Blurty for MaRiYa.
|
|||||||||
| Wednesday, January 28th, 2004 |
|
||||
|
if you're not ashlie, pay no attention to this Maria Ginzburg, 1-27-04 ESSAY (center it w/bigger font!!) 1. Why did early theories of child raising not recommend "pampering" the newborn? What did they feel would be the result of this? What do we know now about handling the young infant? Early theories of child raising didn't recommend pampering the newborn because psychologists believed too much love would turn a child into a social invalid. Parents were viewed as "all powerful" because they created and shaped the child's environment. It was said that if a parent treated a child as they would an dult, every child had the potential to become a genius. Now it is believed that each c hild has more or less a genetic predisposition. Infants and babies require care and human contact to survive and thrive, but unless they are seriously neglected, children develop and mature however nature wants them to. 2. Historically, what are reasons why the concept of childhood and adolescence were not regarded as important stages? What effect did the industrial revolution have on views about development? In the Middle Ages, adults did not think childhood was a unique or important stage of life. A child went from being a small toddler that was unable to work straight to a short adult as soon as he could do labor. Seven year old children were graduated directly into adulthood. Children were seen as miniature adults. During the Renaissance, John Locke proposed the idea that an infant's mind was a "blank slate" and the parents were responsible for shaping the child's character. His idea of treatment of children was strict but more humane than Watson's. The effect of the Renaissance was that children got more attention and it was shown that while they were physically mature enough for laber at perhaps the age of eight or nine, mentally they weren't. 3. Compare and contrast the views of Watson and Gesell. Gesell believed that what parents do in raising their children is of no or little consequence in the outcome of the child, because of its genetic blueprint for development. Watson, on the other hand, held parents fully responsible for the development of their child. Watson said how well the child develops is based on how strictly the parents raise it, while Gesell claimed all you have to do is have the child, give him basic needs, and he'll thrive on his own. The one thing that both psychologists strongly agreed on was that child development was most definitely worth being studied scientifically. At the time, this was only a revolutionary idea, and not many psychologists stood behind it. 4. Explain the advantages and disadvantages of naturalistic observation, experimentation, and clinical studies. In naturalistic observation, psychologists observe children in their every day environment. The advantage of this is that it allows psychologists to study phenomena as they occur in the real world. A disadvantageis that this is time consuming and expensive. While an experiment may only take half an hour, a naturalistic study can take months to complete. Also, there is always the danger that the observer's presence will alter the behavior of the observee. An experiment allows a researcher to control the situation so the effects can be precisely and accurately measured. An advantage to this is that it eliminates outside factors that could affect the results. However, this could also be used in a bad way. Sometimes if a factor is taken away a psychologist questions whether or not the findings can be generalized to real-life situation where all natural factors are included. A clinical study is a psychological assessment of a child. The advantage to this is that the questions are not limited to a particular set of observations, and are not predetermined. The researcher uses a variety of areas to learn how the subject feels or thinks. However, this can serve as a disadvantage as well. An interviewer may lead a subject towards and answer that could fit his or her particular beliefs or theories, or involve his own thoughts and feelings into the subject's responses. 5. Compare and contrast the pros and cons of cross-sectional and longitudinal research. In a longitudinal study, researchers focus on one group of people and study their actions over a long period of time. The really good thing about this is that it allows researchers to study developmental changes over time in the same group of people. However, theyr equire a long commitment and must be very carefully planned. A cross-sectional study is one where different groups of people of different ages are all studied at the same time. A major problem with this is that subjects of different ages may also have different histories behind them. They could have different backgrounds and the comparison will not tell you how a young person sees life in their 60's. Whetheror not the study works out well depends on selecting children who are alike in many characteristics. thank u sooo much sweetie. |
||||
|
|
Blurty for MaRiYa.
|
|||||||||||||