Child development has, over the decades, been widely studies with references on the social, cognitive and physical growth. A myriad of the child development theories center on child development from infancy, childhood (early and middle), and adolescence. For this reason, numerous theorists have proposed different socialization, psychological ad physiological theories in a bid to provide explanations of the process of child development. A significant proportion of these theories conceptualize the process of the individual development of an individual within a given social environment or surrounding, with specific living conditions. Some of the well-studied and most famous child development theories in the world include Erik Erikson’s psychological stage theory, Jean Piaget’s cognitive developmental stage theory, and Urie Bronfenbrenner’s ecological systems theory. Thus, this section will provide a comparative analysis of Erikson’s, Piaget’s and Bronfenbrenner’s theories on child development.
Erikson’s Stages of Psychosocial Development
One of the most popular theories in psychology is Erik Erikson’s Stages of Psychosocial Development. Erik Erikson introduced his theory on the Stages of Psychosocial Development in the 1950s. Erikson’s theory draws from Freud’s theory of psychosexual development considering that it draw parallels in childhood stages adding to it not just the influence of social dynamics but also the extensions of psychosocial development into adulthood. Having said that, the underlying notion of Erikson’s theory is that personality follows a predetermined order of development through eight sequential stages from infancy to adulthood that are influenced by social, psychological and biological factors (Maree, 2021). An individual experiences a psychosocial crisis during each stage which could positively or negatively affect personality development. Erikson’s holistic view of development, as Maree (2021) posits, stresses on the role of social relationships on development. The nature of these crises is psychosocial since they involve the conflict between an individual’s psychological needs (psycho) and the needs of society (social). Therefore, for Erikson, each stage of development is characterized by a unique conflict and result.
In Erikson’s Stages of Psychosocial Development, the first stage occurs from birth to 18 months, which is the trust vs. mistrust stage. If an infant is properly cared for by their caregiver, they will develop trust, security, and confidence. On the contrary, since children at this point in development are utterly dependent upon their caregivers, the failure to receive adequate care and love would cause these children to feel as though they cannot depend upon or trust he adults in their lives (Thompson, 2021). The second stage is the toddler stage which is known as the autonomy vs. shame stage. In this stage, the child develops a greater sense of personal control. The third stage is the preschooler stage which children will develop initiative or guilt. Here, children use social interactions in asserting their power and control over the world. The fourth stage is the industry vs. inferiority stage for school-age child; this is the age in which students should be able to learn, create and display competence (Thompson, 2021). The fifth stage is the adolescent stage in which youth are finding their identity (Identity vs. Confusion). Stage six is the Intimacy vs. Isolation stage where the focus is on developing enduring and secure relationships with other people. The last two stages include the Generativity vs. Stagnation, where an individual focuses on creating or nurturing things that will outlast them, and the Integrity vs. Despair stage, where people now reflect back on life. Erikson believed that for each of these stages, successful completion would results into a healthy development and the acquisition of basic virtues. For Erikson, the failure to successfully complete on stage in completing a stage would mean taking longer to enter into the next stage and develop an unhealthy personality and lack a sense of self (Thompson, 2021).
Piaget’s Theory of Cognitive Development
While Erikson’s stages of psychosocial development theory focused on personality and social components of child development, Jean Piaget focused on children’s cognitive development. According to Piaget, children progress through four different stages including (1) sensorimotor stage, (2) preoperational stage, (3) concrete operational stage, and (4) formal operational stage (Kazi & Galanaki, 2019). The sensorimotor stage of intellectual development occurs from birth until a child has reached 2 years of age. During this stage, new babies are not sure what happens to objects when they leave their sight. In these first years of life, the infants are able to learn that objects have permanence. Babakr, Mohamedamin, and Kakamad (2019) define object permanence as the ability to know that everything has a life of its own even if it is out of sight. Piaget’s theory argue that object permanence is crucial to a baby’s brain development. Stage 2 is known as the preoperational stage, and usually occurs between the ages of 2 until the age of 7. In this stage children are able to think about things symbolically, and their language has matured; their memory is developing and they can engage in more advanced activities. Kazi and Galanaki (2019) claim that stage 3 of Piaget’s cognitive stages of development is the concrete operational stage, which occurs between ages 7 and 11. Children can think independently and logically by reasoning. The final stage is referred to as the formal operational stage. In this stage, adolescents can formulate their own thoughts, hypotheses. Babakr, Mohamedamin, and Kakamad (2019) suggests that children are able to think about multiple variables in strategical manners by considering various options.
In comparison to other child socialization theories, Piaget’s cognitive development model provides a detailed analysis of socialization and development with practical and useful applications. The underlying notion of Piaget’s theory is that learning in children changes over the course of their lifetime by moving through four different stages of mental development (Kazi & Galanaki, 2019). Hence, Piaget’s theory does not just provide insight on the acquisition of knowledge by children but also on the nature of intelligence. The stages of cognitive development discussed in Piaget’s theory include: the sensorimotor stage, characterized by the use of senses and hearing, followed by the preoperational stage, characterized by the use of symbols, words and objects, the concrete operational stage in which children follow the “cause and effect,” and lastly, the formal operational stage where children think in an abstract manner (Babakr, Mohamedamin, & Kakamad, 2019). Piaget points out that efficient socialization and proper maturation can be employed in supporting the cognitive development of a child.
By describing the different cognitive development stages that a child passes through into adulthood, Piaget’s cognitive development model is more insightful with regards to understanding the complex process of socialization. While different socialization theorists provide meaningful ideas on the process of socialization as a child develops, Piaget discusses the unique stages through which cognitive development occurs thereby presenting the most plausible and informative socialization theory. Different researchers have acknowledged that the formation of abstract ideas and use of diverse principles in addressing problems begin when children attain the age of 12 years (Thompson, 2021). These studies, therefore, substantiate the fact that Piaget’s cognitive development model is a rather powerful theory that not only explains but also resonates with the process of human socialization. Piaget further delves into the presentation of meaningful ideas that the other theorists miss. Taking an example, Piaget illustrates the swift development of brain activity. That being the case, a given child may experience certain social environments or conditions that either inhibit or enhance this kind of development. For instance, children who play with their parents or guardians tend to achieve considerable and desirable cognitive and neurological development processes. On the other hand, socially isolating a child is detrimental to their cognitive development. Furthermore, Piaget’s theory takes a step further in explaining the manner in which children process their thoughts, interpret their surrounding environments, and establish cognitive abilities. It is due to the broader perspective that Piaget’s theory on cognitive development that explains why it has a widespread application in different fields. After numerous studies, many scholars and researchers have acknowledged Piaget’s theory on socialization arguing the need for appropriate social support in every socialization process.
Bronfenbrenner’s Ecological Systems Theory
Urie Bronfenbrenner, an American psychologist, was critical of previous child development theories. In unfamiliar laboratory environments, studies of children with one other persons, particularly a stranger, were ecologically invalid, according to Bronfenbrenner. Thus, Bronfenbrenner’s ecological systems theory, as Elliott and Davis (2020) cite, portrays the development of a child as a complex system of relationships influenced by different levels of the surrounding environment ranging from immediate to broader settings such as family to cultural laws. Therefore, Bronfenbrenner’s theory assume a broader perspective beyond the child or the child’s life (individual development) by looking at wider influencing factors such as the context of development (ecology). Hence, it is these dynamic interactions of environmental factors that provide the fundamental foundation for Bronfenbrenner’s ecological systems theory. In consideration of the surrounding environment and its impact on a child’s development, Bronfenbrenner’s ecological model proposed five key levels, including microsystem, mesosystem, exosystem, macrosystem, and chronosystem (Elliott & Davis, 2020). Due to the interrelation between these systems, the impact of one system on the development of a child is dependent on how it relates to the others.
Microsystem
In Bronfenbrenner’s ecological model, microsystems define the immediate environment that an individual directly engages in as well as the individual interactions with others. Thus, the microsystem is identified as “the smallest and most immediate environment in which children live, and comprises the home, school or daycare, peer group and community environment of the children” (Elliott & Davis, 2020, p. 217). In line with this description, examples of the components of a microsystem include a child’s family/home, teachers/school and neighborhood. The interrelation of these system can be seen in the fact that one setting has an impact on another. Bronfenbrenner argues that the interactions of a child and the individual(s) in this level may significantly shape how the child develops (Hertler et al., 2018). The development of child with no strong nurturing relationship with their parents is more likely to be negatively affected. Noursi, Saluja, and Richey (2021) posit that “children from divorced families may experience more externalizing problems, such as conduct disorders, delinquency, and impulsive behavior, as well as have trouble with school if the divorce was unexpected” (p. 650). Thus, microsystems directly influence the young students to a greater degree in comparison to the other systems of the ecological model. Arguably, the dominant microsystem aspect includes parenting. Taking an example, parents who fail to set limits for their children, and thus, engage in very little supervision and are very permissive to their children without necessarily paying any importance to discipline and parenting due to the perception that their children will naturally get along better may find their children being more prone to criminal or risky behaviors as they grow. In fact, research has shown that lack of parenting promotes the indulgence in unprotected intercourse among the young students in shocking ways (Elliott & Davis, 2020), which substantiates the ecological theory. Therefore, the impact of the microsystem on child development cannot be overlooked.
Mesosystem
The mesosystem involves the interaction existing between certain microsystems. While it true that these interactions may have no direct impact on the child, as Bronfenbrenner argues, the child may be indirectly impacted by the complexity of the mesosystem. As a system of microsystem, the mesosystem is made up of linkages between family and community, school and home, and family and peer group. Even in the mesosystem, the connection of a child with the parents may still prove to be the most influential in terms of child development. For instance, the interaction between a child’s parents’ workplace and home may influence the child’s development. Here, the workplace might be too busy and thus, allow the parents little to no time to be with their child. Additionally, the parents might come home too tired to talk and monitor their child concerning certain important issues marking their lives. Consequently, the child might end up taking the wrong path due to the parent’s absence in her life.
Exosystem
Exosystem entails existing linkage between different settings that indirectly affects the developing child. The exosystem may comprise of formal and informal social structures with an indirect impact on the child with this being attributed to the disruption they have on a component of the microsystem (Elliott & Davis, 2020). The social settings, according to Bronfenbrenner’s ecological theory, include people and places – such as the parent’s workplace, extended family members and the neighborhood – that indirectly impact the child. For instance, the relationship between a child’s peer groups and the church, as well as the media messages send to students through TV and music influence the children.
Macrosystem
The macrosystem exercises a significant impact on the young students since it entails the student’s belief system and values, and dominant ideas, according to Bronfenbrenner’s ecological model (Elliott & Davis, 2020). Thus, in the theory, ecological systems focus on cultural influences on the development of a child, including poverty, ethnicity and socioeconomic status. In this case, the beliefs and worldview of the child regarding the occurrences transpiring in their life also make up cultural influences. Hence, macrosystem is differentiated from the ecosystem by the virtue of the fact that it places emphasis on established culture and society within which the child develops as opposed to the specific environments of one developing child (Elliott & Davis, 2020). Taking an example of the influence of the macrosystem on child development, a city characterized by sexual promiscuity, as well as the new dating and sex rules, may substantially influence students. Alongside this, a shooting that occurs at school also has the capability of affecting the children’s’ development, which, in turn, may express a deeper malady affecting the young students in the city. Therefore, Bronfenbrenner’s ecological model of child development is applicable in understanding cultural influences and their role in child development.
Chronosystem
The last level of the ecological systems theory proposed by Bronfenbrenner is the chronosystem. According to Bronfenbrenner, the chronosystem comprises of environmental changes that take place over a child’s lifetime, including life transitions such as the divorce of parents or relocation from a suburban home to an urban neighborhood or starting school, that impact the development of a child (Elliott & Davis, 2020). The life transactions in the chronosystem may include non-normative life transitions.
Comparison of Erikson’s, Piaget’s and Bronfenbrenner’s Theories
The constant objective of Erikson’s, Piaget’s and Bronfenbrenner’s theories of child development is that they provide explanations for the changes and development that an individual undergoes throughout their lifetime. For instance, both Erikson and Piaget agree that a child develops through a sequential process that involves stages and milestones. Moreover, both theorists agree that a child faces unique challenges in each stage though the impact of these challenges on the development of the child is what creates the difference. Further, both Erikson’s and Piaget’s theories argue that child development and personality is shaped by nurture (familial, social and environmental circumstances), not nature. Thus, both theories contend that children draw their inspiration and mimic what they see in their surroundings during their learning process. However, while both Erikson and Piaget provide important conceptualizations of child development, they vary in their understanding of development considering that Erikson describes development throughout the whole life contrary to Piaget who, in the theory, only focuses on infancy to the late teenage years. Additionally, while Erikson argued that each life event is impacted by the previous incident and that success on a current challenge will lead to progression through life, Piaget mainly centered the cognitive development theory on a child’s thought process and the response of their brain to the surrounding environment, as opposed to just crises. Hence, contrary to Erikson whose ideas mainly revolved on emotional development, Piaget, on the other hand, focused more on cognitive development. Hence, there are significant variations in how both Erikson and Piaget view the fundamental stages of life.
Similarly, variations are evidenced between Erikson’s theory and Bronfenbrenner’s model. To begin with, Erikson assumes an intrapersonal focus on child development thereby citing eight age-related stages of the lifecycle. Alternatively, the ecological model of Bronfenbrenner focuses on five socio-cultural stages. Also, unlike Erikson who pays attention to biological and cognitive factors that influence child development, Bronfenbrenner only takes into account bioecological factors impacting development: thus, while Erikson view child development as an ‘ordered’ and linear process, the ecological model proposed by Bronfenbrenner argue that child undergo ‘random’ and multidirectional development. Further, as discussed above, Bronfenbrenner takes into account a sociocultural perspective theorizing that child development takes place primarily through a child’s interaction with environmental influences. On the contrary, Piaget, in the cognitive development theory, assumed a cognitive perspective arguing that the mental development of a child occurs in conjunction with their physiological development. Thus, Erikson’s, Piaget’s and Bronfenbrenner’s theories have their similarities and differences in the manner in which they conceptualize child development.
Conclusion
Child development has been theorized in numerous studies and by a myriad of theorists. Some of the well-studied and most famous child development theories in the world include Erik Erikson’s psychological stage theory, Jean Piaget’s cognitive developmental stage theory, and Urie Bronfenbrenner’s ecological systems theory. Although the constant objective of Erikson’s, Piaget’s and Bronfenbrenner’s theories of child development is that they provide explanations for the changes and development that an individual undergoes throughout their lifetime, these theories vary in how the theorists theorize child development. For instance, the underlying notion of Erikson’s theory is that personality follows a predetermined order of development through eight sequential stages from infancy to adulthood that are influenced by social, psychological and biological factors. On the other hand, Jean Piaget focused on children’s cognitive development arguing that children progress through four different stages including (1) sensorimotor stage, (2) preoperational stage, (3) concrete operational stage, and (4) formal operational stage. Lastly, Bronfenbrenner portrays the development of a child as a complex system of relationships influenced by different levels of the surrounding environment ranging from immediate to broader settings such as family to cultural laws. Despite these variations, all three theories are needed to understand child development better. There is interplay between the three theories and deficits in one theory may be compensated by richness in the other model.
References
Babakr, Z. H., Mohamedamin, P., & Kakamad, K. (2019). Piaget’s Cognitive Developmental Theory: Critical Review. Education Quarterly Reviews, 2(3), 517-524.
Elliott, S., & Davis, J. M. (2020). Challenging taken-for-granted ideas in early childhood education: A critique of Bronfenbrenner’s Ecological Systems Theory in the age of post-humanism. Research handbook on childhoodnature: Assemblages of childhood and nature research, 1119-1154. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-67286-1_60
Hertler, S. C., Figueredo, A. J., Peñaherrera-Aguirre, M., & Fernandes, H. B. (2018). Urie Bronfenbrenner: Toward an evolutionary ecological systems theory. In Life history evolution (pp. 323-339). Palgrave Macmillan, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-90125-1_19
Kazi, S., & Galanaki, E. (2019). Piagetian theory of cognitive development. The encyclopedia of child and adolescent development, 1-11.
Maree, J. G. (2021). The psychosocial development theory of Erik Erikson: critical overview. Early Child Development and Care, 191(7-8), 1107-1121. https://doi.org/10.1080/03004430.2020.1845163
Noursi, S., Saluja, B., & Richey, L. (2021). Using the ecological systems theory to understand Black/White disparities in maternal morbidity and mortality in the United States. Journal of racial and ethnic health disparities, 8(3), 661-669. https://doi.org/10.1007/s40615-020-00825-4
Thompson, M. J. (2021). Piaget’s Stages of Cognitive Development and Erikson’s Stages of Psychosocial Development. In Child and adolescent mental health (pp. 55-59). CRC Press.
write