Developmental Psychology - Part 2

---

Theory of Mind

D — Definition (+contrast):

A phase of childhood development where the child shifts from an egocentric viewpoint to a slightly more altruistic viewpoint - i.e they develop and understand that other people have thoughts too.

E — Examples (2 vignettes):

Example 1: Ismail and Aqsa -> Ismail understands that Aqsa prefers playing with x and will try to play x

Example 2: Sally will put a ball in a box, but Mindie will put the ball in a jar. If Sally returns and searches the Jar, she demonstrates she is able to understand Mindie has a mind of her own.

E — Evidence (1–3 studies, IV/DV, finding)

Sally Ann Task - Sally puts a marble in a box, Sally Leaves it with Ann, Ann puts it in jar, where will Sally look -< If in Jar, she has executive function

P — Pitfalls (limits, rivals, moderators)

Rivals/Contrasts: MOD 2 - Developmental Psychology 1 Piaget’s stages of development Passing a test doesnt mean full ToM

C — Connections (links, predictions)

Executive dysfunction is a predictor of how developed your ToM is.

Q — Questions (8–12 prompts)

• What is the Theory of mind?
• Explain how the Theory of Mind effects a child’s development
• What stage of development would Piaget consider the Theory of Mind.
• How is the Theory of Mind studied?
• Why is the Theory of Mind important to psychology?

---

Attachment styles

D — Definition (+contrast)

Bowlby/Ainsworth’s Attachment Theory: behavioural system that motivates infanfts to seek proximity to a caregiver for safety and to use them as a base for exploration.

• Contrasts with:
  • Temperament Hypothesis = Infants inborn trats mainly drive style, caregiver sensitivity is a robust predictor
  • Parenting style (Baumrind) = Related system which focuses on warmth/discipline patterns.

E — Examples (2 vignettes)

1. Secure Vignette
   • Mia Glances at mom -> Stranger enters-> Mum Leaves -> Mia protests and quickly on reunion starts playing again
2. Insecure Anxious
   • Stranger enters -> Mom Leaves -> Mia distressed -> Mom enters -> Mia consistently distressed and does not go back to playing

E — Evidence (1–3 studies, IV/DV, finding)

1. Strange SItutation -> Baltimore STudy
   • IV = Caregiver Sensitivity
   • DV: Infant Attachment classification
   • Finding: Higher Sensitivity = Higherrate of secure attachment.
2. Harlow Rhesus Monkey Study
   • IV = Cloth Mom (For Warmth) vs Wire Mom (For Feeding)
   • DV = Infant Attachment Classification
   • Finding: Higher Sensitivity = Higher Rate of emotional attachment. Infants prefer the Cloth mom for security. Will run back to cloth mom instead of wire mom when danger.

P — Pitfalls (limits, rivals, moderators)

• Like usual, Psychology is subject to Nuance. General predictors work to a certain extent, but cultural, maltreatment, socioeconomic stress etc can all play a role.

C — Connections (links, predictions)

• Baumrind: Warmth + Responseiveness often co-occurs with sensitivity -> Secure Base but constructs are distinct

Q — Questions (8–12 prompts)

1. In one sentence, how does secure base behavior look in play, separation, and reunion?
2. What behaviors distinguish anxious from avoidant at reunion? Give two cues each.
3. If a caregiver is warm but intrusive/overstimulating, which pattern is most likely and why?
4. Where would the temperament hypothesis best fit, and where does it fall short?
5. How might cultural norms about proximity change Strange Situation classifications?
6. A toddler shows disorganized behaviors. List three caregiver/context risk factors you’d investigate.
7. Design a micro-intervention (two behaviors) to raise sensitivity during daily routines.
8. Trace a pathway: maternal depression → sensitivity → attachment → peer outcomes. What moderators might buffer this?
9. Compare attachment and parenting style in one case vignette—what each explains, what each misses.
10. What would evidence of change toward security look like over 6 weeks at home?
11. Suppose high non-parental childcare hours: what conditions predict preserved security?
12. What’s the most ethical limitation of translating Harlow to human caregiving science?

3 Attachment Styles

1. Secure
   • Flexible, can move between exploration and safety
2. Insecure-Anxious
   • Inflexible, focuses on maintaining proximity to parents at expense of play
3. Insecure-Avoidant
   • inflexible, focuses on maintaining proximity to play at the expense of closeness

4. Disorganized Attachment

Predecessors

1. Lorenz’s on imprinting -> Biological basis on attachment in birds
2. Bowlby’s attachment theory -> Innate system that ensures a child safety with their caregiver.
3. Mary Ainsworth -> Strange Situation procedure and the expansion of attachment styles to 3 main attachment styles.

---

Baumrind’s Parenting Theory

D — Definition (+contrast)

A framework for describing parental styles in a western context with two fundamental lenses

1. Receptiveness/Warmth: Acceptance, attunement and support
2. Demandingness/Control: expectations, Monitoring, discipline.

4 styles are - Authoritative, Authoritarian, Permissive and Uninvolved

E — Examples (2 vignettes)

Authoritative (High warmth, High control)
Bedtime slips. Parent gets down to eye level: “I know you’re excited about the game; we still need lights out by 8:30. Pick: brush teeth first or PJs first.” Follows through, praises staying on plan.

Authoritarian (Low warmth, High control)
Same situation. Parent: “Because I said so - bed. Now.” No explanation; punitive tone for small delays. Child complies but looks tense and withdraws.

E — Evidence (1–3 studies, IV/DV, finding)

1. Baumrind - Berkley Studies (1966)
   • IV = Observed/Style classified parenting
   • DV = preschool competence
   • Finding: Authoritative linked to high self control and responsivbility
2. Lamborn, Mounts, Steinberg and Dornbusch(1991)
   • IV = Adolescent reports
   • DV = Grades, psychosocial adjustment, problem behaviour
   • Finding: Authoritative = Higher GPA and adjustment, rest poorer profiles

P — Pitfalls (limits, rivals, moderators)

• Oversimplification
• More than 4 types clearly. And very hard to categorize.
• Cultural considerations
• Bidirectionality -> Child temprement also shape parental style.

C — Connections (links, predictions)

• Attachment theory -> Correlates with how secure the child becomesbased on what parenting style is used.

Q — Questions (8–12 prompts)

• In one sentence, distinguish style from practice with an example.
• How might authoritative look different in a 4-year-old vs a 15-year-old?
• Give two mechanisms for why uninvolved predicts risk (monitoring? modeling? resources?).
• When could high control be adaptive? Name a context and boundary conditions.
• Design a micro-shift to make a firm rule feel more autonomy-supportive.
• How do child temperament and parent stress co-create cycles toward/away from authoritative?
• A family is labeled “authoritarian,” yet the teen has top well-being. List three cultural/measurement explanations.
• What outcome would show permissive isn’t always benign in adolescence?
• If you could only change warmth or structure for a month, which first—and how would you measure change?
• Map a mediated path: style → emotion regulation → peer relations → school outcomes.

4 Types of parental figures

1. Authoritative -> High Warmth,High Control. Taking and reasaoned disciplined, explaining the rationale behind rules and ensuring the child understands and feelds understood.

   • Warmth and understanding perspectives
   • Reasoned Discipline
   • Sensitivity through reading child’s cues.

2. Authoritarian -> Low Warmth, High Conyrol. Enforcing rules without explanation or warmth which is percieved asharsh from the child.

   • High regulation, strict control of rules
   • Low warmth or emotional support offered to child
   • Rules enforced without explaining and just justified with I’m the boss
   • Correlation with future oppositional responses from children.

3. Permissive -> high warmth, low control. very affectionate resembling a perr-relationship.

   • Low control few rules, little discpline
   • High warmth, very close and affectionate, bordering on friends
   • Lack of structure
   • Developmental understanding missing out on rules

4. Uninvolved -> Neglectful parenting

   • No warmth no control. No regulation, abscence.
   • Worst parenting style neglect in both emotional and behavioural aspect
   • No guidance and warmth

---

Erikson Psychosocial Development

D — Definition (+contrast)

Each period in your lifespan contributes to a certain ego-development that shapes your strengths/virtues

• Stages are often probabilistic -> Can be reopened later and partial resolutions will accumulate..

E — Examples (1 vignettes)

• Me = Experiments with debate club, deletes instagram, and talks islamic values with friends. Parents dont discuss exploration but allow for thoughtful commitments (subject choices etc). Over the year will commit to “medicine + science,” reports clearer direction -> Identity achievement

E — Evidence (1–3 studies, IV/DV, finding)

1. Marcia’s Identity Status (1966)
   • IV: Identity exploration x commitment
   • DV: Wellbeing, autonomy and role/clarity
   • Finding: Status changes with support/time
2. Generativity & Late life integruty research (2 studies, will delve into it a bit more)
   • IV: Ego integrity/acceptance of one’s life
   • DV: purpose, depression and life satistfaction
   • Finding: Integrity relates to higher purpose/lower depressuon especially when social ties and health are supported

P — Pitfalls (limits, rivals, moderators)

• Oversimplification: Lives are nowhere near linear and the risk of oversimplifying thsese stages.

C — Connections (links, predictions)

• Baumrind styles: Authoritative styles foster later identity exploration
• Social Clock - Normative vs non-normative events
  • On-time events (e.g., finishing school ~late teens) ease transitions.
  • Off-time events (e.g., early caregiving burden, sudden job loss) can stress stages and reopen earlier conflicts; support buffers impact.

Q — Questions (8–12 prompts)

• Give a one-sentence marker for successful and unsuccessful resolution at any stage.
• How might a secure attachment history ease Autonomy and Initiative tasks?
• Design one school policy that increases chances of Identity achievement.
• What narrative elements would signal Generativity in a life story interview?
• Name two moderators that could keep high control parenting from harming Identity.
• How might an off-time major illness at 20 affect Intimacy? What supports help?
• Propose a micro-intervention for late-life Integrity in a community center.
• Distinguish foreclosure vs achievement with one behavioral cue each.
• When could stagnation be adaptive (temporary consolidation)? What limits?
• What evidence would show stage tasks can reopen in adulthood?

8 Stages of Erikson’s Psychosocial Development

1. Infancy - Trust, general security
2. Toddlerhood - Autonomy vs shame and doubt
3. Early childhood -Developing initiative and taking it to manipulate the nevironment
4. Middle Childhood - Mastering developmental tasks of childhood
5. Adolescence - Identity, role, direction
6. Young Adulthood - Intimacy and isolation -> Intimate Personal relationships
7. Adulthood - Interest in wellfare of self and others
8. Ageing - Ego integrity vs despair -> Adjusting to the idea of death.

Typicality of events

• Normative life events -> Occurs to most people (culture determined)
  • Off time -> Non-typical, unexpected of a given population
  • On time -> Social Clock, shared expectation of age-appropriate behavior, eg marriage
• Non-Normative life events -> Occurs to not many people and will alter life
  • Covid -> Loss of social integration

-> Requires adaptation with no social support or planning

---

Ageism

D — Definition (+contrast)

E — Examples (2 vignettes)

E — Evidence (1–3 studies, IV/DV, finding)

• Baltes Selective Optimization: As you age, you optimize the strengths of your aging process eg crystallized intelligence and compensate for losses eg physical health. Its an adaptive strategy.

P — Pitfalls (limits, rivals, moderators)

• Oversimplification
• More than 4 types clearly. And very hard to categorize
• Cultural considerations

C — Connections (links, predictions)

Q — Questions (8–12 prompts)

Questions:

Is love just the feeling of being secure with someone…? Does authoritative correlate to secure attachment style? Are we just incomplete adults until taught all the skills of self-control and shtuff

• What are the three most important things you learned in this module?
• What question remains uppermost in your mind after completing this module?