Piaget's Theory of Cognitive Development PDF

Piaget developed his theory by observing his very own children. New-borns 1 Don’t actually do much 2 Have low control over movements 3 Demonstrate no sign of intention 4 Show a limited capacity for expression 5 Eyes cannot yet focus or track an object - Piaget concluded that children are born withou...

Piaget developed his theory by observing his very own children. New-borns 1 Don’t actually do much 2 Have low control over movements 3 Demonstrate no sign of intention 4 Show a limited capacity for expression 5 Eyes cannot yet focus or track an object - Piaget concluded that children are born without any knowledge. A blank slate or Tabula Rasa. Therefore “A child constructs their own understanding through active interaction with the world” Learning Mechanisms: Assimilation, Accommodation, Equilibration — 4 stages are created by accommodation events or ‘light bulb moments’ where new knowledge changes all understanding. This is called a domain-general change - ‘domains’ are types of knowledge, such as language, mathematics, space. They all improve. Whereas domain-specific changes leads to development that is continuous and gradually in particular areas Simpson 2019 evidence for Good inhibitory control is associated with children’s fine motor control. 2013 journal was suppress immature action schema Stage 1 (Sensorimotor 0-2) Sense-action learning but no mental representations, Stage 2 (Pre-operational 2-7) Mental representations but no concrete operations, Stage 3 (Concrete Operational 7-11) Concrete operations but no formal, Stage 4 (Formal Operational 11-14) hypothetical, abstract or unbiased Stage 1 - AnotB error: Piaget says infants’ senses go directly into actions with no thought in between. They are learning specific procedure of action, not responding post analysis of situation. Don’t understand ‘object permanence’ - that an object will continue to exist when not in view. Piaget tests our acquisition of object permanence using search tasks. Searching is motivated by object permanence. Task: Child is faced with two covered locations A/B. Experimenter hides toy at location A – they reach to A. Experiment then repeats several times and infant will retrieves. Then hides toy at location B – infants reaches to A but Piaget suggests infants reach to A because they formed a sense-action memory. Infants don’t remember where the object has been put because they cannot form representations yet. Diamond (1985) explains this development in terms of 2 processes 1) Working memory – holds location B in mind - Inhibition suppresses the well-learnt action of reaching to A. Diamond suggested both improve because of frontal cortex ‘maturation’. Neuroscience can be precise about the parts of brain that are involved. Theory is explicit about what is changing. Being clear isn’t the same as being right 2) Competence versus Performance. Theory is about what children know (competence), not do (performance) The problem is that we measure what they do, and it can be hard to work out what they know. No domain-general changes in performance. But Piaget may claim, there are in competence Stage 2 - Conservation Task: Mental representations provide the content of thoughts. They put something in between our senses & actions. The domain- general effect of representations is understanding object permanence, games of pretense and self-identity. The pre-operational child’s thoughts are frozen: they are capable of forming the representation, but can’t make it move. Again, this limits their performance 1) Poor liquid into two tall-thin beakers and get the child to agree that there is the same amount in each 2) Then, you take the contents of one of the beakers and poor it into the short-fat beaker 3) Next you ask which beaker has most in or are they both the same? Most 5-year-olds pick the tall-thin beaker. Conservation is understanding the amount does not change. Pre-operational child can’t perform reverse operation – can’t imagine the action of pouring the water back.Like, being able to form a representation enables you to understand object permanence. Being able to perform an operation enables you to understand conservation Stage 3 - Operations are mental actions used to make our representations move. Concrete operational stage children can hold representations and perform operations. Action > representation > mental action; but, need to perform the action first; even 10-year-olds need to act to learn an operation. You can’t yet detach thinking from ‘concrete’ experience like in formal operational thinking. Three mountains task. What do you see? The child’s then asked to pick what Piaget’s see? Lacks the necessary insight = because their egocentric perspective stops them imagining Piaget’s view. Preoperationals can’t imagine them selves ‘walking round the model’, but concrete operational thinking would let children move the representation Stage 4 - Formal operational thinking is 1) Abstract – thinking is not bound to specific examples or experience 2) Unbiased – show no prejudice - Consider this universal statement - ‘All people are created equal’ Egocentrism usually ends as they begin to understand the social dimension of life. 3) Hypothetical – able to imagine how the real world could be different – a possible world; but Piaget claims that children only engage in fantasy thinking which is unrelated to ‘real world’. Passing conservation tasks: Piaget claims that children acquire the ability to execute an operation just once (competence) – but apply it afterward to different tasks at varying ages (performance) Numbers pass at 5-6yrs Mass pass at 7-8yrs Volume pass 9-10yrs Piaget is bad at explaining how exactly one stage changes into another = big accommodations. How does an infant go from understanding the world in actions to representation to operations… Drawing relies on developing fine-motor skill and hand eye coordination. This control is achieved slowly and Piaget has six sub-stages. Scribble 1-2yrs, label scribble 2-3 yrs, closed forms 3-4yrs, intellectual realism 4-7yrs, visual realism +8yrs. However, prior interaction with subject will change what realism is used. If cup is named, more Intellectual realism. But if told, “Draw exactly what you can see”, instead of “this” more visual realism. So maybe they don’t understand what is being asked of them, and it says nothing else. Cox (1981) study on social cues effect, compared two conditions: firstly a task with toy man placed behind a wall and standard drawing instructions; the exact same depiction but in which the toy man was a naughty robber hiding from police. More children in condition 2 used visual realism – so robber was hidden. Thirdly, drawing two objects: when two objects are exactly the same, intellectual realism is more likely and vice-versa. If they are similar but look different, visual realism is more likely used. Piaget suggests young children’s use of intellectual realism reflects their immaturity: but it seems like its performance not ability Pre-operational stage – Intellectual realism: representations contain an object’s distinguishing features conceptually Concrete operational stage – Visual realism: To draw a cup without the handle you need an operation to rotate the object representation. Likewise, to draw a person who is behind a wall, children need to move one representation in front the other… Formal operational stage - Abstract realism: able to depict something which isn’t there or does not exist Bear/Dragon Task For this (Reed, Pien, & Rothbart, 1984), children were instructed to follow all instruction from the nice bear, but to ignore any from the mean dragon. It measures the ability to inhibit or activate motor responses, following a rule. There are other things at play. The problem for Piaget’s theory is evidence. The brain doesn’t just get bigger – it changes in various ways. The Brain has about 86 billion nerve-cells (Herculano-Houzel, 2012) The pattern of connection between these neurones, is you. Synaptic formation intensifies from pre-birth to 2, then begins to prune and reduce in number. Numeracy of synapses is called the density. Synapse are usually about these local connections – however long range connections develop overtime and eventually create networks. Speech depends on interconnected areas. Mark Johnson wrote the first textbook on post-natal brain development. He suggested three ways brain development could lead to cognitive development. 1 Maturational account: increased brain activity in particular areas. Like the inferior frontal gyrus for inhibition (Smith, 2017) 2 Interactive specialisation account: the coordination of long-range networks in brain 3 Skill learning – developed EFs needed to learn new skill – but activity then reduces when the skill is learnt. Theories of Nature: genes = biology, biases brain development, determines gender roles Theories of Nurture: gendered world, determines learning, shapes gender role conformity sex chromosomes = XX females, XY male. Chromosomes always come in pairs. One from mum, one from dad. 22 of them are identical in women and men. However the 23rd pair is different – these are the sex chromosomes. SRY gene expressed by the Y chromosome makes you male, and leads to production of testosterone which shapes your morphology and personality. But what is biological sex? We generally read a person’s sex, from whatever their current external anatomy is, but we believe there is some unseen essential property. Behaviourism argues that “...a child does not act upon the world, the world acts upon them…” Skinner believed our behaviour is shaped by learning operant conditioning: Repeat behaviour which is met with approval from others = reinforcement / repeat behaviour which is met with disapproval from others = punishment. Conditioning will focus a child towards gender- typical behaviour; child has absolutely no control over the behavioural outcome. Social learning theory (SLT) differs from Behaviourism in terms of what & how: What is learnt = symbol representation I.E. we learn of Gender Identity first, then build our sense of self. How we learn = by observation: SLT says we use physical gender signifiers to copy – “I’m a boy – I’ll copy men”. No role for observation in behaviourism. Social cognitive theories start with Piaget – he proposes: “A child will constructs their own understanding through active interaction with the world”. They focus on Self-Socialisation: actively constructing a personal model of gender not controlled by definitions that society gives. To build on Piaget… Kohlberg’s Theory of GID: Gender Identity (2-3 years): Children recognise and label themselves as either a boy or a girl. They understand that gender is a stable characteristic. It's simply the basic acknowledgment of being a specific gender. Sensorimotor, no thought just awareness Gender Stability (3-4 years): Children understand their gender remains the same over time. However, they might still believe that differences in appearance or habits can make you a different gender. Pre- operational, necessitates mental representations Gender Constancy (5-7 years): Children grasp the concept that gender is constant and does not change, despite some aesthetic or behavioural changes. Being a boy or girl’s inherent. Concrete operational, requires understanding the principle of conservation. PMCQ Gender identity is NOT about gendered behaviour. According to behaviourism, gender identity is not central to gender role development. Gender identity = representation… Mate choice criteria (Buss, 1989): a man looks for beauty cause it equates with fitness – and pregnancy, birth and infant rearing are demanding; a women however wants status because it brings resources for her and baby. Parental Investment Theory was first proposed by Trivers (1972): women must invest lots in baby, so choose a mate very carefully and hang on tight. In contrast, males can invest with no consequence Natural selection relies on mainly four things: 1) There are differences between individuals within a species = traits 2) Traits are passed onto the offspring 3) Some traits are ‘fitter’ than others 4) There’s an excess of individuals. If these 4 things are true, fit traits must spread between generations and species will become fitter overtime. Evolution requires a mechanism of inheritance. A theory was developed in 1900 by W. Bateson where the unit of inheritance = “gene”, and different versions of a gene = “alleles”. How a trait is expressed depends on what specific alleles that you carry. Twas originally assumed that we only had monogenic traits = a single gene determines one specific trait. Psychological traits are predominantly the most polygenic of all = the product of many many many genes, each one having a smaller effect. 55% of genes are expressed within the brain. No single gene “accounts” for >1-2% of every trait. Unit of inheritance = gene. Genes are made of DNA – universal heritable material. DNA has a four-letter code (ATGC) standing for adenine, cytosine, thymine, guanine – and comes in double strands or helixes. As pair up with Ts, Gs pair up with Cs. This is how our DNA is copied. DNA codes for proteins: which are responsible for everything inside our body. Proteins control development and function. In all eukaryotes, DNA is split over a number of chromosomes. We have 46 chromosomes, which come in pairs - one from each of your biological parents. 22 pairs are except the 23rd pair is different – these are the sex chromosomes. Proteins are made up from 20 kinds of amino acids. From two consecutive letters – you have 4x4 or 16 amino acids. It takes 3 DNA letters to specify all amino acids = Codon. A mutation will change one letter in DNA and so change an amino acid within the protein. The 1900s definition of genes was “a unit of inheritance” … Discoveries in 1950/60s changed that definition into “A gene, being the sequence of DNA that codes for a protein”. Reading a full DNA sequence (genome) began in 1990 with the Human Genome Project, completed in 2003. We have 20,000 genes, making 20,000 proteins. Different alleles have different DNA sequences and code for different types of proteins. Proteins called “Histones” form into a ball – where DNA wraps around it. Afterwards the balls form a tightly bound fibre. This forms into loops and these into bigger loops that are eventually packed together into a chromosome. Both genes and environment can influence a trait. Heritability measures the influence of genes over a trait… the proportion of total variation of traits within a population that is due to variation in genes. 0% heritability = no genes, all environment. 100% heritability = all genes, no environment I.E. nature/nurture. Low variability in genes, then heritability will be low as well, even if genes have tight control over the trait. Heritability isn’t fixed, even though your genes are. Heritability started being measured in 1980 with twin studies. As monozygotic (identical) twins develop from a single egg fertilised by a single sperm, they are expected to share all of their genes, whereas dizygotic (fraternal) twins share only about 50% of them. Heritability of psychological traits is high at 50 to 60%: Intelligence, some aspects of personality and mental health problems. Traits under the strongest pressure of selection – pull in genes to improve fitness. When something is necessary for survival lots of genes will enhance it = the “watershed model” — Their analogy uses the metaphor of a river being the downstream effect of many smaller upstream contributions (Cannon & Keller, 2005) … Any psychological trait depends on hundreds of different processes and thousands of different genes Histones are proteins around which DNA winds for compaction and (through loosening/tightening) gene regulation. DNA Methylation: Methyl groups which are found in particular foods can tag DNA to activate or repress genes (express or silence) Histone Modification: The binding of epigenetic factors to histone ”tails” alters the extent to which DNA is wrapped around histones and consequently the availability of genes within the DNA that get activated. DNA inaccessible, gene inactive Good stress (adaptation) Tolerable Stress (negative but reparable) Toxic Stress (allostatic load complications) Toxic stress — Disruption of brain and systems, Damage to regulation of homeostasis, behaviours might temporarily relieve the feeling but aggravate the chronic levels of stress. High pre-bedtime cortisol elevation changes brain volume reduction and disruption of protective myelin growth. Inhibits neurogenesis of hippocampus and effects the function of amygdala, PFC, anterior insula. This effects our contextual learning and leads to difficulties in discriminating between safe and dangerous situations. The orbitofrontal cortex develops to promotes either vigilance for danger or threats. This can either be over or under expressed. It regulates your impulses and moods. Reduces cognitive flexibility. Deprivation from poverty has an impact on development, poor maturation of memory & amygdala which contributes to decreased stress tolerance / reactivity from shrinkage of limbic area. Exposome: The exposome captures the essence of nurture; the summation and integration of external forces acting upon our genome throughout our lifespan.” (Miller and Jones; 2014) Environmental factors comprising the exposome include: diet, air quality, lifestyle… Epigenetic modification cannot be reversed. Recovery from traumatic, gene-altering experiences is possible by redirecting gene expression to compensate. This is known as plasticity. Autonomic, Immune, metabolic and endocrine systems communicate & affect each other. Allostasis involves turning on physiological responses when needed and turning it off when the stressor is over. Telomeres are simply a protective end, casing each strand of DNA. Each time a cell divides, it loses a bit of telomere. An enzyme called telomerase can replenish it, but chronic stress and cortisol exposure decrease your supply. Whence, they shorten. ToM is group of complex skills & knowledge including: The understanding that people all have Mental States (MS) they drive our behaviour (‘The unseen guides the seen’) – essentialist; that other people’s states are separate and so can be different I.E. perspective taking and empathy. The ability to understand others’ mental states is central to ToM. Dana Hellman's Theory of Mind Development 1990 proposes a sequential order we acquire the understanding of three mental states. Emotions, beliefs then intentions. “E-I-B” sequence — Emotion: Children begin getting and identifying basic emotional states in themselves and others. Intention: Secondly, we apprehend what intentions mean, and recognise that individuals can have different intentions and goals, influencing their actions. Belief: After understanding intentions, children progress to comprehending beliefs, false and true. Emotions: Some emotions are visible But emotions are often ambiguous (unclear) and ambivalent (mixed). Intentions: desires make a claim about you, not about the world = non-representational mental states. Beliefs: things you think are true. Beliefs can be false as they are representations. Representations make a claim, about the world: so can be wrong. This property of ‘wrongness’ makes beliefs hard for children to learn. Piaget’s sensorimotor learning: make a contraction then observe how it moves your limbs, intend to make that same movement again knowing which muscle to contract. Piaget’s imitation: observe another person move a limb, know/learn which muscle to contract, imitate that movement yourself. Learning to control your own movement brings imitation ‘for free’. What do infants learn by watching adults’s behaviour? As Piaget says, they learn to copy actions. However, as Wittgenstein noted… We might see actions, but we know they are indeed the product of intentions. Already said intentions, like desires, are non-representational MS. But Intentions, unlike Desires, have moral value… Intentions have moral value because we choose them. Therefore we are therefore responsible for them. In consequence, we distinguish between actions that are intentional / accidental. Adults can see actions then infer an intention from social cues or understanding. Do children? Meltzoff (1995) – wanted to know: Do infants imitate actions or intentions? Very clever task, toddlers observe ‘failing’ actions. Do toddlers imitate the failing action (which they actually saw) or intended actions (which they didn’t) ? He tests 18- month-olds: 1) Successful condition – saw intended action, then 80% made the intended action 2) Failing condition – saw failing action, then 80% still made the intended action 3) Control condition – saw no action, only 20% made the intended action. It suggested that 18-month-olds are imitating the intentions not action – in condition 2 they do something they didn’t see. Not imitation. Horner & Whiten (2005) Watched experimenter perform two actions: the first one seems completely pointless. The second is needed to achieve the experimenter’s intentions. They copy both actions, over-imitate, even though the first action is irrelevant to experimenter’s intention. Conclusion was that a child wouldn’t make 1st action if only coded the intention. May be children don’t code intentions but copy intentional actions – they can sense them, not understand. A belief’s capacity to actually be false sets it apart. Wimmer and Perner (1983) used the False Belief Task to assess the ability to infer a false belief 1) Teddy sees marble put into a box 2) But doesn’t see Puppy move it over to basket… Ask child two questions: A False Belief Question, ‘Where does teddy think his marble is?’ Tests false belief understanding. Then a control Q, ‘Where is marble put first?’ Checks that child remembers where the marble was. Perner (1987) tested children aged 3 to 4½ years. By upper age limit, most children do understand beliefs can be false. Does failing, mean you don’t understand false beliefs? Children could know beliefs can be false earlier, but fail to work-out the right answer (performance not competence); or something else. Onishi and Baillargeon (2005) used a looking task to test infants’ understanding of false beliefs. Participants who understand beliefs should expect Actor with FB to search in green box. 15-month olds ‘yellow box’ surprise reaction suggests they do understand FBs. Onishi and Baillargeon claim that infant task shows competence. Fail preschool tasks through performance errors. Problems with the claim… 1) Theoretically – representing isn’t understanding. 2) Empirically – Heyes (2014) infants don’t form meta-representations by then. Findings don’t replicate when you change task. Fabricius (2010) added third location: the object is never put at this location. 5 year olds are just as likely to pick the “object never here” location as “object was here” location: suggests they don’t understand FB. Fabricius suggests that 5 year olds use perceptual access reasoning. If you don’t see where the object goes, you’ll give the wrong answer to questions about its location. So, Teddy can pick any wrong location. Only between 6 to 7 years do children pass the 3-locations task – pick where Teddy last saw object. Understanding FB requires "precise wrongness”. PA easier, because FB requires a specific answer whereas other is always wrong. PAR is: The belief that a person will be wrong about events they have not witnessed. Child Attachment: Bowlby, during WHO report in 1951: he said to grow up healthy “the infant and young child should experience warm, intimate, and continuous relationship with his mother” Maternal Deprivation is coined as Mourning. Until the 1960s, parents were not allowed to visit own children in hospital more than once a week. There are 3 phases: Protest, Despair and Detachment … Protest: Acutely distressed at having lost his mother and seeks to recapture her with his limited resources (throw, cry, listen) All behaviour does indicate strong expectation that she will return. Meantime he rejects the alternative figures who offers to replace her Despair: preoccupation with his mother is evident, through his behaviour suggests an increasing level of hopelessness and grief. Physical movements diminish, cries monotonously or intermittently. Withdrawn or inactive, makes no demands on people Detachment: The child no longer will reject the nurse; he accepts care, may even be sociable. When his mother does visit, however - surprisingly he might seem hardly to know her; be remote and apathetic; instead of clinging there is turning away Our primary drive is food (Cupboard Love) which leads to a secondary drive for attachment (Breast Love) The Monkey Will Tell Us experiment by Harry Harlow in 1958 tested the theory that food is actually the reason why relationships are formed. 2 mother surrogates for a Rhesus monkey. He moved the bottle from one “mother” to another (one comforting, one discomforting), whether the monkey would seek bottle over warmth. Attachment Theory is about why relationships are necessary, how relationships are formed, maintained, and broken. Attachment can be defined an infant’s enduring affective tie with a caregiver that develops, overtime. Infants have a strong biological push to develop attachment to caregivers for survival/protection. Attachment is not a parent’s bond to infant at birth or afterwards / imprinting, which is simply an instantaneous process. It does not describe a parent “bonding” with a infant at birth. The Function of Attachment is survival, protection from predators, giving them physical and emotional safety that allows them either to explore or return. Monitors threats, with 5 senses. Has a “safety” setting, which relates to felt security and proximity from caregiver. Type of attachment: Signalling (smiling, babbling, calling) Approaching (following, holding, seeking) with attachment figure, which is usually the person who interacts with the child, provides care and is emotionally invested. Types of Threats, External like strangers. Internal like hunger. Proximity like separation. The Safety Settings… Proximity to caregiver = Being physically close enough. “Felt security” (Sroufe, 1976) The emotional parallel of being close enough. Any behaviour that increases “felt security” will correlate with comfortability to explore. Decreased proximity to caregiver is likely indicative of healthy attachment style. Primary attachment figures are Mother, father. Secondary attachment figures are Relatives, caregivers Mary Ainsworth studied home observations in Uganda, then Baltimore. Came up with a Strange Situation: Series of episodes in which an infant and parent are separated (danger) and reunited (safety) twice. She formulated 3 basic “organisations” of infant-mother attachment, which are related to mother’s caregiving style. SECURE: The mother is sensitive, responsive, accepting + emotionally & physically accessible. Provides a secure base for infant who uses this felt security for exploration, actively greets/approaches mother if upset, signals for contact, is soothed and returns to exploring. More independent and confident, persistent in solving problems as believe they can succeed, higher stress tolerance, more positive self-image because others are there when needed. Get described as empathic by teachers. Strong emotions are manageable. AVOIDANT: The mother is less sensitive, responsive or accepting. More ignoring, controlling and severe.Unpleasant or infrequent physical/emotional contact. Does not provide a secure base for infant who explores but little as there isn’t this felt security. Upon separation: little / no signs of missing the parent, because the reunion does not represent safe haven. Thus, avoids the caregiver and focuses on toys. If picked up leans away, more dependent on secondary attachment figures. Lacks confidence and persistence in problem solving, low stress-resistance. Anxious when experiencing novelty. because others have not been reliable when needed, probably less friends and subsequently likely to bully, get described as mean by teachers. Strong emotions don’t get me what I need, so I should hide them when experiencing distress. AMBIVALENT: The mother is generally quite accepting but insensitive, and inconsistently available or responsive. More interfering, less cooperative. Does not provide a secure base reliably, so infant fails to explore; visibly is distressed upon separation and with the prospect of reunion, alternates wanting contact with rejection. Fails to find the necessary comfort in mother and so more dependent on teachers. Same problems as those with avoidant style of attachment except are more likely to become the victims of bullying, and seek a lot of help instead of hiding their emotions. Anxious, but happier to accept help. Mother was inconsistent in their care, but at least when receives was comforting. Strong emotions are still too hard to manage alone “psychic organisation” can sometimes be mixed. Attachment helps the child form a sense of self. Style of parent is deeply internalised. As they age, children will explore the environment with memory and internal working model, instead of proximity. Disorganised Attachment is when the style isn’t clear like “come here, now go away”. Leads to both avoidance and fearful characteristics. Might have problems with the development of personality. Child Attachment Interview requires the children to narrate past interactions with attachment figures.This involves extensive training for interviewers. Key aspects: forming a narrative of attachment based interactions, detecting any resolved or unresolved issues, then scoring each relationship episode based on emotional openness, balance of references/examples, idealisation or dismissal and preoccupied anger, despair, avoidance etc. Behavioural analysis is used to assess visible signs: anxiety, eye contact, tone of voice, laughter or crying. Primary and secondary classifications get assigned based on scores, revealing attachment patterns, including disorganised/fearful attachment signs Early adolescence (10-12), middle adolescence (13-15), late adolescence (16-20), Young adulthood (21-25) Sensitive period of developmental plasticity. Adolescence: A socially defined construct. Transition: Completing postsecondary education, financial independence, Starting a career, finding a partner. Difference in timing for poor (early onset) vs wealthy (late ending). Highly malleable period, neurological and environmental changes simultaneous. Highly influenced externally and internally by hormones in puberty. Pubertal Development — Andrenarche (ages 6-9): “adrenal hormones increase with a process that is largely independent of sexual maturation” … Maturation of Hypothalamic Pituitary Adrenal (HPA) axis secreting sex hormones called adrenal androgens. Adrenarchal hormones continue to rise and peak in early 20s. Associated with pubic / axillary hair growth. Happens before secretion of sex-steroids. Gonadarche (9-11): “earliest gonadal changes that mark the onset of puberty” … Reactivation of hypothalamic pituitary gonadal (HPG) axis. Rise contributes to breast and genital development. Menarche - the arrival of period in girls, which many consider the onset of puberty. Gonadotropins: Increase the production of sex steroids - estradiol and testosterone. Lead to ovary, breast and teste development. First signs: testicular and initial breast development Measuring Pubertal Development: Pubertal status or tanner stage - how far along in maturation. Pubertal timing - how mature an adolescent is compared to same sex peers. Pubertal tempo - within individual metric of development. Early pubertal timing - accelerated maturation by premature activation of HPA and HPG axes. Early life experiences such as sexual abuse lowers menarche age. Linked to internalised symptoms in girls: anxiety should decline after menarche. Physical abuse will create rapid tempo. Parental harshness and father absence will cause the same. Sex differences — Girls: Low birthweight and obesity associated with earlier pubertal maturation. Boys: Early maturation and obesity associated with later pubertal maturation. Chemicals: Age of pubertal development is older in those with higher chemicals (flame retardants) in blood. Influence of chemicals on pubertal development may start during utero exposure. Puberty and Social Norms: Changes self image - early menarche and late gonadarche liked to shame. Social consequences: changes your relationships. For example pubertal maturation is associated with sexual harassment / assault Puberty and Stress Sensitivity: Pubertal hormones alter response to stress. Girls particularly hit. Cortisol promotes adaptation to stress. Changes in grey and white matter. Grey matter changes include synaptogenesis and synaptic pruning. Formation and disappearance of synapse. Myelination increase: increases quality and speed of neurone to neurone communication 1. Grey matter throughout brain shrinks in adolescence because it’s becoming more specialised 2. Nerve cells in cortex get wrapped with myelin, an insulating substance that helps protect and speed up signals 3. Communication links between different regions, called white matter tracts, start to solidify into adult like structures 4. Cortical thinning where grey matter reduction and increased white matter organisation leads to increased connectivity between important circuitry and pruning unnecessary synapses Identity Cohesion: Sense of self and identity becomes more integrated, coherent and stable over time. “Achieved” identity and integrated sense of self associated with positive health outcomes across the lifetime. Neurobiological Perspective: Integration of neural circuity (Casey, 2016) - create sense of cohesion in self. Self evaluation associated with development of 1) Ventromedial PFC: inhibition of emotion in decisions and self control 2) ACC: error and conflict detection. Social support for LGBTQ = drop in age of “coming out”- from 20 to 14. Relationship Formation: Erikson with Identity à Intimacy stated healthy identity development during adolescence is a precursor of intimacy in relationships during emerging adulthood. Brown Four- Phase model — 1) Initiation: Awakening of interest and focus on self / one’s confidence in ability 2) Status: Seen in context of status with peers 3) Affection: Shift of focus to romantic non-platonic relationship, less focus on group 4) Bonding: Relationship is seen as a long-term commitment, more intimacy with an individual person… Similarly — Time with same sex peers increases 8 to 14, Time with opposite sex peers increases steadily at 13-yrs What are Neurodevelopment Disorders? Amalgamation of influences. Diagnosed early childhood. Causes functional impairment. ADHD Inattention and hyperactivity/impulsivity. Criteria — Inattention: No attention to details, Seemingly not listening when spoken to, Frequent loss of belongings. Hyperactivity-Impulsivity: Fidgeting, Excessive talking, Difficulties waiting… Behaviours present before age 12, across 2+ settings, Causes functional impairment. Cannot be explained by other mental health disorders. Genetics / Family history: Is this due to environment such as Brain damage from dietary agents or lead poisoning. Rule out PTSD, Sleep disorder, head injury etc. ADHD Mechanisms: Sex (X-chromosome) more prevalent in boys, leading to impaired reward processing, bad sense of time, deficient executive functions like inhibitory control and working memory. Cognitive Disengagement Syndrome / Barkley - is distinct from above. Characterised by Sluggish Cognitive Tempo, Associated with inattention. 40% of people with ADHD have symptoms of CDS. Slowed processing and responses, with excessive levels of daydreaming. Treatments for ADHD: Medication which is Stimulants are effective – with 80% success. Concerns of side effects. Therapy is preferable when affordable. Organisational Skills Training (Richard Gallagher) or Cognitive Behavioural Therapy for adults (Mary Solano) Cognitive Rehabilitation/Remediation also possible. These address the behaviours that prevent good organisation “Glitches”, Management of materials like backpack and pencil-case, healthy time management, pre-task planning. Disruptive Behaviour Disorders — Oppositional Defiant Disorder. Criteria: At least 4 that has lasted for over six months. Must negatively impact functioning… Angry/irritable mood, Argumentative/defiant behaviour, Vindictiveness. Causes: biology, Parental attachment style, abuse/neglect. To diagnose conduct disorder, at least four of these are required (they are obvious) Must be diagnosed before 18. Qualifiers include limited prosocial emotions, lack of guilt/remorse, shallow or deficient affect. Is precursor to antisocial personality disorder 2-10% prevalence; median of 4% More common in boys than girls due to boys tendency for violence; girls incur harm through interpersonal relationships. Treatments: Behavioural Management like use of time out, positive affirmation/rewards when not disruptive. Mentalisation based family therapy = identify attachment disruptions that cause the behaviours. Parent Child Interaction Therapy and Social and empathy training can be useful Neurogenetic Disorders — Prader Willi Syndrome: Missing genetic material on chromosome number 15. Prevalence of 1 in every 20,000 to 30,000 births. At birth: floppiness, failure to thrive and difficulties feeding. Older age: disturbed growth, excessive appetite possibly leading to obesity, skin picking behaviours, disruptive (often food related) behaviour, high pain tolerance. Turner Syndrome: Girls have missing part of entire X chromosome, Prevalence of 1 in every 2000 to 2500.Associated with stunted growth, heart problems, needs hormones to grow and develop, normal IQ, good verbal abilities, poor math skills, working memory, and visual/spatial abilities, disturbed social processing and incidence of ADHD and Autism. Degree of problem directly related to extent of chromosome that is missing. Klienfelter Syndrome: Boys have extra dosage of X chromosome - XXY. Prevalence of 1 in 650 males, Physical symptoms are Infertility and small testes. Greater height, weaker muscles. Poor motor skill, Less body hair, Breast growth and markedly less interest in sex. Difficulties with reading and speech, attention + social difficulties. Fragile X: Caused by changes in Fragile X Messenger Ribonucleoprotein 1. Prevalence of 1 in 7,000 males and 1 in 11,000 females. Leads to problems with making FMRP, and problems with development of brain. Learning disabilities with social and behavioural problems. Strongly adverse to eye contact, trouble paying attention, hand flapping, speaking without thinking and being hyper active. Common overlap with autism. Williams Syndrome: Micro-deletion, one copy of chromosome 7 at position 7q11.23 Prevalence of 1 in 18,000 people. Mild to moderate intellectual disability, Poor visual spatial skills. Friendly, outgoing personality. Growth problems. Short in height and increased risk of supravalvular aortic stenosis. Cons of neurodiversity movement is under-emphasis of how effective some treatments can be and, inversely how severe the symptoms are, urging the need for prevention rather than normalising the disorder Autism — Criteria: Persistent deficits in communication and interaction across contexts, Abnormal social approach and failure of back and forth conversations, reduced share of interests, emotions or affect, failure to initiate or respond to cues. Deficits in non-verbal communicative behaviour as well, abnormal eye contact, poor use of gestures and limited facial expressions. Deficits in starting, maintaining and ending relationships leading to disinterest in peers. Autism Spectrum Disorder Criteria: Stimming which is repetitive patterns of behaviour, as manifested by at least two - Insistence on sameness, inflexible adherence to routines, ritualised non-verbal behaviour, distress from experiencing small changes, rigid thinking and behaviours, Highly restricted fixed interests, Hyper or hypo-reactivity to sensory input. Symptoms must be present in early developmental period. Prevalence of 1 in 100 children, more common in boys than girls. Abilities greatly differ; some can live independently but others are dependent on life-long care and support. Vaccines don’t increase risk of autism Many genetic and environmental factors - disorders are heterogeneous. Key difficulties include sensory processing (interoception) and emotional processing (alexithymia). Also, a hallmark of autism is cognitive inflexibility. ASD Treatments are non-medicinal 1) According to de Klerk (2018), which brain regions provide the input and output to the mirror neurone system? Input = superior temporal sulcus; output = inferior frontal gyrus 2) According to associative learning theory (de Klerk et al., 2018) how do infants learn to imitate faces? By having their facial expressions imitated by other 3) According to de Klerk, why is Meltzoff and Moore’s (1977) journal so influential? It suggests that infants are born with the ability to imitate others facial expressions 4) What was the main significant finding from de Klerk and colleague’s (2018) study? how infants come to imitate others — Infants, whose facial movements are mimicked more, mimic the faces of others more… Findings — Prediction: infants whose faces are mimicked more will themselves mimic others’ faces more. Supported by stats. Prediction: infants who look at their own hands more will mimic others’ hands more. Not supported by stats. Findings support associative learning theory. Infants learn how to mimic faces through their experience of sensorimotor coupling. Findings less consistent with theory that imitation is innate. If we’re born with ability to imitate then exposure to sensorimotor coupling shouldn’t affect imitation. Emphasised the importance of facial actions that infants can observe themselves performing. Findings support the idea that mimicry behaviour in infants is influenced by the extent of sensorimotor experience they can have with specific actions Holland, Mather and Riggs: The journal explores how preschoolers extend both object names and category-relevant facts. The study investigates whether children systematically apply learned information about an object to other members of the same category. Three-to-four-year-olds were presented with different types of information about a novel object (object label, category-relevant fact, or category-irrelevant fact), and their responses were analysed. The findings suggest that children are more likely to extend category-relevant facts to similar objects, indicating a domain-general mechanism for extending information, supporting the idea that word learning shares cognitive processes with other learning domains 1) On average, how many words do monolingual children learn between each day up to the age of 18 years: 10 words 2) What was Holland’s (2016) major criticism of the way the Waxman and Booth (2000) experiment tested the domain-specificity of the processes that underpin word extension in children? Waxman and Booth’s (2000) study used the wrong kind of facts in their control group 3) According to the data obtained by Markson and Bloom (1997), what kinds of information are fast mapped? Words and linguistic facts 4) According to the data obtained by Holland (2016), what kinds of information are systematically extended? Words and generalisable facts 5) Which of the following is a category-relevant fact? Boomerangs comes from Australia. The yes/no task assessed whether subjects believed certain statements related to nuclear transfer and cloning in sheep. The free-choice task allowed participants to express their views without constraints. Two kinds of statistical analysis were employed Chi squared + ANOVA. All the data suggest Words and Category-relevant facts are treated in the same way by children: Children extend words to other items of the same category (based on shape) Children extend Category-relevant facts to other items of the same category (based on shape) Children do not extend Category-irrelevant facts in a systematic way. Again, it looks like extension isn’t Language-specific. Despite children’s word learning abilities, they don’t seem to rely on domain-specific processes. Both fast mapping and extension seem to be used to learn some kinds of facts. It’s neither fully Piaget’s domain-general learning or domain-specific