Temperament, Personality through Lifespan, & Moral Development

Temperament

-genetically-based (but still environmentally-shaped) tendencies to respond in predictable ways

**low to moderate stability over time (more stable after 3+ yo)

-building blocks of personality

Slow-to-warm-up vs. Difficult temperament

Slow-to-warm-up = mildly negative mood, low activity

• moderately regular feed/sleep routine

• gradually adapts with time

Difficult = negative mood, cry frequently

• respond to new stimuli negatively

• highly active

• irregular feeding/sleeping routines

Thomas & Chess goodness of fit model

match btwn child temperament + social environment demands → emotional/behavioral outcomes

E.g., difficult child with stable environment and allow slow adjusting to new experiences → become less difficult, more adaptable with time

How Rothbart saw temperament (including two variables)

-constitutional differences in Self-regulation + Reactivity

-emphasized constitution as dynamic biology (relatively-enduring biological makeup, influenced by heredity, maturation, and experience)

-Rothbart did NOT see temperament as immutable

How Rothbaum construed Reactivity

-automatic, biological response to the world (how neurotic vs. outgoing/energetic)

-two factors: Surgency + Negative affectivity

• Surgency = (Extraversion) high energy, sensation-seeking, not shy

• Negative affectivity = (Neuroticism) tendency to unstable and negative mood

How Rothbaum construed Self-regulation

Effortful control – ability to inhibit a dominant response (reactivity), in order to perform a subdominant response

Kagan’s behavioral inhibition (as temperament trait)

(The Anxious/Shy Child)

-behavioral inhibition = wariness to unfamiliar situations

• respond with fear/negative affect + withdrawing

-people with high BI have greater stability in this trait btwn infancy–adolescence

Psychological outcomes of behavioral inhibition & hereditary evidence

Behavioral inhibition is associated with:

• anxiety (esp. social anxiety), depression

• poorer social functioning throughout lifespan

Parents of BI kids more likely had anxiety disorders (as child and adult)

Freud’s theory of psychosexual development

-each stage = libido focused in different body area

-excessive gratification/frustration of impulses leads to fixation at the stage

-Oral (0-1)

-Anal (1-3) toilet training (Autonomy → Will over own body)

-Phallic (3-6) being a dick on the playground (Initiative → Purpose)

-Latency (6-12)

-Genital (12-18) teens are focused on their new genital development

Erikson’s theory of psychosocial development (summary of all stages/ages/virtues)

Age	Erikson’s Psychosocial Stages	Virtue
0-1 yo	Trust vs. mistrust	Hope
1-3 yo	Autonomy vs. shame and doubt	Will (Will of my own, will over own body)
3-6 yo	Initiative vs. guilt	Purpose
6-12 yo	Industry vs. inferiority	Competence
Adolescence	Identity vs. role confusion	Fidelity (to own identity)
YA	Intimacy vs. isolation	Love
Middle adulthood	Generativity vs. stagnation	Care
Late adulthood	Integrity vs. despair	Wisdom

Erikson’s theory of psychosocial development: Trust vs. mistrust (virtue)

Hope

Dropped into strange new world, baby (0–1) first learns whether they can Trust their needs will be met, unlocking Hope (in the world and safety). Otherwise, he leaves with a sense of mistrust.

Autonomy vs. Shame/doubt (age, virtue)

Will of his own, Will over own body

As a toddler (1-3yo): Eric builds Autonomy over own body during toilet training/anal. If parents scream at him for mess, he feels shame/doubt in himself. He unlocks a Will of his own and over his own body.

Initiative vs. guilt (age, virtue)

Purpose in taking initiative, leading play/activities

At the playground (3–6): he takes Initiative in leading play with Purpose. (I can Initiate on something I want, and enact with Purpose without overstepping). If he’s a dick/phallic and oversteps with the other kids, he feels guilt.

Industry vs. inferiority (age, virtue)

Competence (in starting school)

Starting school (6-12): Eric is put to work with learning/HW (Industry) to feel a sense of Competence in his math abilities, but inferior in language.

Identity vs. role confusion (age, virtue)

Fidelity to own self/identity

Adolescence: he discovers his Identity, moving from identity diffusion, foreclosure (adults have always said he’s good at math), moratorium, and achieving Fidelity to self in his true desire to pursue psychology. If he only listened to others (foreclosure) or got lost in focus on his genitals, he’d have role confusion.

Intimacy vs. isolation (age, virtue)

Love

YAs just want love

As a YA, Eric searches for Intimacy to find Love. If he’s hurt, he retreats to isolation

Generativity vs. stagnation (age, virtue)

Middle adulthood

Care

Career generativity is successful if rooted in care (e.g., mentoring others, taking care of family)

Integrity vs. despair (age, virtue)

Wisdom

Late Adulthood (65+): Eric looks back on his life, reviewing the Integrity of his life. He either despairs because his time has run out to explore his identity, find intimacy, and generate. Or he achieves Wisdom in his ability to reflect on the messy, imperfect arc of life.

Authoritative parenting leads to

-high demandingness (w/ rewards), and responsiveness

→ confident, social, independent kids, academic achievement

***academic achievement link isn’t as strong link in Asian and Black students vs. white

Authoritarian parenting leads to

-insecure, moody, easily annoyed, dependent, poor social skills

-externalizing bxs (disruptive, aggressive, and oppositional)

-bullying others, and smaller risk for being bullied

-low academics

Permissive parenting leads to

(low demandingness, high responsiveness–encouraging emotional expression, very supportive even of undesirable bx)

-self-centered, immature, rebellious

-being bullied by others, smaller risk for being a bully

-low academics, poor social skills

Uninvolved (neglectful) parenting leads to

(low demandingness + responsiveness)

-parents just aren’t aware/present at all

***worst outcomes (antisocial bx, substance use, low SE, moody/irritable, low self-control, noncompliant and demanding)

***most strongly linked to juvenile delinquency (followed by authoritarian)

How do the Big Five personality traits develop/change throughout adulthood?

-Big5 and other personality traits change throughout adulthood (mean-level change), but where you are relative to your age group stays the same (rank-order stability)

-Increased Agreeableness + Conscientiousness (curvilinear, drop in late adulthood)

-Decreased neuroticism

-Extraversion + Openness to new experiences stays relatively stable, or decreases slightly (slightly quieter social life, more set in our ways)

Rank-Order stability of personality in adulthood

-stability in your rank-order

-adults stay in the same position relative to their peers throughout adulthood

Differences in Big Five traits throughout adulthood in Japan

-lower scores on ALL Big5 traits (humility in self-report)

-larger fluctuations in traits over the lifespan (flexibly change personality to changing expectations of family/society)

Mirror self-recognition test (age of passing)

-used to assess baby/toddler self-awareness

-red spot on face → touching own nose/cheek (self-awareness) vs. mirror

**Mirror self-recognition is PRE-REQ for secondary emotions (self-conscious emotions, 3Es, then shame/guilt/pride)

*Most pass by 18-24 mo; except Down syndrome (3-4yo), ASD, etc.

Childhood development in self-understanding

Early childhood (2-6): concrete observable characteristics (gender/age) + activities

• e.g., I have brown eyes, I like to play games

Middle childhood (7-11): personality descriptions + comparisons

• e.g., I’m better at math than friends, fast runner

Adolescence (12-18, formal operational): abstract qualities + recognize nuance (e.g., extroverted with friends, introvert with family)

Marcia’s four Identity Statuses of Adolescent identity development

-Marcia extended Erikson’s Identity vs. Role Confusion (Fidelity)

-4 identity statuses reflect different levels of identity exploration + commitment

-adults can recycle through moratorium (exploring) + achievement

1.) Identity Diffusion: no exploration/crisis + no commitment

• Idk what to do with my life, and don’t care to explore

2.) Identity Foreclosure: no identity exploration/crisis + strong commitment

• from adopting parents’/other adults values/goals

• Parents are doctors, I’ve never considered anything else

3.) Identity Moratorium: exploring identity + no commitment to any identity

• temporary ban on committing to any identity, while exploring is happening

• Trying different majors/classes, but nothing has clicked

4.) Identity Achievement: exploration/crisis had + strong commitment

• After lots of exploration and questioning, committed to psychologist

Kohlberg’s cognitive developmental theory (3 stages)

-GI depends on cog dev

-Identity (2-3) → Stability (over time, 4yo) → Constancy (across situations, conservation 6-7)

1.) Gender Identity (2-3 yo)

• kids identify self and others as M/F

2.) Gender Stability (4yo)

• recognize gender identity is stable over time (i.e., girls become women, boys become men)

3.) Gender Constancy (6-7 yo, conservation starts to develop)

• conservation of gender

• gender is stable over time AND across situation (doesn't change with change in appearance/bx)

Social learning theories of GI development

-all propose that GI comes from social learning first (imitation/reinforcement) followed by gendered schemas/cognition

-Bandura, Bem

Bussey & Bandura’s social cognitive theory

GI development = observation/IMITATION of same-gender people + differential reinforcement

Bem’s gender schema theory

-combines social learning component (imitation of norms/reinforcement) with gender schemas

-kids organize gendered experiences into gender schemas that they use to perceive further info

e.g., by 3 yo, kids have well-established gender schemas for toys; boys are more opposed to feminine toys

Gender-schematic vs. Gender-aschematic people

Gender-schematic – more likely use gender norms to guide bx, and judge others

Egan and Perry’s Multidimensional Model

-identified 5 components of gender identity

-Membership knowledge (knowing “I am a girl”)

-Felt pressure (to conform to gender norms)

-Gender contentedness

-Gender typicality (feeling like a typical member of own gender group)

-Intergroup bias (belief that own gender is superior to other gender)

-High gender contentedness + typicality ←→ high SE, peer acceptance

-High felt pressure ←→ adjustment problems

Bem’s research on Psychological Androgyny

-used Bem Sex Role Inventory to measure GI (Androgynous, Undifferentiated, feminine, masculine)

-Androgynous = high feminine + high masculine

**viewed androgyny as desirable d/t bx flexibility:

**research confirmed androgynous ppl are have higher SE, more well-adjusted, more liked by peers

• mixed findings: may be possessing masculine traits → high SE (not androgyny)

Piaget’s theory of moral development (3 stages, what rules are at each stage, how bx is judged as bad/amoral)

-proposed cog dev is needed for moral development

-viewed developmental process of understanding moral standards as similar to understanding game rules (studied kids’ reactions to game rule violations)

1.) Premoral Stage: (0-5)

• very limited sense of rules/morality (toddler plays by w/e rules they want)

2.) Heteronomous Stage: (5-6 yo) other-determined rules, rules can’t change

• rules = other set, made by authorities; can’t be changed

• badness of bx = consequences

• i.e., breaking 5 plates on accident is worse than 1 plate on purpose

3.) Autonomous Stage: (10-11)

• rules = autonomous agreements btwn people, can change based on agreement (like Kohlberg postconventional/democracy)

• badness of bx = person’s intention

• i.e., breaking 1 plate on purpose is worse than 5 accidentally

Criticisms of Piaget’s theory of moral development: -

-underestimated cog ability/moral understanding of young children

-believed moral development ended at age 11!

Kohlberg’s theory of moral development:

-proposed moral reasoning depends on level of cog dev + perspective-taking

Level 1: Preconventional morality

• 1-Punishment and obedience – can I get away with this

• 2-Instrumental hedonism – what (rewards) do I get from this

Level 2: Conventional Morality:

• 3-“Good boy/good girl” – stay in social approval

• 4-Law and order – follow the rules

Level 3: Postconventional Morality:

• 5-morality of contract, individual rights, and democratically accepted laws – laws need to serve people/common good

• 6-morality of individual principles of conscience – abstract principles of my conscience (equality/justice)

Criticisms of Kohlberg’s theory of moral development:

-underestimates moral reasoning of young children

-too rigid, linear; doesn’t consider situational context or motivation (e.g., can exhibit different stages in different situations)

-androcentric (male participants) and culturally-biased

• men often base moral judgments on justice/individual rights; women base on care/responsibility

• stages 5 and 6 are Western-specific

-low ecological validity (response to hypothetical moral dilemmas ≠ real-life)

Piaget and Kohlberg on peer influence on moral development

-argued peers have greater influence d/t egalitarian rships allowing for mutual negotiation (vs. adult unilateral authority precluding any moral discussion/decision-making)

Parental discipline style → moral development

-induction style of discipline (explaining why bx is wrong and the consequences on others) → more advanced moral reasoning

-compared to power assertion/love withdrawal styles of discipline

What age do kid’s develop fairness sharing & knowledge-behavior gap

-By 3-4 yo, kids state equal sharing is fair but → act selfishly (give self more stickers) + know they’ll act selfishly (anticipated they’d keep more stickers for self)

*Only 7/8 yos shared equally

-young children also understand equality approach may be unfair when it comes to merit/need, but don’t act equitably until 8yo

• e.g., younger kids understand sharing equal stickers may not be fair if friend had bad day, but wouldn’t actually give them more stickers until they’re 8yo