Human Growth and Behaviour essay- Year 2 PDF

Preview

Summary

In this essay I will apply my knowledge to the case study, in an attempt to show my understanding of a range of theories in relation to the development of personality and behaviour....

Description

1506467 Human growth and behaviour essay Word count- 2869 15/12/16 Human Growth and Behaviour SS2002 BA (Hons) Social Work 2nd year Stewart Brodie

Human Growth and Behaviour essay Introduction In this essay I will apply my knowledge to the case study, in an attempt to show my understanding of a range of theories in relation to the development of personality and behaviour. Section one Erik Erikson (1902- 1994) came up with the life cycle theory that defined the ‘8 stages of man’ (Boyd and Bee, 2015). He conducted research into the socio-emotional development of people throughout the journey of their life. The stages are: Trust vs Mistrust (birth- 1/1 ½ years old), Autonomy vs Shame and doubt (1-3 years old), Initiative vs Guilt (3-6 years old), Industry V inferiority (6-11 years old), Identity vs Role Confusion (adolescence), Intimacy vs Isolation (young adulthood), Generativity vs Stagnation (middle adulthood), and Integrity vs Despair (maturity) (Kaplan, 1997). According to Erikson, Paul should be in the generativity vs stagnation stage, as he is 43 years old and is in middle adulthood. However, the information from the case study demonstrates that Paul may be at the initiative vs guilt stage. At this stage it is all about the child starting to develop a ‘sense of self’ through identification with parents/carers. The child starts to take interest in the wider world and begins to explore, and the development of a sense of initiative enhances a child’s ability to learn. At this stage, parents who are reassuring and supportive will enforce initiative, but at the other end of the spectrum,

parents who are critical dismissive will encourage a feeling of guilt in the child (Kaplan, 1997). The case study states that Paul was often left to cry for long periods of time and was regularly punished for making too much noise. This could put him into a state of guilt because he is being punished for a behaviour that he can’t help (Lindon, 2012). Erikson stated that a child who experience guilt may go on to blame others for mistakes because they feel anxious in themselves, and this would explain why Paul is often heard calling Jennifer a bad mother, for example, when Robbie as found to not be doing so well in school. Object-relations theory sees the most basic human drive as the need to make relationships, and that we see identify ourselves in relation to others (Daniels 2007). This theory states that when babies are young, they view others- mostly caregivers- as objects, who are there to satisy the infant’s needs (Daniels 2007). Sometimes a parent will satisfy a baby’s needs and sometimes they cannot; if a baby’s needs are satisfied then the baby develops a good sense of self and of the carer, however, if the baby's needs are stimulated but not met the baby will be left with unmet needs and a feeling that the carer the has let them down (Daniels 2007). If behaviour that stimulates a child’s needs but fails to meet them, occurs often then the child will develop a ‘needy personality (Daniels 2007). Splitting would also occur here because the child feels that the parent has let them down but cannot express their anger because they view the parent as an ideal object, therefore, the child tends to represses the feelings of disappointment and frustration. This weakens the child’s

central ego as there is now a splitting placed in the child’s unconscious mind, because the parent is now also seen as an exciting object (someone who excites their needs at times), as well as an ideal object (Daniels 2007). It mentions in the case study that Paul hated going to boarding school and that his parents always talked about bringing him back home to attend the local school, although this never happened. Therefore, Paul would fit under the category of a needy child and would have experienced splitting. This affects Paul as an adult, and parent himself because he now gets angry when the children do anything wrong, as he feels he isn’t doing a good job as a parent, which result in him arguing with Robbie. Bowlby described attachment as an affective bond that develops between an infant and a primary caregiver. He stated that there were 3 main attachment types: Secure attachment; where the child is secure and explorative because they believe that their needs will be met by their primary caregiver, Anxious avoidant attachment; where the child is not very explorative and is emotionally distant because they don’t know if their needs will be met by their caregiver, and Anxious Ambivalent attachment; where the child is insecure and generally quite angry because they cannot rely on the caregiver to meet their needs (Parkes, et al, 1993). From the case study, it seems that that Jennifer had a secure attachment with her primary caregiver because it mentions that she remembers having a happy childhood and describes it as ‘idyllic’. When looking at Julie, it seems that she could have an anxious ambivalent attachment with her mother. It indicates that Jennifer used to take Julie

shopping quite regularly, but not so much anymore because she needs to take care of Julie’s grandmother, which could make Julie feel abandoned and might explain why she doesn’t often to go school and would prefer to stay at home with her mother. Section two Bowlby looked at attachment between young infants and their primary caregivers- which could be any adult that interacts regularly with the child (Bowlby, 1979). Many people do typically see attachment as a biological attachment as people automatically assume that a child will have the strongest attachment to their mother, as Schaffer (1997) stated, that attachment is “a long-enduring emotionally meaningful tie to a particular individual.” However, this could be seen as a weakness of the theory, because, the object of the attachment is generally someone (most often a parent) who returns the child’s feelings”- there is too much focus on the mother. Attachment is to provide security for the child so, therefore, any adult in the child’s life that is able to do this for them they will become a key figure of attachment (Bowlby, 1979). He further went into depth with this theory by looking into social behaviours and how attachment develops over the first 2 years of life. The first stage of attachment is known as ‘pre-attachment’ and during the first 2 months of the child’s life. It is when the child first starts to demonstrate signalling behaviours- such as crying, smiling and babbling- and these are used to get attention from

adults, which, at this point, could be any kind of adult that responds to these behaviours (Bowlby, 1979). After the child has received the attention of the adult they will also start to show ‘approach behaviours’such as clinging to, following around and reaching out to that particular adult. However, as the adult who responds to the child’s behaviours changes from day to day, and the child has no real preference relating to this, no attachment is formed at this period (Bowlby, 1979). The next stage is ‘attachment in the making’ and is from the age of 2-7 months. At this stage the child starts to have to ability to recognise faces that they have seen before, usually by their voice or when they physically see the adult but mostly by the actual sent of the adult (Bowlby, 1979). The third stage is ‘clear-cut attachment’ between 7 months and 2 years old. This is when a clear attachment has been formed between the infant and the attachment figure and this is seen through separation anxiety when the adult leaves the child stranger anxiety when someone the child has never seen before tries to approach them and they start to pull and shy away (Bowlby, 1979). The final stage of attachment is ‘goal-corrected partnership’ and is present from 2 years onwards. There is a 2-way understanding of the attachment between the attachment figure and the infant and this is communicated through different interactions such as the adult always responding to the child’s signals and calls (Bowlby, 1979). A strength of this theory, that could be used to help social work practice is that it demonstrates the differences between individuals, by the way the attachment formed with their key attachment figures when they were

younger affects what type of individuals they will be when they are older. For example, Shaver and Clark (1996) found that college students who completed the attachment process earlier with no problems end up having a better love life and manage to stay in relationships for a long time. (Passer and Smith, 2007). Similarly, Scroufe et al (1999) found that children who had positive attachments later went on to be more outgoing, have lots of friends and were very socially competent. (Williamson, Cardwell and Flanagan, 2007). The way different people act and behave is partly down to the attachments and relationships they formed when they were younger.

Section three It is revealed in the case study that Paul’s mother- Helen, has recently moved into the family’s home, after Paul’s father passing away. This sudden shift in life could cause a great amount for the family. Marris (1974; 1986) specified that all change carries an element of loss- even positive changes. Also, he defined three types of change. Substitution change; where something old is replaced by something new, for example, starting at a new school or job (Thompson, 2002). All members might be this type of change since Helen coming to live with them as it means another person in this house- which might make it quite overcrowded. As Helen needs cared for, this means that someone will need to dedicate their time to her, which in this instance is Jennifer, and she has felt a loss

from this as she feels that she doesn’t get to spend much time with her children anymore, which Julie has also felt- a loss of the relationship she had with her mum. Evolutionary change; where change happens over time, due to a natural course of events, for example, moving from childhood to adolescence (Thompson, 2002). Every person in the case study would have experienced this at some point, whether it was Robbie growing up, or Paul and Jennifer when they got married, but the person who would be feeling it the most now would be Helen. Old age is a type of evolutionary change and Helen is experiencing losses from this, such as a loss of her previous home, by moving in with her son, which also might mean a loss of neighbours who lived by and a loss of usual routine. Another type of evolutionary loss could be the fact that Jennifer and Paul have not had sex since the children were born. This is not only a loss of physical arousal and connection but also a loss of emotional connection between both of them, which Jennifer has expressed concerns about, and as a result (among other things) is making her worried about her relationship with Paul. Deep Loss; where something that has been loved disappears suddenly, for example a bereavement (Thompson, 2002). Helen and Paul will both have experienced this type of loss because of the death of Paul’s father and Helen’s husband. The children also experienced a bereavement, however, the case study does not state the type of relationship they had with their grandfather so it is uncertain how much the loss affected them.

Grief is a massive type of loss and change that- unfortunately- everyone will experience at some point in their life. In the case study, Helen and Paul have both recently experienced it. Marris (1986) outlines conditions that can affect someone’s recovery from loss. These are: childhood attachment experiences, ambivalence towards the lost person, the suddenness and unexpectedness of the loss, and events after the loss (Marris, 1986). As mentioned in the case study Paul felt that his parents were never really interested in him, nor did they care very much for him, and that he was only an obstacle in the way of them perusing their own lives and careers. From this information, and since Paul was looked after by nannies and not his parents, it could mean that Paul didn’t form a strong attachment with his father which might limit the amount of loss he feels by his father passing. As mentioned previously, Paul’s parents both talked about moving him from boarding to school into local school but did not follow through with this, so this could cause ambivalence because Paul expectations were heightened and then he was often let down. This could cause Paul to be unsure about how he feels towards his father which could affect his recovery from the loss. The case study does not state how Paul’s father died, nor if it was expected. However, the sudden change for Helen with moving out of her home, could affect how he recovers and deals with this loss. This links in with Marris’ final factor that could affect loss- events experienced after (Marris, 1986). The fact that Helen moved into the home could affect both Helen and Paul. Helen may feel that her previous home held memories and familiarities of her

husband that she must leave behind which could affect how she deals with the loss. Similarly, she might view Paul’s house as not her home, so might not feel comfortable displaying the appropriate feelings and behaviours that come from grief, such as crying. Likewise, Paul may also not feel comfortable exposing his vulnerable emotions because he might not want to upset his mum.

Section four It mentions in the case study that Paul and Jennifer met at a local country dance and immediately connected. He liked how she was fun and exciting, and she enjoyed how he was serious and safe; both liking the opposite traits in one another in comparison to themselves. However, research carried out by Willeron (2010) found that two people who shared common personality traits and comforts were more likely to have a successful relationship than those who didn’t. This could be why Paul and Jennifer’s relationship has experienced problems, as of recently. This also links to Gottman and Silver’s (1994) theory of why relationships fail. They narrowed it down to four poisons; criticism, contempt, defensiveness and stonewalling. Criticism is negatively judging someone on their behaviour and actions (Willerton, 2010). Paul has displayed criticism to Jennifer by blaming her for any problems that the children may be having and insinuating that it’s because she is a bad mother.

Contempt is acting superior to someone, belittling them by displaying patronising behaviour. The way Paul treats Jennifer is very condescending. The fact that the case study mentioned how Jennifer has to attend to Helen’s every demand ‘in order to pacify Paul’ suggests that Jennifer might think that she is below Paul and that his needs come before hers. The case study also uses word such as ‘insists’ and ‘demands’ when referring to Paul’s conversations with Jennifer about the children, or housework; both these words have quite aggressive connotations, and makes it come across as if Paul thinks he is superior to Jennifer in that she will do whatever he tells her to do. Defensiveness is a form of protecting ourselves from judgement and criticism that could harm our ego and self-esteem. The fact that arguments between Paul and Jennifer normally consist of him blaming problems on her, might be a defence mechanism because he can’t accept blame himself, and he struggles to admit when he may be in the wrong. Stonewalling is not cooperating, shutting down and closing your partner out. It is cited in the case study that Paul contributes very little to family life, and he often likes to be alone while he works on his model trains. This means that not very much time is spent with Jennifer, and could be a factor in why their relationship now lacks intimacy. Family is definition to be ‘married, civil partnered or cohabiting couple with/out children; lone parent with at least 1 child; non/dependent children’, by the office of National Statistics. The family in the case study fit this description. However, this is a very simplistic definition of family.

In modern times family could also mean close friendships within the family, shared values and morals, memories the family have shared and experienced together, common identity, and places that have sentimental value behind them (Rhodes, 1977). The McDonald family do not seem to represent many of these characteristics as the case study doesn’t give the impression that they much time altogether as a family, or that they have many happy memories; they are, nonetheless, still a family, by definition. They would go under the header of a ‘consanguineal’ family as they consist of parents, children and other relatives, living in the same household (Willerton, 2010). Kinship relationships that are represented in the family are direct relationships (between both parents and both children, and between Helen and Paul), and also collateral relationship (between Helen and Jennifer, as they are not blood related) (Willerton, 2010). Conclusion Overall, a wide range of human growth and behaviour theories can be reflected upon when looking at the family dynamics of the family in the case study, and can be used to help understand their behaviour and relationships, on a deeper level.

References A developmental approach to the life cycle of the family - Rhodes, S 1977 Attachment across the life cycle - Parkes, Colin Murray, Hinde, J. S., Marris, Peter 1993 Bowlby J (2009). A Secure Base. London: Routeledge Gross, R. (2005). Psychology. London: Hodder Arnold. Lifespan development - Denise Roberts Boyd, Helen L. Bee 2015 Loss and grief: a guide for human services practitioners - Thompson, Neil 2002 Marris, P., 1974. Loss & Change. London: Routledge & Kegan Paul. Object Relations Theory - Victor Daniels 2007 Passer, M. and Smith, R. (2007). Psychology. Boston: McGraw-Hill Higher Education. The human odyssey: life-span development - Kaplan, Paul S. 1997 The making and breaking of affectional bonds - Bowlby, John 1979 The psychology of relationships - Julia Willerton 2010 Understanding child development: 0-8 years - Lindon, Jennie 2012 Williamson, M., Cardwell, M. and Flanagan, C. (2007). Higher psychology. Cheltenham: Nelson Thornes....