jim.shamlin.com

7 - Individual Developmental Differences

Emotions vary greatly among individuals, to such degree that any broad or categorical statement about how human beings react emotionally is likely wrong in many instances. Cultural influences have been identified, such that people within a given culture are more likely to react and behave in certain ways than those of a different culture - but even within a culture there are significant differences from one person to the next.

It's generally assumed that an individuals cognitive processes are shaped by their experience - and in terms of emotions, their experiences with other people are likely the most significant factor in the determination of an individual's personality, hence his emotional reactions.

It is also generally assumed that the most significant relationships to the development of personality are those experienced during childhood, chiefly in the home environment, and as such this chapter will consider the relationship between child and parent and the impact to both parties.

(EN: My sense is that this is an all too common pattern in psychology, and it oversimplifies and misses much information. The relationship with a parent, particularly the mother, is where personality takes form, but also assumes development to be insular whereas many other influences are involved, as well as assuming it to be indelible rather than mutable. My sense is that a broader view of development, including a full range of influences within and without, would be much different and that psychology is treading an easier path that results in conclusions that are too facile to be of much use. That said. I'll continue to read along.)

Emotion Regulation

Children are often the topic of study because the [period of infancy and early childhood is (assumed to be) largely identical: children encounter the same things during the earliest years of their lives, and it can be observed that the behavior of children begins as highly similar but over time individual differences become evident.

Certain patterns of emotional expression are developmental: infants cry for longer and more intensely than toddlers and temper tantrums are common in the second year of life and decrease afterward. The rate at which common behaviors arise, fade, and are replaced with alternate behaviors is indicative of individual differences.

The development of language, from cooing to babbling to telegraphic speech, is largely the same among most individuals - but the topic of conversation is highly idiosyncratic. It's noted that children who have a greater command of language at an early age are more likely to talk about their feelings rather than merely demonstrate them. And this differs greatly according to the parents' willingness to engage in such discussions with their children.

It's also theorized that nonverbal expression is passed from parent to child: a child learns to mimic the facial expressions and behaviors of a parent, and later internalizes them. Not to mention that the behavior of a parent serves as feedback to the child: a child who is cosseted is more likely to cry because the expression results in getting attention, and as a result the cosseted child develops a lifelong expectation that others will react to his emotions by giving him what he desires.

There is also a task-based view that considers success and failure to reinforce or inhibit emotional behaviors. This extends the feedback mechanism with the parents to other elements in the environment, which form the beginnings of the mental framework - the "gut feeling" that something is good or bad depends on experience of success or failure with similar objects and situations.

The ability to manage distress is of particular interest, because the period of development marks a change in state from being entirely helpless and dependent on a caregiver and being self-sustaining. (EN: That likely captures the essence of maturity to adulthood, at least from a western perspective: the dividing line between childhood and adulthood is independence.)

Similar to the way in which a child gradually loses its dependence on a caregiver to provide for its physical needs, there is also a pattern of maturity in which children lose their dependence on others for their emotional needs: they can calm and comfort themselves when they are distressed, afraid, or angry.

However, there are various perspectives on emotional regulation. Some researchers consider it to be the implicit cause of individual differences in the intensity, duration, and frequency of emotional episodes. That is to say that when different people experience frustration in pursuit of a goal, some have tantrums, others seem mildly annoyed, and still others seem almost entirely indifferent.

Other researchers consider emotional regulation to be the ability to understand and express emotion - based on the assumption that a person who does not throw a tantrum when he is frustrated is less capable of experiencing the emotion or dealing with it in the proper way (EN: which is to assert that tantrums are "proper").

Emotional regulation is also used to describe the behaviors a person attempts in reaction to an emotion: the specific things they do (or try) to mitigate their emotional urges - which generally have to do with behaviors that are undertaken to influence the environmental factors that are causing them distress or, in some instances, the tactics taken to adjust internal factors (to put one's attention on something else, or to proactively think about the situation).

The term "dysregulation" is offered to describe individuals' failure to regulate their emotions - in effect, to give in to their moods and act in ways that intensify their emotions. This can be seen in many dysfunctional behaviors such as self-mutilation, where a subject damages themselves physically to intensify their emotional pain.

(EN: It should also be observed that intensifying emotions is not always a bad thing, particularly when you are seeking to intensify positive emotions: to seek more happiness or pleasure is typically considered to be normal or positive so long as this behavior does not cause damage in other regards. Also, consider the emotion of grief, and the general notion that a person who has suffered a loss must at some point give in to their grief in order to experience it so that they may move forward.)

While there are differences in the perspective of regulation, there are a few elements common to all definitions: the notion that people experience emotion, and the notion that the experience of the emotion and reaction to it can be controlled to some degree. The disagreement seems to stem from differences in opinion over whether control should be exerted, and to what the goals of that control ought to be.

Attachment

Most researchers agree that some combination of "environmental and constitutional" factors explain personal differences in emotionality. Some individuals are biased by their experience or genetics toward both experiencing and expression emotions.

Protection from Threat and Strange Situation

Protecting an infant from threat or distress is a factor in the nurturing process, and it's observed that physical proximity between child and mother follows a common pattern: the child is kept physically close to the mother at first, and only later is inclined or allowed to venture out to explore its environment.

Ainsworth (1978) paid particular attention to the behavior of infants on being separated or reunited from their mothers, noting three styles of behavior:

There is some argument over whether attachment style is innate, or as a result of previous interaction between parent and child. It's been suggested that securely attached infants have consistently received attention, whereas ambivalent infants have received inconsistent attention, and avoidant babies have experienced repeated rejections on unresponsiveness to the infants emotions.

More detailed studies measured heartbeat and cortisol (stress-related hormones) and found there to be no statistically significant difference, which supports the notion that the forms of attachment are not biological in origin. Nor can it be said that avoidant infants mask their emotions, as emotion masking is not evident until later in life.

It's also been observed that the percentages in the list above vary by culture. In Israel, the ambivalent style is far more prevalent; in Germany over half the babies tested were avoidant; and studies in Japan found a complete absence of avoidant types. It's reckoned that the way that mothers interact with infants is culturally derived, and the difference in attachment styles is derivative of this rather than anything innate.

Internal Working Models of Attachment

One theory of attachment maintains that through infancy and childhood, an individual develops an "internal working model" of relationships that serves as a basis for the way they will approach relationships throughout their lives. For example, a child who demonstrates secure attachment will seek help and support of others whereas one who is avoidant will seek to go it alone, believing they must rely on themselves. It therefore follows that a child who experiences secure attachment is more social, develops more communicative relationships, is more compliant, and otherwise will develop more intense relationships as opposed to ambivalent or avoidant types.

(EN: All of this seems very logical, but I am reluctant to accept this because it has the assumption of indelibility. If an individual who was a secure type as a child has negative experience later in life, or one who was an avoidant type has positive experiences later in life, their "working model" for relationships can adapt and change and it is not set in stone at infancy, but is far more dynamic and adaptive.)

It is also suggested that attachment types are at the center of culture: a person's behavior toward their own children is shaped by the model of the way in which their parents behaved toward them, and as such the personality effects that result are passed from one generation to the next.

The common practice of interviewing patients about their relationship with their parents came into fashion after the 1985 study (George, Kaplan, and Main) that used an instrument to evaluate not only the kind of attachment adults describe in childhood, but the manner in which they describe it, which defined three categories:

The researchers then considered these types in comparison to the relationships each had with their own children - and found that autonomous types tend to foster secure children, whereas preoccupied or dismissive types foster ambivalent or avoidant children.

Insofar as the relationship between the type of childhood attachment and the attachment style in adulthood in a single patient, studies have been largely inconclusive - there was no evidence that a child with secure attachment would be more likely to have an autonomous attachment style in adulthood than to any other kind. (EN: Here, again, I will raise the objection that the initial model formed as a child will change because of later experiences and is not indelible.)

Some correlation was later found (Waters 1965) in interviewing 50 subjects whose attachment style had been assessed as children to determine a correlation to their adult attachment style. In this study it was found that about two thirds of securely attached and avoidant children maintained their style into early adulthood (age 20), but less than half of ambivalent ones maintained the same style.

Given the small sample sizes (there were only nine ambivalent and twelve avoidant types) this experiment did not have sufficient data to be taken as conclusive, but even the loose numbers suggest that there may be sufficient correlation to suggest there might be some degree of influence.

Factors Affecting Style of Attachment

The authors reiterate that maternal responsiveness to signals of distress is a significant factor in the development of an attachment style of children, and present a few studies that support this notion. However, other influences have also been noted.

Some studies have been done in the accuracy of maternal responses to distress, finding that developing secure attachment depends not only on the mothers' interest in responding but her ability to accurately identify and remedy the cause of distress, as well as her ability to respond appropriately to the emotions expressed in non-distress situations.

There is also some consideration of synchronization or predictability of responsiveness. Not only is it important for a mother to respond in a way that corresponds to what the child is signaling (e.g., to look at the child and to respond when it verbalizes), but to do so in a consistent manner. "Nonsynchroized" mothers are those who work against the infant's desires - attempting to stimulate a baby that is trying to sleep or is siting quietly, ignoring or attempting to quiet a child that is vocalizing.

It is reckoned that children who develop ambivalent association (in which they seem to wish to avoid attention from a parent) is in response to a parent who responds in an inappropriate or contradictory manner to distress signals - such that the child regards the ineffectiveness or inappropriateness of the parent's interaction to be a negative reinforcement.

Socialization of Emotions Within Relationships

Emotions are social phenomena, and just as different cultures have different spoken languages, they can have different methods of emotional expression. A "society" or a "culture" is a broad amalgamation of people who have some general similarities - but individual cultures have different groups within them, even down to the level of individual families who, while they may be generally similar to others of the same culture, still retain their own idiosyncratic methods of communication.

Synchronization Revisited

Returning again to the notion of synchronization: a mother and infant develop patterns of interaction that, ideally, is a mutually satisfying "dance" in which the mother understands what the child wants of her and is able to provide it.

Behavior, even from an early age, is goal-oriented: an infant wants to be fed, wants to explore its environment, wants to interact with others - and as such they observe the consequences of their actions: even without a process of cognitive evaluation, they come to recognize that expressing in a certain way causes their mother to react in a certain way that succeeds or fails in relieving their distress - and when success is attained they come to expect that repeating the same behavior will have the same results. Failure to achieve a goal results in frustration, and all the more frustration of the action fails to generate success when it had succeeded in the past.

In the repetition of experience, it is evident that some babies maintain the expectation that there is a relationship between doing something and achieving a result, and the recognition that the mother will either fulfill their desires (secure attachment), exacerbate the problem (ambivalent attachment), or fail to react at all (avoidant attachment). The degree to which the mother's behavior is consistent creates a theme for the relationship.

Warmth

Affection for others is considered to be important in human development. We seek happiness in our relationships with other people, and when our interaction fails to achieve a positive result (or even has negative consequences) we withdraw from others.

Affection and attachment are two different phenomena: where a relationship fulfills the functional needs but not emotional ones, it is attachment only. Emotional engagement is necessary to having an affectionate relationship. Not all mammals form bonds of affection, and even among primates there are some species that are affectionate and others that are not.

Displays of affection are also inconsistent among human cultures - some cultures are more affectionate than others, and some seem virtually devoid of affection. Observations are made of the interactions of Ugandan mothers to their children, in which very little affection is shown - they care for their infants basic needs, but aside of an occasional nuzzling, there is little affection toward their children.

As an aside, affection between partners in a couple is a common trait of monogamous societies - as more polygamous ones lack affection. This is often mirrored in the relationships between parents and children. Or more accurately, the level of affection in the mother-child relationship is later reflected in other relationships within a society. Each reinforces the other.

Learning to Speak About Emotions

Language, as a medium of emotional expression, is developed in early childhood - and again, the development of language in children is largely guided by parents in the years before children have exposure to the outside world. That is, the child learns to speak about emotions from the way in which their parents speak about emotions.

Language replaces or augments the way in which a child expresses emotions, and becomes a means by which they explore the emotions that are experienced by others.

Researchers (Dunn 1991) recorded conversations in the homes of subjects and determined that the average number of conversations (two or more exchanges on the same topic) within families varied greatly - with an average of 8.4 per hour, but within a range of as few as 2 and as many as 25.

There is also correspondence between the amount of emotional conversation and the ability children display to recognize emotions in others, including unfamiliar adults. The ability to recognize emotions is even greater when he majority of conversations are about negative rather than positive emotions.

This in turn yields to more productive conversations and richer relationships with peers, as understanding he emotions of others and recognizing how they are affected enables the subject to find methods of interacting that are mutually satisfactory.

The quality of conversations is also found to be significant: when a mother talks about the reasons she is angry with a child, the child learns more about motivations and intentions and can better construct a mental model of "anger" and identify the kinds of things that are likely to cause anger to occur. It is possible, though more difficult, for the child to learn this relationship from observation and inference.

Effects of Modeling

Children tend to mimic the behavior of their parents - whether the parent's intent is to consciously model the behavior for their children or is acting without thought of the modeling effect their behavior will have. In terms of emotions, modeling teaches children how to react to stimuli and how to express the emotions they experience.

In an observation study (Malatesta 1982) it was found that in each minute of mother-baby interaction, mothers demonstrated 100 times as many enjoyment expressions as anger and 40 times as many enjoyment as sadness. As children age, mothers are less guarded, and even while they display more negative emotions, these expressions remained relatively infrequent.

Infants fall into the pattern of emotions expressed by their mothers - if their mothers show anger or sadness more often, then so do they (as compared to other infants) and the same is true of positive emotions. The "emotion contagion" spreads from mother to child, then to others whom the child encounters.

Selective Response to Emotions

Adults within a culture coach the children to conform to social norms about expressing emotion by responding positively to emotional displays they feel to be acceptable and ignoring or negatively responding to emotional displays that are unacceptable.

It is generally accepted that infants are less in control, and are culturally expected to exercise less control, over their emotional expressions (Brooks-Gunn 1982), as evidenced by the way in which mothers respond to their crying infants in the first six months, but this declines between then and the end of the first year, and at age two mothers begin to actively discourage children from crying. There is a significant difference in male-dominant cultures in that mothers respond less to male infants than female, and do more to discourage their emotional displays.

Studies of attachment support the notion that the best thing for parents to quickly provide comfort to a crying infant so that they form secure attachment and become well socialized - however, being overly attentive leads to a dependent personality and a lack of initiative: children doted on by their parents expect their needs to be attended by others, which leads to a range of undesirable personality traits: dependence, self-indulgence, narcissism, passive-aggressiveness, low self-confidence, and the like.

(EN: It seems that achieving a healthy balance of social dependence and personal independence, collectivism and individualism respectively, is a bit trickier than many seem to assume.)

Further studies (Roberts 1987) demonstrate that the manner in which parents respond to children's distress determines the way in which the child responds emotionally: the ideal parent is firm, helps children to understand the cause of their distress, helps them to understand their own motives, and coaches and supports them in alleviating their own distress. Being too responsive, to the point of micromanaging children's distress, is as problematic as being indifferent or responding negatively.

Additionally, Eisenberg (1994) demonstrated that merely insisting that a child suppress their emotions, punishing or threatening a child who is being emotional, leads only to frustration and suppressed anger, which leaves the child unable to cope with their own emotions. Patterson (1982) also suggests that coaching is critical to the development of a child, regardless of whether the parent's response is positive or negative in its overall demeanor.

It's suggested that parents respond to their children based on their own emotional experience - chiefly the way they were raised by their own parents, but per the information provided earlier, there is not a strict correspondence: relationship styles change over time and parents will intentionally adopt or model certain behaviors in their role.

There is also some consideration of the emotions the parent experiences when their child displays emotion - a crying child is a cause of panic and distress, and a child that cries often becomes a source of annoyance.

The authors conclude with a waffle: "it is unlikely there is any formula for how to best respond to children's emotions."

(EN: This is pretty weak, but likely inevitable because of uncertainty. That is, we can readily see the manner in which parents' behavior influences the development of personality of their child - but there are a wide range of opinions about which personality traits are desirable and to what degree they should be encouraged to develop. So long as the child does not develop a pronounced dysfunction, there is little need and little justification for science to interfere in the natural course of events.)

Cultural Influences in Emotional Development

It was earlier asserted that the values and practices of a culture are commonalities in the values of practices within individual families, and that this differs greatly from one culture to the next.

A stark contrast is drawn between members of the Yanomamo tribe, who strongly encourages aggression in its children and those of the Inuit, who strongly discourage it.

A separate observation is made of the Kipsigis tribe, in which mothers wait for a distressed child to come to them, comfort it and distract it, then return it to the group. In effect, children are socialized to disregard any internal experience of sadness and pain, which is tested in the ritual circumcision or clitoridectomy during which subjects must refrain from crying to avoid bringing disgrace and "very unfortunate consequences" on themselves and their families.

(EN: The author is a bit too mum about the consequences - but it's significant in that those who fail the rite of passage are not permitted to marry or bear children. In effect, this removes from the society the traits considered to be undesirable - by preventing people who do not meet cultural standards from having children, this prevents the culture from changing.)

Even in developed societies, the effects of emotional development can be seen: there is a far lower incidence of childhood behaviors of aggression, hostility, stealing, or lying in eastern cultures than in western, as well as a general tendency toward peacefulness and compliance. However, that is not to suggest such cultures are ideal: while there is lesser incidence of social dysfunction involving damaging others, there is a much higher incidence of self-destructive behaviors.

Emotion Schemas

The authors suggest that children develop schemas, mental models, and scripts for emotions with relationships, developing patterns they employ to respond and elicit responses from others. These schemas develop in very early childhood from the interaction with the primary caregiver (typically the mother), become more complex as the child ages and interacts with the family, and continue to develop as the child interacts with the broader community even into their adulthood.

Each culture has its own standards for emotions that are acceptable or unacceptable and guide the development of the child, and each person recognizes which patterns of behavior succeed or fail in achieving the desired results and adjust them based on experience.

As such, there are broad differences in emotions, but researchers (Baldwin 1972) suggest there are a relatively limited number of processes that are involved in the development of basic schemas and the differences among individuals:

  1. The sense of trust they place in others
  2. Confidence in themselves
  3. The degree of warmth and affection they seek
  4. The behaviors they have observed in others, particularly parents and authority figures
  5. The degree to which they are rewarded for certain behaviors
  6. The way in which they are consciously coached and guided
  7. Their desire to act cooperatively or independently

Even so, there are a broad range of possibilities - and schemas also become specific to relationships, as people use specific schemas when interacting with specific people, groups, and settings.

Temperament

It's been observed that children show marked individual differences in their behavior and emotional expressions "from the very first hours of life." Some babies are more placid, others more intense, some more social, others more individual. The differences in the way an individual displays emotion are referred to as their temperament.

More formally defined, temperament describes the characteristic behaviors that are stable over time and across situations - it is those aspects of personality that withstand environmental change. There are many conceptualizations of what temperament is, though emotions generally play a prominent role.

Biases of Emotion

One argument (Campos 1983) suggests temperament is based on an innate structure - that, in effect, most of the dimension of temperament are innate while other qualities of character will adapt. In general, the following elements are considered to be key biases:

The authors consider temperament to be the component of emotionality that is biological in origin, and characteristics for which hereditability has been established. They maintain that a clear-cut distinction between nature and nurture canoe be established, given that personality traits may be of a genetic origin or modeled on parental behavior, but they feel there is evidence for a biological basis of some elements of character that cannot be dismissed.

Stability of Temperament

One of the primary characteristics of temperament is its stability over time, but there is some conjecture. In measuring the expression and emotions between six and nine months of age, researchers have found correlation between 31% and 37%; between six months and a year between 46% and 50%; and between ages of three and five between 15% and 37%.

(EN: Additional figures and studies of specific emotions are presented, but I find these correlations far too low to be compelling. Ultimately, some individuals show consistency and some emotions but it seems that most people are not consistent in most emotions - such that while it cannot be said that there is no consistency, the amount seems very little and may not be significantly greater than random chance - and especially given that researchers were interpreting expressions and looking for correlation, I am not satisfied that their objectivity.)

Genetic Basis of Temperament

Studies of twins are presented, comparing similarities in the temperament of identical (monozygomatic) versus paternal (dizygomatic) sets, and the results are a higher correlation between genetically identical twins compared to those who are not genetically identical.

(EN: This presumes that the children were raised in the same environment and were nurtured in the same way - or that the differences are inconsequential. However, my sense is that this is not so - that parents are more likely to be egalitarian toward twins who are visually similar than to those that are visually differentiated - so it is not a pure test of nature versus nurture.)

Temperament in Relation to Style of Attachment

It is also suggested that the temperament of a child influences the way in which the parent interacts with it, which in turn affects the style of attachment that the child develops. That is, the way that a mother interacts with an infant is interdependent with the way in which the infant responds to interaction as guided by their temperament. (EN: This seems plausible but is a chicken-or-egg argument.)

In essence, if a child's temperament causes it to react negatively to its parent, then the parent will become less likely to interact with the child, such that ambivalent or avoidant styles emerge and become reinforced. It is suggested (Crockenberg 1986) that it is a natural reaction for parents whose babies are irritable and hard to comfort to withdraw from interacting as a result of their own feelings of helplessness, disappointment, and self-doubt. Others (Windle 1986) suggest that the parent's interest in interacting with a child is based on the "goodness of fit" between their temperaments.

It's also suggested that parenting strategy may be involved - the conscious choice to be more or less attentive to a child based on the belief that a given level of interaction is appropriate for the child's development. It's particularly noted that parents who are struggling wit ha difficult baby can increase their efforts to be nurturing if reassured by a clinician that their child's disposition is not entirely their fault and encourage them to renew their efforts to interact with their child.

Affective Biases (Responses to the Environment)

The developmental approach maintains that emotional patterns are established within the infant and between the infant and its caregiver, that form the default temperament of the individual, which evolve as they interact with a broader array of others in the home and later the community.

Evolution is by way of adaptation: a child learns patterns of interactions that work well, and maintain them so long as this is so, adapting only when the results change. So long as results are adequately positive, these schemas are maintained, which means that some will remain resident into adulthood.

Childhood Patterns that Extend to Adult Life

One long-term study (Caspi 1987) followed up after a period of thirty years with children who had been ill-tempered or shy at age eight.

They found that ill-tempered boys grew into ill-tempered men, less likely to stay in school and less stable in their jobs than more even-tempered sorts, with a significant amount of "downward mobility" over their careers. Ill-tempered women tend to marry below their social class, have stressful relationships with husbands and children, and divorce more often than even-tempered ones.

Men who were shy as boys were slower to marry, become fathers, or establish a stable career than more outgoing types. Shy women were also slower to marry and start families and spent less time in the workforce, but tended to marry above their class and be more supportive of their families.

Studies such as this suggests that there is a continuity of emotional functioning, such that emotional patterns established in childhood affect the choices that people make throughout their lives.

Personality Dimensions and Traits

By definition, most of the qualities of personality are emotional and social. (EN: My sense is that it's a bit broader, in that personality affects the way a person behaves when no-one else is involved in what they are doing, but that's of no particular interest to the authors.)

There are genetically based traits of personality that are expressed in species-characteristic patterns of behavior, such as maternal caregiving, that have a very limited range in functional members of a given species.

There are many other influences that are specific to the individual within the range of species characteristics. The variances are determined by culture and individual experience, subject to genetic biases.

This is to say that biology only goes so far in the understanding of personality and emotion, and as such the correlation of behaviors to genetic causes is relatively low - it is somehow estimated that biology explains as little as 20% of behavior, and is even more tenuous in suggesting the emotional causes of the behavior it attempts to ascribe to genetics.

It's noted that most measures of personality are by means of questionnaire, which is subject to bias as subjects may lack self-awareness and are prone to posturing. Observational studies are more accurate, but it is exceedingly difficult to observe, in an manner that is not invasive, the natural behavior of individuals over a long period of time and in specific situations.

While the dimensions of personality have no standard definition, the authors assert that personality theorists tend to recognize the "big five" dimensions of personality:

  1. Neuroticism - Traits of anxiety, hostility, and depression
  2. Extraversion - Warmth, amiability, and interest in other people
  3. Openness - The objective appreciation of ideas and perspectives
  4. Agreeableness - Including honesty, trust, and compliance
  5. Conscientiousness - Self-discipline, consciousness, and dutifulness

Some of these factors are immediately emotional in nature, but all rely to some degree on an emotional basis.

Overall, the authors feel "it is clear" that there is a continuity in personality, even though a person may behave in different ways given the situation and people involved in a given scenario. But that aside, each person has a default emotional setting that causes them to behave consistently in a broad context, across all situations.

(EN: My sense that there is greater interplay than the authors suggest between character and scenario - whether the "default set" reflects consistency in the internal world or external world is arguable, and I expect that both influence personality.)

JIM.SHAMLIN.COM
DISCLAIMERS · CONTACT