but I don’t value sport then it doesn’t impact self esteem as greatly
Changes in self-esteem
Young children generally have high self-esteem
Adolescence is associated with drop in self-esteem particularly for girls
 Parenting: authoritarian style result in lower self-esteem
Relationships with opposite sex boosts self esteem of boys but not so
much for girls
Self-esteem also declines in old age
Why is self-esteem important?
Related to mental health
Coping and wellbeing
Loneliness, anxiety, depression, reduced life satisfaction
Low SE in adolescence linked to poor health, financial/employment
difficulties and criminality in adulthood
How do we foster it?
Praise
80% of parents think that praising abilities helps children feel good
about them
However research suggests that it may not have a positive outcome
Downsides?
Mueller and Dwek (1998)
10-year-old children
Set 1 reasoning problem (moderate difficulty)
Manipulated feedback after success “you got +80% problems
right, that’s a really high score” – you must be smart at these
problems or you must have worked hard or no feedback
Assessed extent to which children were motivated by
performance of by learning: measured the level of difficulty of
questions children picked
Picked easy: children who tried to look good
If they picked the hard questions, it meant they would learn a
lot from the questions even if they didn’t look smart; harder
working and intrinsically motivated to learn from problems
Praised ability: highly likely to pick easy questions (more than
60%)
Control Group: around 40-50% chance of picking easy
questions
 Praised effort: fewer that wanted to do problems that were easy
(10%)
Set 2 reasoning problems (high difficulty)
Participants performed a lot worse at these questions, <50%
right
Children rated failure attributions, desire to persist, enjoyment,
and quality of performance
When asked ‘why did you have hard time with the second set
of questions?’
Failure attribution: extent to which they didn’t do well
because they didn’t put enough effort in
Ability attribution: lack of ability
Praised for effort – FA high and AA low
Praised for ability – FA low and AA high
Control – FA high and AA low (mirrored praised effort
group); in absence of praise, they will attribute their
failure to effort
Persistence, enjoyment
Praised effort: high persistence and high enjoyment
Praised ability: low persistence and low enjoyment
Control: high persistence and relatively high enjoyment
Set 3 reasoning problem (moderate difficulty)
Post failure performance, Set 1 and 3 are similar in
difficulty
Praised effort: did better on set 3 than set 1
Praised ability: did worse on set 3 than set 1
Control: similar
When you are praised for ability and failed, you have no
attributions but to push it on yourself and own ability but if
praised for effort and failed, then you can tell yourself that I
didn’t put enough effort in. You can change the amount of
effort placed and so you work harder next time
Asked to choose between reading information about problem-solving
strategies vs. information about scores of other children (learning vs.
performance orientation)
 Proportion of children choosing performance information
Praised effort: lower (0.25)
Praised ability: higher (0.85)
Control: level (0.6)
Asked to anonymously report their scores to children to another
children
Proportion of children misinterpreting their scores
Praised effort: 0.15
Ability: lied and said they did better (0.38)
Control: 0.17
The kids in praised ability cared so much about what other ids
thought of their ability so they felt the need to lie

Mueller & Dwek

Praising children’s ability makes them
Less likely to embrace challenge
More likely to attribute failure to a lack of ability
Less likely to persist in difficult situations
Less likely to seek out learning situations
More likely to misinterpret performance (cheating?)
Process Praise
Praise for an action or behaviour
Critical point: parents should do more process praise
Children are more likely to perform action again in the future
Action or behaviour is flexible and you can change it
Child has control over that and can change it particularly if they face a failure
Predicts motivation framework
14-38 month olds
Coded praise during play session with mother
7-8 year olds
 Questioned them on stability of traits, attribution for success/failure
Children who experienced process praise as toddlers were more likely to say
traits like IQ are malleable, prefer challenge, attribute failure to lack of effort
Adaptive thoughts about success and failure
Is self-esteem really important anyway?
Does self-esteem result in positive outcomes? Narcissist? Arrogance?
Problems –
Self-esteem is perception not reality
Measurement (people want to represent themselves in good light)
Cannot distinguish between people who have generally high
self-esteem and those who are narcissist
Floccinaucinihilipilification
The action or habit of estimating something as worthless
Problematic: difficult to distinguish generally low self-esteem or
people towards floccinaucinihilipilification
Low self-esteem correlates with poor outcome
Baumeister (2003)
School performance, job/task performance, interpersonal relationships,
aggression, violence, anti-social behaviour, happiness (strongest relationship),
coping, depression, and health behaviours

Lecture Seven
Aim: Research methods in Developmental Psychology

General methods in Psychology

1. Observational methods
Hypothesis: frequent conversations with parents stimulate a child’s
language development
Observational test: observe families that vary in level of conversation
and measure children’s vocabulary
CANNOT infer causal relationship
2. Experimental methods
Intervention group: language pre-test  intervention  post-test
 Control group: language pre-test  language post-test

Specialised Experimental Methods for Studying Development Change

What is developmental change?

An age-related change in behaviour that is caused by biological,

psychological or environmental mechanisms that will be observed in
most normally developing humans of the same age

1. Cross sectional designs

Most common kind of research done by developmental psychologists
Study groups of different ages and compare changes in group
performance with age
Advantages –
Convenient – easy to carry out and is rapid method for
collecting much data
Don’t need to be concerned about attrition – dropping out of
children
Don’t need to be concerned about “test-wiseness” or reactivity
– trial effects

Cross-sectional study of hand preference in US/Canada (Porac et al.,

1980)

3 groups – 20, 50 and 70 year olds

Looked at the proportion in which they preferred to use left

hand

Results showed that there may be some developmental change,

more 20 year olds using left hand than 70 year olds but is this a
true developmental change?

But results were so because 70 year olds were brought up in a

society where left-handedness was not agreed upon
 Disadvantages –

Cohort effects – age related differences in performance are due

to the different environments to which cross sectional cohorts
are exposed; these can be confused with true developmental
changes

Not examining developmental changes in individuals –

averaging across potentially increasing individual differences
in patterns of development and only examines the average
differences across age groups

2. Longitudinal designs
Studying a number of individuals who are of the same age and
repeatedly measure the same children at different times/ages
Advantages –
Tracks the performance of an individual subject over time
Can compare different aspects of development
Longitudinal Study of Achievement Motivation (Messelroade & Balts)
Survey of Achievement Motivation
3 groups: 13, 14 and 15 age groups
There is a high motivation in 13 year olds and decreases with
age
Is this really a developmental change?
Maybe it is early puberty? Maybe it is because children are
shifting away from education to wider social networks?
Reality: Historical – in between this period, there was a change
in school administration. The new principle had different
philosophy of education and focused more on individuality
than doing well in education. This may have caused some kids
to drop out of the study. High achievers were most likely to
drop out from this, which also affects the results.

Disadvantages –
 Historical events – one off change to group can be confused
with development changes

Selective sampling and attrition – when people drop out, it is

hard to replace and technically, you cannot replace them.
Sometimes it is even worse if the drop out is selective as it
results in bias findings

Practice effects – there is a re-test of groups several times over

the testing period. If the experiment spans over a short period
of time, the retesting can change the effect as kids may try to
work out what the experimental question is and modify their
behaviour accordingly; responses the first time round may also
affect responses over time

Lack of generalisation due to cohort variation

Expensive and time consuming – takes years and decades to

run these studies

They have complimentary strengths and weaknesses

3. Longitudinal Sequential designs

Ideal to track developmental changes, but used occasionally
A cross-sectional design initially used with several groups of different
ages and these groups are repeatedly tested longitudinally
E.g. level of daily physical activity
2000 2010 2020
Cohort A (b. 1960) Age 40 50 60
Cohort B (b. 1970) Age 30 40 50
Cohort C (b. 1980) Age 20 30 40
Gives you ability to eliminate the limitations of previous
designs
Testing for cohort effects
Maybe due to promotion of physical activity in recent
times
 Different physical activity performance between the
same age groups if cohort effects did occur

Testing for historical effects

If history plays a role, you’ll see differences in these

patterns of difference between two age groups

If strong developmental trend, then the differences

between the first 40 and 50 should be the same as
second 40 and 50

There is no perfect design for all developmental research

Cross sectional designs most common approach

Cross sectional and longitudinal designs have complementary strengths and

weaknesses

Longitudinal-sequential designs overcome most limitations of the two traditional

approaches

Lecture Eight

Major Cognitive Achievement: Object Permanence

One of the most important cognitive developments and develops rapidly

Understanding that objects continue to exist even when they can’t be

perceived directly

Implications of not understanding: when they look at someone, there are direct
perceptual signals of their presence but when they no longer directly see the
person, they have no more existence

Evidence: when there is direct perceptual input, infants will interact with the
toy but when that input is removed, infants will not have sense that object still
exists. The toy has no existence beyond perceptual input, the infant does not
question where the toy is but the to the infant, the toy no longer exists and they
do not search for it
 Object permanence is developed around the age of 2

Major implications for interacting with the physical and social world

Ability to establish relationships especially with mother is inhibited

When mother disappears and infant does not understand that mum still
exists out there, then the ability to form long term relationship with
mother will be impaired, ability to form relationship is limited to those
times when mother is in direct perception

Early (Piagetian Approaches)

OP is major development of Sensori-Motor period (0-2 years)

Development is gradual from 0-18 months and passes through sub-stages

Relatively slow gradual development

Along the way, you can identify some significant sub stages

Development driven by direct experience with the environment, thus takes

some time

Classic methods for studying OP: Hide and Search Tasks

Infant interested in toy and in the view of the child, hide the toy so baby
cannot directly see the toy

What does the baby do? Do they search for it and retrieve it?

Piagetian noticed that they do badly at this and pass through stages in
responding to it:

Stages 1-2 (1-4 months): out of sight, out of mind. After hiding it, the
infant does not search for it as if they don’t understand that toy is still
there. When the experimenter takes the toy out again, baby will play
with it again

Stages 3 (4-8 months): they will retrieve partially hidden objects. The
object is hidden so a little bit is left sticking out and this direct
 perceptual cue causes infants this age will search for the object
whereas 2 months old would not

Stage 4 (8-12 months): slightly more complicated. The infant will pull
the cover off immediately and retrieve the toy but fails at slightly more
complicated versions of the task e.g. when there are two possible
hiding locations, hide the object at location A, cover it, infant can
retrieve it at location A. This sequence is repeated and then again in
full view of the infant, you hide it in location B. The infant would go
back to the place they saw it the most e.g. location A rather than
location B. Once they go to location A and realise the toy is not there,
they don’t continue to search for it

The A not B task / Stage 4 Place Error

Why do they make this error?

Classic answer: incomplete development of object permanence (Piaget)

They understand that object is still out there, egocentric view of this object
such that object concept is that the object stays the same when it stays in the
same place

At 12 months, an infant’s object concept = Object X in Position X

Rethinking the development of Object Permanence: Task Analysis

Infants are required to remember where the toy is and store that information
over time

Not allowed to search for a couple of seconds incorporates traits of a memory

task as they have to remember that there is an object out there and the also
remember the location of the toy

But even if they are able to remember and hold this knowledge, the final task
of reach out is also difficult

They have been trained and reinforced towards reaching for Location A

They then have to inhibit this prior learning and reach out for Location B
 Inhibiting motor response and then finally perform motor skill to get toy and
this inhibition skill is difficult

Infants understand at the cognitive level of knowledge, but when you perform
it, there is carryover of prior learning so infants have to inhibit this previous
knowledge

Short-term memory is required, spatial memory and complex motor

coordination task, integration cognitive knowledge with motor system

Alternative interpretations #1: Object permanence involves development of short-

term memory

Diamond (1985) – effects of delay between hiding and searching

Between 8 and 9 months infants begin to succeed at the task at successively

longer delays

Alternative interpretations #2 – Object permanence involves development of spatial

(location) memory

Bjork and Cummings (1984): testing A-Not-B place error with multiple hiding
locations in 7 months old

They don’t go to B straight away. Instead, they go in direction of B with the

other hiding places that look like A

Spatial errors of places close to B

Therefore, the Hide and Search Task is not a good task at assessing object
permanence as it involves a range of other skills

Contemporary methods for studying infant cognitions

Methods for assessing visual attention

To study their understanding of object permanence -

Habitution/Dishabituation

Visual attention method to test infants on low-level perceptual

skills
 Infants prefer to look at novel things and will show reduced
attention to continuous exposure

Alternative interpretations #3: Co-ordination of manual and cognitive systems

Habituation studies: Examining A not B place error without manual search

When you take away the complex performance skills required, it gives new
results

Moving Screen Task – complication habituation task

During habituation phase, they see draw bridge moving back and forth

After seeing it many times, they get habituated

Then present one of two different test conditions

Possible condition: they place a block behind the screen such that
when the bridge goes up to 90 degrees, it hides the block as if the
block was impeding the trajectory

Impossible condition: they place the block behind the screen but as the
screen goes up, the drawbridge goes through the solid block, not
logically possible realistically

If infants have object permanence, they should look longer at the

impossible event

By 5 months of age, babies are looking at the impossible event more

than the possible event

Train and Track studies

5-6 months

Watched a screen that came down and blocked part of the table and
they are repeatedly shown this sequence so infants get bored

Possible: sees a block sitting behind the path of moving object. The
screen comes down and the moving object moves behind. If infants
 have object permanence then this should be normal because there is no
interference

Impossible: a block is placed right in the path of the moving object.

The screen comes down and the object passes behind the screen as if it
were able to pass through the solid block. If infant had object
permanence then this should be novel and interesting and would
therefore, look longer and this situation

Down about 4 months, they are able to discriminate between the impossible
and possible events

OP is an important cognitive ability that is central to infant’s adaptation and survival

The classical manual search task may not be the best way to examine OP because it
includes many additional performance components (short-term memory, spatial
memory, coordinating reaching with knowledge)

When these performance components are minimised e.g. in Baillargeon’s habituation

studies, children as young as 4-6 months appear to have rudimentary grasp of OP

Lecture Nine

Aim: Cognitive Development in Early-Mid Childhood (2-7 years)

Two major issues

In what ways is young children’s thinking more sophisticated than the

thinking of infants? – Cognitive advances

In what ways is young children’s thinking less sophisticated than the thinking
of older children? – Cognitive limitations

Growth in abilities with an increased ability to represent the world

symbolically

Although babies have some of this ability, to think about the world abstractly
and symbolically only appears around 2 years of age
 To come up with abstract symbols of what is happening in the world around
the infant

E.g. language, complex symbol system, reading body language and

non verbal gestures in a social way, writing, visual symbols, drawing,
certain forms of symbolic play, acting out roles in cooperative play,
simple arithmetic and mathematics

Language: The Vocabulary Explosion

From 1½ to 10 years of age, children add an average of 10 words per day to

their receptive vocabulary

Obvious growth from 2½-5 years and rapid acceleration from 5 to 6 years

Not linear function but the period of age 2½ onwards, we see an explosion
representing the increasing ability for infants to deal with world in an abstract
way

Fantasy Play

Become better at using fantasy and imagination

Involve other children and adults in their play and begin switching imaginary
roles e.g. “this time I will be the pirate”

Symbolic Drawing

1. Increase in drawing skill: visuo-spatial and motor increase

Kids like the patterns they were producing when they are young
But they are not trying to draw any particular object in a
representational way
At the age of 3, they are trying to depict objects in their drawings but
are often limited by their motor skills
2. Increase in symbolic use of drawing

Cognitive limitations of young children

Piaget: Two related kinds of limitations

 1. Perceived appearance vs. inferred reality
Very bias in their thinking by the perceptual appearance of the
world
Dominated by their perceptions and perceptual appearance of
things
2. Irreversibility vs. Reversibility
Kids can follow a logical sequence in their head but have
difficulty reversing the sequence

Perceived appearance vs. Inferred reality

Failure to conserve identity (qualitative transformation)

E.g. Maynard the Cat

Showed a real cat to infants and reinforced its identity by asking the
children what it was

In full view of the kids, perceptual changes were made to the cat e.g.
placing a dog’s mask over Maynard

Then repeated the identity question and infants aged 3-4 replied with
dog

Because he looks more like a dog than what he used to before

Extent of this perceptual dominance is shown when dog mask is

removed and they answer that he is a cat again

Infants are therefore very bound by visual appearance

Failure to conserve quantity

1. Conservation of Number
Take a number of identical objects and set them out in two
rows
Classically, you are supposed to have a lot of objects so infants
don’t count it
Ask them “do the two rows have the same number of objects?”
 2 year olds will answer this question correct
In full view of the child, you spread out one set of objects and
repeat question
They found that children up to the ages of 6 and 7 answered
with the one that was spread out as having more
Failing to conserve quantity, confusing spatial layout with
quantity
2. Conservation of Volume
Two beakers with same liquid and agreed that they have the
same volume of liquid in both
In full view of child, they poured liquid from one beaker into
another with different dimensions e.g. shorter and wider
Amount of liquid will be the same but the appearance of water
has changed
Repeated the question and typically children up to 6-7 years
will say that the longer the beaker, the more liquid that it
contains
Confusing the appearance of water level with actual concept of
volume

Irreversibility vs. Reversibility

Egocentric thinking and problems in perspective taking

Egocentrism in preoperational thinking

A: Do you have a brother?

B (3 years, 4 months): Yes

A: What is his name?

B: Tom

A: Does Tom have a brother?

B: No

Cannot take perspective of Tom, only themselves

 Same idea of the kids (2-7 years) in collective monologue – if you track their
conversations, it is more like two kids talking at each other instead of talking
with each other

They do not have the ability to listen to the words of the other kid and change
their interaction in light of the information that the other child has given and
then changing their perspective accordingly

Egocentrism in preoperational thinking: The 3 mountains problem

Infant sat in front of asymmetrical model so that the view from 4 sides will
look different

Show child all of the vantage points and then brought them back to one
vantage point and showed photographs of all different views and asked them
to choose what the other views will see

Those aged 2-7 will choose their own view instead of imagining views of
other people

They tend to just view the world through their own eyes instead of taking
perspective of other people

Rethinking limitations of young children’s thinking

General problem: confusing performance and competence

Case study: early understanding of number concepts

Problem: generally, the questions that are being asked might not the questions
that the child is hearing

For us it is reasonable to repeat the question in the two cases but maybe the
child hearing the question repeatedly can put their own meaning into it

When you repeat the question, socially it can be taken as you got it wrong the
first time

Real problem with competence

Studying early number concepts with minimal language

 3 year olds were trained to choose which of two sets of objects were
associated with some kind of reward

Over successive trials, the child learns that the 3-apple plate is the reinforcer

In essence, the child is learning that the one that has more apples will lead to
reward

They were then presented with some test cases

When kids had learnt the reinforcer, they were presented with three options,
one with 3 and 3 groups of one apple; Piaget will predict that there is a chance
but in reality, kids will generalise learning and go to the one with 3 groups of
one apple

Test B: Two groups of three but one group of three with apples spread out

Piaget will say that infants will pick the one that is spread out i.e. more
apples in their thought

On this trial, they will pick by chance

No basis for choice on this trial

Going against classic Piaget theory, once they learn that larger number
is relevant signal for reward, they are happy to respond to that object
regardless of positioning

These sorts of studies that you get past classical performance issues suggests that kids
as young as 3 do understand some fundamental basics of number concepts and be
disconnected from spatial locations

Only for small sets of numbers do they understand but if repeated with more sets of
numbers, they will have difficulty

If you change nature of objects from apples to teddy bears, there are more perceptual
changes involved and those under 3 years of age will be challenged

Any kind of implicit access to numerical knowledge, why did you pick this one and
not this one, they won’t be able to express the reason into words
Lecture Ten

Aim: Children’s understanding of health and illness

Why is it important?

To engage in behaviour to reduce the chance of illness

Easier to improve their knowledge of this kind of concept

Illness in family members will cause anxiety and fear – to reduce excessive
negative emotions about illness and the treatment of the illness

Part of children’s learning about biology

Piagetian theories of children’s understanding of health and illness

Stages of understanding that closely follow the stages of Piaget’s theory of

cognitive development

General development changes in children’s cognition influence their

understanding of health and illness

Two important concepts

Contagion – how illness might be transmitted by contact with someone else

that has the illness

Contamination – how illness might be transmitted by contact with

contaminated object

3 features of “preoperational thinking” in children’s illness concepts (below 7 years)

1. Understanding of contagion is OVERgeneralised

EG Kister & Patterson (1980)
Young children had to decide whether sitting next to someone who had
the illness could catch an illness
Repeated question with many illnesses
Children below 7 years correctly answered yes for illnesses such as
colds but they also said yes to toothaches and scraped knees
Overgeneralised to illnesses where it does not apply
 Why? A perceptual bound thinking where being physically close to
someone with obvious symptoms is enough to influence children to
think that being close to them can catch it
2. Understanding of contamination is UNDERgeneralised
These agents are invisible and there are no visual cues to the
transmission of these
Understanding contamination presents a challenge for them to
understand that invisible creatures roam out there and cause illness
Very perceptually bound, they will have difficulties understanding this
concept

Undergeneralisation of Contamination: Comb and Grasshopper Study

Rozin and Fallon, 1987

Uncontaminated orange juice was shown and then was contaminated in

various ways in front of child

Dropped dead grasshopper and took a comb that had brushed hair and
placed them into the juice

Before contamination, people would say yes to drink the orange juice

They then took out the contaminants allowing the juice to look the way
it did before

Adults would not drink it even though it looked fine, older children (6-
12) also would not drink it

However for younger children (3½-6 years of age), acceptance was

much higher

Once the visual cue for contaminations are removed, then there is no
problem. They did not realise that an invisible object could have
passed from the contaminants to the juice

Undergeneralising of contamination
 3. Use of Immanent Justice as a causal mechanism
Refers to the fact that you can explain illness causation as a form of
punishment
Why did they become sick? Because they did something wrong – this
is an example of an immanent explanation
“Once a boy your age disobeyed his mother, was that a nice thing to
do? Well that afternoon he got a cold. Do you think he got a cold
because he disobeyed his mother?”
Infants before 7 years of age responded positively to both questions
especially the second part
They believe that illness can be punishment for disobeying adults
Cycles of rewards and punishment are salient and familiar to children
and therefore they rely on familiar causal sequences

Problems?

Immanent justice – Questioning can lead to answering that shows this

immanent justice, which might not be there. Religious beliefs and cultural
context is also another issue

Kids might misunderstand and the youngest group will have more trust with
adults. Therefore they will wonder why would an adult present me with a
drink that would not be safe to drink. However, older kids will have more
experience with adults and understand that social dynamics are more
complicated

1. Contagion Studies: complex open-ended questions about unfamiliar domains

2. Contamination Studies: implicit social demand – “would you drink the juice?”
3. Acceptance of immanent justice as socially desirable
4. Immanent justice are not limited to preoperational infants

Alternative explanation of development change in concepts

Stage-like changes in children’s cognitive abilities or changes in biological

knowledge?

Parents are unlikely to educate this to young children

 Absence of biological knowledge and discussion

Re-examination of young children’s understanding of contagion and immanent justice

(Siegal, 1988)

Social demand effects minimised: children’s asked to make judgements about

another person/puppet’s explanation of illness, less individually prominent
opinions and judgements, reduce social demands to go along with what the
experimenter is suggesting

Design: 4 video segments with puppet giving explanations

Explanation Cold Toothache

Proximity yes no

Immanent Justice no no

Recorded amount of children responding correctly

Cold (P) Cold (IJ) Tooth (P) Tooth (IJ)

Preschoolers 83 73 55 58

Grade 1 (6yo) 83 73 58 60

Grade 3 (8yo) 100 95 93 93

Catching a cold through immanent justice shows a high number of

children answering no

Toothache proximity, only grade 3 kids are rejecting on a high level

and younger children are 50/50 in rejecting that explanation as well as
immanent justice for toothache

When the researchers went and looked at which children in the last two
columns are getting them right, it was the same kids which suggests a
different theory put forward by Piaget

Children should be bad at contamination but that is not true, they are
quite good at explaining about colds but not toothache
 More domain specific, depends on the illness

If you know the cause, you will reject other alternative causes that are
suggested

Suggests current stage of biological knowledge of illness

Summary of Siegal results

1. All age groups judged correctly that colds can be transmitted by proximity
and rejected an immanent justice explanation
2. In the case of toothache, only the 3rd grade children made accurate
judgements about contagion
3. In the younger age groups with knowledge about contagion was correlated
with rejection of immanent justice as causal factor

Social demands are minimised

When questions used another POV

No – juice is not okay to drink, 88%

Yes – juice would make you sick, 90%

Conclusion

Children typically classified as ‘pre-operational’ may be able to comprehend

invisible cause of illness/contamination

Proximity/immanent justice only used as defaults when no specific biological

knowledge is available

Knowledge of specific types of illness influences children’s understanding

More capable of being taught about illness than is widely acknowledged

If you explain in a cognitively appropriate way, then they will

understand it

Lecture Eleven

Aim: Emotional Development I: Development of Attachments

 Attachment is the strong, affectional tie we feel for special people in our lives

Enduring and important overtime

Proximity to attachment figures is associated with positive emotions (pleasure,

job, comfort)

Separation from attachment figures is associated with negative

emotions/aversive affective states

1. Early attachment theories: Behavioural Drive Reduction

Caregiver (mother) satisfies a variety of biological primary drives e.g.
hunger
The mother’s presence becomes a conditioned stimulus capable of
drive reduction via a Pavlovian conditioning process i.e. caregiver’s
presence becomes associated with relief from tension/anxiety and
associated with pleasant emotions
Attachment is learnt
Hungry (anxious)  Food (US+Mother) CS+  Positive
mood (UR)
Presence of mother even in absence of food will make infant
feel good

Challenges to Drive Reduction Theory: Harlow’s work

Attachment is more than just a matter of learned drive

reduction: Harlow’s studies using ‘surrogate mothers’

Started to notice when raising monkeys in laboratory

environment

Initially, when infant monkeys sitting in cage with food, when

they are scared they will run toward blanket or area of comfort
and in some cases, it would be very different to the place with
source of food, this place was usually a place with a blanket or
fluffy material in cage
 Presented with two surrogate mothers, one is covered in soft
cloth material and a somewhat monkey face, and the other
being a wired mother that provided nutrients

According to the BDR, monkey learns that the wired one

provides food and is most reliable cue for food, then it should
attach to the mother that provides food

Harlow found that even though monkey went to wire mother

for feeding, it would return to the cloth-covered mother and if
they were startled/scared, they would not go to the wired
mother for comfort

The cloth-covered wire gave them no reward but they still

chose it over the wired one

Contact Comfort: infant monkeys preferred cloth covered

‘mothers’ even when these mothers did not feed them

Harlow’s work

Cloth-covered monkeys used as a base for exploration

Put new stimuli in cage, they would go out to explore but

continue to check the cloth mother

If they were startled/scared, they would go back to mother

They don’t provide any direct rewards and yet there is a strong
bond that is formed at a young age

2. Ethological Approaches: An innate predisposition to attach

Ethology: study of animal behaviour (especially in the wild)
Konrad Lorenz’s studies of “imprinting” in animals during the
sensitive period
Soon after birth, if object that is moving in immediate vicinity,
during a particular sensitive period after birth, then the infant
organism will develop rapid and strong bond with the moving
object, it doesn’t have to be of its own species
 Imprinting
Occurs most readily during specific time period e.g. few days
after hatching
If we are exposed to adult members during a particular period
of time after birth, we have predisposition to latch onto that
member

Bowlby’s Attachment Theory

A sensitive period for human attachment (approx. 6 months – 2

years of age)

Infants attach to most consistent caregiver but quality of

attachment depends on parenting approach

Way of attachment is manifested varies among different

children

Deprivation of caregiver during this period can have long-term

consequences for social development

Parental responses lead to patterns of attachment, which in turn

leads to ‘internal working models’

3. Measurement of Early Attachment (Mary Ainsworth)

By 12-18 months of age, most infants show evidence of attachment formation
Children differ in the style of their attachment
These individual differences in attachment are relatively stable over time
The “Stranger Situation Procedure”
Infant brought into observational room, one-way mirror/recording
device and toys
Interaction of mother and child works through a similar way
Infant explores the playroom for 3 minutes and mother watches
Stranger enters the room and remains silent and tries to interact with
baby
Mother leaves the room and infant is alone with stranger
Infants gets distressed and stranger attempts to comfort baby
 Mum comes back and how baby reacts to reunion is most important

The Nature and Quality of Attachment

Not all kids react the same way to the same procedure

Secure (60-65%)

Actively seek proximity and contact reunions

Explore while mum is around and uses her a secure base point for
exploration

Conform distressed during separator, but calms down quickly as

reunion

Insecure – Avoidance (20%)

Often does not cry much at separation, do not seek mother

Proximity and actively avoids the mother at reunion

Does not resist contact if mother initiates it

Does not cry much at reunion

Insecure – Resistance (10-15%)

Very upset and distressed during separation

Actively seek proximity and contact at reunion, often showing

anger, continues crying at reunion, they don’t calm down easily at
reunion and are particularly resistant to interaction with strangers

Insecure – disorganised (3-4%)

Disorientated, dazed, repetitive behaviours, extreme

approach/avoidance

The same child may show both of these behaviours in the same
session
 Often associated with some kind of serious family dysfunction,
long periods of separation with parent

Pathological style of attachment

Stability of Attachment Styles

Attachment classification STABLE over long periods

20-year longitudinal study (Waters et al, 2000)

50 infants assessed using Strange Situation (very reliable) at 12

months of age

Reassess at age 21 using Adult Attachment Interview (not so

perfect)

72% of individuals received the same attachment classification

Lecture Twelve

Consequences of Secure Attachment: Social Development

Up to fair bit, you can predict their future behaviour based on infant behaviour

Social Development: 1-3½, more positive emotions, more empathy, less

aggressive, more socially skilled, more friends

Follow up at age 11: more confident, more socially competent, high self-
esteem

Peer relations: spent more time with peers, form friends with other
secure children

Origins of Individual differences in attachment

Theory I: Parenting Environment

Different parenting experiences

Importance of environment
Secure Attachment

Associated with responsive/sensitive care giving

Responsive and consistently available when baby is in

genuine need

Be there emotionally as well as for physical needs

Caregivers continually adjust behaviour to infant so that

there is interactive synchrony – in tune with infant’s
needs e.g. baby get bored with interaction and averts gaze;
mother doesn’t intrude

Don’t force yourself onto baby, sensitive to baby’s cues and

responding to them

Theory argues that parents that demonstrate this parenting

style produce babies that are more securely attached

Evidence

Training in “sensitive parenting”

See whether this changes the existing parenting

style of infants and this should increase the
attachment

Cultural differences in attachment styles

Distribution of attachment styles in different

cultures

Training in parental “sensitivity”

90 Dutch families with internationally adopted child

Not biologically involved in parents – all the children

are all at the same baseline with relationship with
family
 Families randomly allocated to Control or
Intervention

Intervention group trained in Sensitivity and given

feedback on video performance, very detailed and
intense

Distribution of Attachment styles following training

Control: high secure, medium avoidant and little

resistant

Intervention: higher secure, less avoidant and very

little resistant

Significant increase of secure attachment

Cultural differences in behaviour in the strange situation

Germany: high secure, medium avoidant, little

resistant

Japan: higher secure, less avoidant, more resistant

US: medium secure, medium avoidant, medium

resistant

Cited as maybe evidence for detached parenting

style in Germany, which push for children to be
more independent at young infant

Rates of resistant attachment higher in Japan:

reflects cultural differences in parenting style where
in traditional Japan, solo mother social role,
expected to be there all time

Theory II: Temperament

Stable individual differences in early emotion expression and

behaviour
 Presumed to reflect individual differences in CNS
structure/functioning e.g. limbic system

Many systems for measuring infant temperament

Inhibited-Uninhibited Dimension (Jerome Kagan)

All children located on a behavioural dimension that describes the

baby’s reactions to novel and unexpected events

Biological basis of these individual differences (arousal in the

amygdala)

Children with high amygdala arousal = inhibited

Higher internal activation of amygdala

Children with low amygdala arousal = uninhibited

Those in the middle are normal

Kagan observed children in laboratory settings and identified 2

distinctive temperament profiles

Inhibited child

Reacts to unfamiliar people and events with restraint, distress and

avoidance

Requires more time to relax in new situations

Have more unusual fears (phobias)

Uninhibited child

Seems to enjoy these very same situations

Responds with spontaneity to novel situations, laughing and

smiling easily
 High resting level of stimulation, only a little bit of external stimulation of
environmental change before pushes them over threshold and it becomes
unpleasant

Don’t want lots of external stimulation from environment, so not engage

in too much engage

Be a little bit shyer

Uninhibited – seek stimulation from environment, pursue change, and

pursue stimulating novel activity

Assessment of Temperament

Parental report

Laboratory observations

Psycho-physiological assessment

Possible to measure child’s temperament by 4 months of age

Strange situation

Typically used to measure relationship with mother

More than 9 months of age

You can see temperament in infants 4 months of age in which

novel objects are provided; you’ll see reliable individual
differences in way they react

In broader sense, it measures reaction to novelty and unexpected

events

In the middle: a little bit distressed

Don’t really care about novelty – avoidant: uninhibited

Insecure – resistant: inhibited

Stability and change in temperament

 Longitudinal research suggests

20% of infants display inhibited behaviour patterns

40% very comfortable with new experiences

Up to 30% of these groups retained temperamental styles into pre-

school years

Longitudinal Study

Fox et al. 2001

Stability and change in temperament

Temperament of infants assessed at 14 months using laboratory

measures of reaction to novelty

Assessed again at 24 months and 48 months

Classified kids into three groups: average, inhibited and

uninhabited

Higher the score, the more inhibited they are

14 months: stayed more in the middle

Uninhibited: showed more stability

Inhibited: there is decrease in average inhibition index

25 kids in inhibited group, 13 of them changed, 12 changed

Half shifted level of inhibition

Change was related to level of non-parental care

Interviewed the family

Exclusive parental care, majority of kids showed no change

 Non-parental care, at least one person outside from parent that
had responsibility for care of these children – more likely to show
reduced inhibition levels

Environmental influences on inhibited temperament

For inhibited children

Warm, supportive parents reduces anxiety

Children whose parents expose them to ‘mild separation

stress’ show less inhibition in the longer term

Role of stable individual differences in temperament has to be taken seriously

Biology is not destiny: can be altered through experience