Reading C

Kurt Lewin espoused the view that behaviour (as well as its development) is a function of the interaction between the person and the environment (Lewin, 1931). When speaking about human behaviour he did so by placing it in context: situational, interpersonal, sociological, cultural, historical and theoretical. Elements of this contextual approach have been incorporated into a number of subsequent developmental theories including Bronfenbrenner’s ecological theory, Vygotsky’s sociocultural theory, dynamic-systems theory (Thelen) and lifespan theory (Baltes). All acknowledge the complex interplay of personal (including biological) and environmental factors that contribute to development.

Bronfenbrenner’s Ecological Theory

Ecological models like Urie Bronfenbrenner’s (1989) recognise the multiple layers of contextual influences on child development, asserting that development research must attempt to include several contexts in research designs to capture the complexity of any phenomenon. Bronfenbrenner articulated four major systems that represent the context for child development: microsystem, mesosystem, exosystem and macrosystem. These levels of context simultaneously affect the individual and interest with one another.

1. The microsystem was described by Bronfenbrenner (1977) as an ‘immediate setting containing that person’ where interactions occur between the developing person and the environment (p. 514). The microsystem is the most proximal level of context to the individual; for example, typical components include the inter-personal relationships with family members, a peer network and neighbours.
2. The mesosystem was referred to by Bronfenbrenner as a ‘system of micro-systems’ through which different settings are linked. An example of this level of ecology might be the linkage between the family at home and peers at school. These interwoven relationships can be supportive of each microsystem or in opposition to each microsystem (e.g. when parents are not familiar with their adolescent child’s peer group this can lead to an impoverished mesosystem). Bronfenbrenner also noted that substantial changes in any one microsystem often necessitate an ‘ecological transition’ within the meso-system, such as when children move out of home to a friend’s place.
3. The exosystem is more distal from the developing person. Here the individual does not participate directly in interactions, although decision made at this level greatly affect a person. For example, interactions that occur within a parent’s place of employment often have a significant impact on the microsystem level of the family.
4. The macrosystem is described as a broad societal blueprint containing the core structures and values that compose a particular culture. Features of the macrosystem include political, religious and educational values, health practices, appropriate standards for behaviour and appearance, and roles according to age, sex and ethnicity.

More recent writings on Bronfenbrenner have called the original model into question by noting the limitations of the approach in capturing the dynamic nature of interactions between the developing individual and the surrounding environment. Bronfenbrenner and Morris (2006) have even proposed a more elaborate bioecological model that argues for the distinct importance of four elements in environmental research designs: person, process, context and time. The bioecological model may lead to more research on how a developmental process may vary as a function of contextual variables or characteristics of the individual. To date, however, such questions remain understudied within developmental research (Bronfenbrenner and Morris, 2006). With technology advancing at is current rapid rate, the role of the internet and ‘virtual contexts’ such as social networking will be research areas worth pursuing in the future. Bronfenbrenner’s framework may provide an important starting point for identifying environmental variables worthy of consideration.

According to Lloyd (2002), significant research has included the proximal ecological levels of the microsystem and mesosystem (e.g. comparison between home and school attitudes, or the interaction between parents and teachers), but the process by which the broad cultural messages of the macrosystem filter through the ecology to finally affect the developing person are less well understood.

Vygotsky’s Sociocultural Theory of Cognitive Development

Lev Vygotsky (1896-1934) was born in the same year as Piaget but into a very different culture. He was brought up in Russia at a time of rapid social change and a growing influence of Marxist philosophy. His work was guided by Marxist principles, particularly with respect to the influence of social history and culture on development. His view emphasized the importance of the sociocultural matrix of which the individual is a part and the social interaction that plays a major role in cognitive development. Sociocultural theory focuses on how the culture of a social group – its shared beliefs, values, knowledge, skills, and ways of doing things (customs) are transmitted to the next generation. Vygotsky believed that children actively construct their knowledge and that social interaction is the means of such construction, saying that ‘children grow into the intellectual life of those around them’ (Vygotsky, 1978, p. 88).

Vygotsky insisted that individual development could be examined only in light of the cultural context in which it takes place and that to examine the child in isolation from this cultural context is to gain a distorted view of the child. He insisted that we must look beyond the individual in seeking explanation for change, and that the child-in-activity-in-cultural-context should be the unit of study (Miller, 2011). For example, in evaluating the case of a child who begins to have problems at school, focusing only on the child’s behaviour is unlikely to provide an answer to the problem. The child’s behaviour may be a result of pressures from outside – for example, tension at home because the child’s father has lost his job in a recession.

Perhaps the most widely recognised concept in Vygotsky’s theory is the zone of proximal development. This he defined as the distance between children’s developmental level as determined by their ability to solve problems alone, and what they are capable of when solving problems with assistance (under the guidance of an adult or more knowledgeable peer). The zone of proximal development, he said, ‘defines those functions that have not yet matured but are in the process of maturation, functions that will mature tomorrow but are currently in embryonic state’ (Vygotsky, 1978, p. 86). The structured (but not intrusive) intervention that allows the child to access functions and activities that are not available when working alone has been referred to as scaffolding. It provides the basis for moving the child on from the existing level (what the child already knows) towards a higher level of knowledge (what the child needs to know). The interaction between child and ‘teacher’ is initially at what Vygotsky called the intermental level (interaction between minds), but he saw this as moving to the intramental level (within the mind of the child) as the child internalises the interaction. This takes place as the child moves through the zone of proximal development, internalising modes of problem solving that were initially supported by social interaction.

An essential feature of this process is the use of the psychological and technical tools provided by their culture. Psychological tools include language systems, counting systems, writing, drawing and learning strategies. Technical tools include devices such as computers, calculators and electronic games. Vygotsky considered language to be the most important psychological tool. He viewed thinking and language as intertwined and felt that language comes to direct thinking and hence to control behaviour. This is evidence in the way in which preschoolers exhibit spontaneous vocalisations (self-directed talk) when tackling new or complex problems. This organises their thinking processes and problem-solving strategies. Vygotsky (1978) concluded:

Cross-cultural research has shown that different aspects of behaviour are emphasised in different cultures and that the importance of particular psychological tools may also vary across cultures. The skills considered essential for success in a culture will be enculturated. Childs and Greenfield (1982) found that girls of the Zinacanteco Indians of southern Mexico become skilled in Brazil, children who became candy-sellers developed highly competent mathematical ability, despite little formal education, as a result of their experiences (in collaboration with adults) in trading in candy.

Further examples of the ways that culture and language can affect children’s development, as well as more detailed analysis of Vygotsky’s theory, are presented in Chapter 6.

Vygotsky’s approach emphasised the cultural/ environmental influences on development, largely neglecting biological factors. He did, however, acknowledge the importance of biological factors, and his approach attributes a role in development to both nature and nurture. He viewed development as involving both quantitative and qualitative change. While not interested in describing stages of development, his account of the changes in social interaction as a function of the development of language indicates a concept of qualitative differences associated with maturational (biological) change.

The sociogenomic model clearly highlights the salient role that the environment plays in shaping state variables. Similarly, De Raad, Sullot and Barelds (2008) note that a frequent objection of respondents filling out personality questionnaires such as the NEO-PI-R is that ‘it depends’ – their rating depends on the situation or context. Trait psychologists such as Eysenck (1994) and McCrae and Costa (2003) would argue that, due to biological factors, personality characteristics remain reasonably stable over situations, context and the adult developmental lifespan. This stability may be an artefact of trait researchers using context-free items as noted by De Raad et al. (2008), and/or focusing on American samples living at the turn of the 21st century. Because of these narrow methodological techniques it is debatable whether the reported stability in personality is an intrinsic feature of human development, or a response to the particular research methods.

One way to address this issue is to conduct cross-cultural research in order to provide a different perspective on personality development. As Lewis argues, the stability and changes in personality ‘are to be found in the stability and change of the context in which people find themselves, and that to understand personality development we need to focus more on the context of people’s lives’ (2001, p. 80).

Family context

There has been increasing awareness that research on the nature of personality development within the family context is seriously incomplete. This state of affairs exists because most studies assume that the influence of family characteristics can be adequately tested by using one-time assessments, and by focusing on one parent (usually the mother) and one child in each family (Halverson & Wampler, 1997). The three main problems with the family socialisation literature on personality development are that:

1. It is no longer clear who affects whom (parent or child).
2. It is unclear whether stability or change in personality resides in the individual, the environment or a complex interplay between the two.
3. There has been no consideration of sibling and parent similarities and differences in terms of relationships within the same families.

To address some of these concerns, Halverson and Wampler (1997) assessed the relative contributions of the parent and the child to the developing relationship. They tested parents before and after they had children and collected data on infants before the possible effects of socialisation. Using data from the Bethesda Longitudinal study, the sample included 56 mothers and children (28 boys and 28 girls) with complete data at five points in time – newlywed, pregnancy, birth, postpartum (three months) and preschool (three years). The results revealed a strong parent effect on infants when maternal behaviour was stable, and a strong child effect on mothers when mothers were found to be unstable. Specifically, stable children seem to affect maternal stability more significantly than stable mothers seem to affect child instability. In other words, the effect of children on parents is greater than the effect of parents on children during this time period (Halverson & Wampler, 1997).

Researchers have shown reliable empirical associations between family socialisation practices and personality development. For example, Halverson and Wampler (1997) found that family characteristics such as positive affect (e.g. warmth, support, cohesion), appropriate control (e.g. parents in charge of family), clear communication (e.g. high agreement, low negative emotional style) and problem-solving ability (e.g. flexibility, low conflict) accurately differentiate between competent adolescents and adolescents with multiple problems. Similarly, Rohner (1999) has reported that when parents accept their children by hugging and comforting them, the children are sociable and emotionally stable, have high self-esteem, feel self-adequate and have a positive world view. When parents are rejecting and use sarcastic language and humiliation, their children become adults who are hostile, unresponsive, unstable and immaturely dependent, and they have impaired self-esteem and a negative world view.

An Australian study conducted by Heaven, Searlight, Chastain, and Skitka (1996) also found that among 66 male and 117 female adolescents (mean age = 13.3 years) there was a significant negative relationship (-0.39) between psychoticism (P) and healthy family functioning. In particular, a family context that had poor conflict management and a negative emotional climate was most strongly related to psychoticism (P); adolescents showed little empathy for others and were sensation-seeking. Moreover, Heaven et al. reported that high scores on extroversion (E) (i.e. being sociable and easygoing) were positively related (r = 0.36) to overall family health, and neuroticism (N) was moderately correlated (r = 0.24) with family climate. This cross-sectional study of Heaven and colleagues is limited in trying to unravel the effect of family context on personality development. Future research would need to include a longitudinal design that involves direct observation of family processes as well as self-report measures of the salient family and personality variables.

Historical Context

One of the significant limitations of cross-sectional studies is that they confound generational differences with maturational changes – in other words, we do not know whether the oldest subjects are lower in openness to experience (O) because age leads to conservatism, or because individuals born in the first decade of the 20th century were brought up to be more closed to experience than were subsequent generations. This example clearly shows that historical context must be acknowledged in cross-sectional research that examines personality development.

Second, longitudinal studies in personality development are not exempt from the possible confound of their historical specificity. Developmental psychologists have observed that simple longitudinal designs confound three types of effects: age, cohort (year of birth) and period (time of measurement). Several researchers have proposed techniques to overcome some of these problems. Gough (1991), who developed the California Psychological Inventory (CPI), also developed a secular trend index (Gough & Bradley, 2002) that reflected historical trends in responses to the CPI from 1950 to 1985 (see Figure 8.6 – Note: Figure unavailable due to copyright).

The historical trends Gough found were greater psychological sophistication, increases in individualistic and self-centred attitudes, and decreases in adherence to social norms. Therefore, Gough’s index has helped developmental psychologists to explore the effect of historical contexts with longitudinal studies. Roberts and Helson (1997) adopted Gough’s secular trend index in the Mills Longitudinal Study, in which the California Psychological Inventory (CPI) had been administered four times from 1958 through to 1989. They found that women increased in ‘narcissism’ and decreased in ‘social responsibility’ during this time. In evaluating this research finding, Caspi and Roberts (2001) conclude that women in the Mills Study changed in the same ways that social critiques described the American culture changing over the same period.

Research on social change across different historical contexts has examined the changes in the drug of choice and onset of drug use. Jones (1981) studied men born in the 1920s and found that low ego control in adolescence predicted midlife drinking problems. More recently Block, Block, and Keyes (1988) studied children born in the late 1960s and found that low ego control in childhood predicted adolescent marijuana use. These two studies reveal that, overall, low ego control predicts drug use. However, and more importantly, the drug of choice has changed from a legal to an illegal drug and the onset of drug use has changed across the two historical time periods.

As these empirical findings illustrate, research on personality development that is conducted without a sense of historical context may miss crucial details. Developmental psychologists may have to be historically specific to grasp the more general sense of the personality characteristics examine in the study of personality development (Caspi & Roberts, 2001).

Cultural Context

So far, this chapter has shown that personality development is shaped by both genetic and environmental factors. Among the most important environmental factors is cultural context. Culture is transmitted through language and the modelling of behaviour when conditions permit humans to communicate through shared languages, religion, customs and beliefs. Elements of culture are shared standard operating procedures (such as marriage rituals), norms, values, habits, and the like. For example, a cultural operating procedure in Australia is to spend time at the beach with family and friends and eat food that has been cooked on a barbecue.

Numerous studies have been conducted on the effect of cultural context on personality development. McCrae (2002) has conducted one of the most comprehensive cultural research programs, asserting that the Five Factor Model (FFM) of personality traits is transcultural. If this assertion is accurate then scales that measure personality traits in America or Europe should reveal similar patterns of traits across all cultures. To test this notion, Francis and Kaldor (2001) administered the 24-revised Eysenck Personality Questionnaire (EPQR-A) to a random population survey of 1033 Australian adults: 16 per cent were aged 15-29 years, 22 per cent were in their thirties, 22 per cent in their forties, 17 per cent in their fifties, 11 per cent in their sixties and 12 per cent over the age of seventy. The data confirmed well-established findings in other cultural contexts that females record higher scores on the neuroticism (N) and extroversion (E) dimensions and males score higher on the psychoticism (P) dimension (Eysenck & Eysenck, 1991).

To some extent, the findings obtained by Francis and Kaldor can be explained by an integrated cultural trait psychology model developed by Church (2000). Church’s impressive model attempts to integrate trait (biological) and cultural psychology (contextual) approaches. According to this model, traits exist in all cultures but account for behaviour less in collectivist cultures like China than in individualist cultures like America, Europe and Australia. Thus, because Australia and Europe (where the EPQR-A was developed) have individualist cultures, there is a significant amount of overlap in the findings involving the E and N dimensions. One would also expect less overlap in the E and N dimensions between an individualist country such as Australia and a collectivist country such as China. This simplistic notion that Australia is a purely individualist culture, however, has been clarified in a cross-cultural study conducted by Church et al. (2006). Here it was revealed that Asian-Australians reported more collectivist thinking while Anglo-Australian respondents reported individualist thinking. These within-culture differences suggest the salience of culture of origin over one’s adopted culture in determining personality development.