Ch_7.doc

Ch. 7 The Primacy of Infancy Primacy: What does primacy mean? the idea that early experiences can significantly shape later development Why can causality seldom be assumed from research findings on early experience and later life? Because they are not chosen at random and have a control group, they are chosen because they live in an orphanage or because they have been in poverty, there are more risk factors involved in their lives than just that one thing Modifying the impact of early experience: Changes in the environment can modify the effects of early experience: what does this mean? a positive or negative change in a child?s environment can affect them one way or the other and create a disconnect in their development Transactional models: What are they- models of development that trace the ways in which the characteristics of the child and the characteristics of the child?s environment interact across time (?transact?) to determine developmental outcomes and how do they help explain the consequences of early deprivation as well as the consequences of effective interventions to ameliorate the consequences of early deprivation? Impoverished children often die of malnutrition, but some with a more difficult temperament may survive due to their temperament (See also discussion of Michael Rutter?s (1985, 1990) student described in a later section of this chapter [Recovery from Deprivation].) Developing Attachment Continuity and discontinuity in patterns of attachment: What does continuity mean in this discussion? Continuity means the lack of change in the person?s attachment styles Note evidence of continuity (e.g., Srouge & colleagues [1999], Waters and colleagues, [2000) and evidence suggesting lack of continuity (e.g., some of Waters & colleagues? [2000a, 2000b] findings; Lewis [1997]). In one study continuity was found in almost all of the children that it studied while those who were the exception had a major life altering event in their early childhood, however, another study found that adolescents had not remained continuous, but that they had changed and adapted to their environment The influence of out-of-home care. Why is out-of-home care an important issue in this culture? Single-parent homes, economic need forcing both parents to work. What factors have been examined in the NICHHD studies of day care? Family demographics, childcare facilities and effectiveness, the need for a loving caring environment outside of the home when parents are being demanded to work. (We?ll look at findings in more detail when we consider Chapter 11). Effects of Deprivation Effects on children reared in orphanages Dennis?s (1973) study of children reared in Lebanese orphanages: What was children?s development like at 2 months? Normal At 1 year? Their development was half of what it should have been What was recovery like if they were adopted before age 2? Functionally normal 2-3 years after adoption. If they were adopted by age 6? Only slightly retarded. How do children who remained in institutional care develop? By age 12-16, the girls were so severely retarded, they were said to not be able to function in normal society, boys had much more interaction and stimulations, even made up for some of their deficits, could actually function in society. How did the conditions of institutional life influence the findings for girls and for boys? Girls were less stimulated than boys and turned out less able to function in society Chisholm?s (1998) major findings about children reared in Romanian orphanages; what cautions did she offer about the findings? That those adopted before 4 months were completely normal, while those adopted after 8 months had residual effects, but they still formed an attachment with their parents, cautions that those before 4 months had usually only spent a month in the orphanage, while the others had spent over a year and there is a lot that goes into a child being in an orphanage longer including malnurishment, changes in caregivers, etc, there were also many factors to consider in what was going on, such as the environmental factors of the adoptive family Tizard et al?s (e.g., 1975, 1989a) findings for British children reared in residential nurseries from birth-2+ years. Why might the children who were adopted at age 2 have fared better developmentally than children returned to their biological families at age 2? Because those who were returned to their biological families did not make attachments as well as the adopted ones, biological families were not always happy to have their child back, the adoptive homes however were childless homes where they really wanted a child also they were usually financially better off Isolated Children: Why might the Czechloslovakian children studied by Koluchova (1972, 1979) fared better developmentally after being recovered from an abusive home than did the isolated U.S. child Genie (Curtiss, 1979)? Because they had each other, they were not isolated as long and they were released at an earlier time Vulnerability and Resilience: What is resilience- the ability to recover quickly from the adverse effects of early experience or persevere in the face of stress with no apparent special negative psychological consequences- and how is it related to risk factors- personal characteristics or environmental circumstances that increase the probability of negative outcomes for children, risk is a statistic that applies to groups, not individuals, and protective factors ? environmental and personal factors that are the source of children?s resilience in the face of hardship? What child characteristics protect against negative consequences of early high-risk circumstances? Being difficult, active, socially responsible, autonomous, have positive social interactions, high motor and language development What family characteristics offer protection? Note Werner & Smith?s [1982] findings in particular: who did they study- babies in Kauai, what were the risk circumstances- low-income, being born prematurely, stress during the birth process, having a mother with a low level of education, having a parent with some form of psychopathology and what specific factors did they find that protected children against poor developmental outcomes in these high-risk families? No more than 4 kids, more than 2 years between them and another sibling, alternative caregivers available within the household, work load of mother- not excessive, substantial attention, sibling was caregiver/confidant during childhood, family provided structure and rules, family was cohesive, child had an informal, mutigenerational network of kin and friends, number of chronic stressful events was not great. Note also the impact of maternal depression- keeps mom from being as responsive toward her baby, babies end up with lower activity levels, more frowns, etc. What characteristics of the community offer protection? Higher socioeconomically, strength of social support networks, attending a good school What characteristics of the culture influence the relationship between vulnerability and protective factors? African babies are moved from house to house which may keep them from being vulnerable they are fostered by many different relatives which may protect them more Recovery from Deprivation Impact of later circumstances: What did Rutter et al (1985, 1990) find in their study of adults who had been raised in institutions? In particular, how did the women in the institutionalized group compared with control group women? They became pregnant earlier and no longer lived with the father of their child, they had experienced break-downs in caring for their children, had poorer parenting practices. Specifically how does the transactional model help explain why the institutionalized women fared much more poorly in early adulthood than the control group women? Early events made the precipitation of these later bad events likely, it led to a lack of strong attachments and good relationships with peers What exceptions to the general pattern of findings did Rutter and his colleagues find? That if they stayed with the father of their child they were much more likely to be better parents. What protective factors do these exceptions suggest? That if the chain of behaviors they are stuck in becomes broken and reestablished in a different light, then they can live normally Harlow?s monkeys revisited: What did Harlow find about the recovery of monkeys reared in isolation from birth-6 months? If only the first 3 months, they were fine, if 6 months, they rocked, bit, and scratched themselves, only recovered partially, unable to mate For monkeys reared in isolation from 6-12 months? Became aggressive and fearful, recovered quickly and were able to mate What did he discover about effective ?therapy? for monkeys isolated in the first year? To put them with a baby monkey who could withstand the abuse that they would probably give. How and why did the introduction of a 2-3 month old baby monkey into previously isolated monkeys? environment work to aid in recovery? Because they were playful, they introduced a new element to the environment and it brought out the nurturing skills in the older monkeys Implications for human recovery What did Furman and colleagues? (1979) findings suggest about the role of interactions with younger peers in aiding the ?recovery? of socially isolated young human children? That their social interactions doubled after interaction with children 1-1.5 years younger than them and that it was a great help to have had these interactions Shaping Developmental Pathways: What are Brazelton & Greenspan?s ?irreducible needs of children;? the need for: ongoing nurturing relationships, physical protection, safety, and regulation, experiences tailored to individual differences, developmentally appropriate experiences, limit setting, structure, and expectations, stable supportive communities and cultural continuity. why is each important to normal development? Because they all contribute to making the child what it needs to be within it?s environment