Some theorists such as Piaget and Erikson believe that children develop in stages, and they receive large amounts of support from other theorists for their argument. However, others argue that in order to understand children’s development in the best way possible, rather than looking at specific stages, it is better to look at their continuous development. This essay will focus on the meaning of stage of development which will be defined on the basis of a cognitive approach and in context of stage theories through the use of empirical evidence. Piaget and Erikson’s work will be discussed in detail and then evaluated in terms of their strengths and weaknesses. Continuous development will then be put forward not only as an alternative but also as a point of critical evaluation. The essay will then be concluded with an evaluation of the usefulness of stage theories, and their relevance in today’s modern society.
A stage of development can be defined as a “period in development in which people exhibit typical behaviour patterns and establish particular capabilities” (Sparknotes Editors, 2005, para.1). Jean Piaget (as cited in Huitt & Hummel, 2003) explains cognitive development in four stages. The infantile stage is comprised of the sensorimotor stage in which children’s understanding about the world they find themselves in is limited, but this is purely because it is based on their lack of life experiences, and changes as they develop. The pre-operational stage then takes place throughout early childhood where their intellect widens and memory improves, nonetheless they still have a very egocentric outlook. As they reach early adolescence the concrete operational stage kicks in and their intellect is proven through logical and rational thinking. Lastly the formal operational stage which starts in adolescence and progresses into adulthood, is where intellect is put forward through “symbols related to abstract concepts”. Piaget and Inhelder (1956) provide supporting empirical evidence, where they conducted the ‘Three mountains experiment’. The aim of this study was to find out the age children lose egocentrism. A child was presented with three different three-dimensional mountain models, which all have different features and are different sizes. She/he is allowed to look around the model. A doll is then positioned at different places around the mountains, and the child shown ten different images of the mountains at differing angles and asked to select the viewpoint of the doll. If the child picked out the correct view of the doll, then Piaget assumed that the child was not egocentric. They concluded that once a child reaches the age of seven they are no longer egocentric and they think about other individuals viewpoints besides their own. This supports the idea that once children reach the concrete operational stage they can begin to think logically and consider the outlook of people beside themselves.
Erik Erikson was also a stage theorist whose ideas were greatly influenced by the psychoanalyst Sigmund Freud. Erikson’s Psychosocial development stage theory which was developed in 1959, is comprised of 8 different stages. Snarey, Kohlberg & Noam (1983) suggest that Erikson viewed the term stage as a metaphor, therefore all stages for psychoanalytic development have are known as “functional stages”. For the purpose of the context of this essay, only the first five stages will be mentioned: Trust vs. Mistrust, Autonomy vs. Shame, Initiative vs. guilt, Industry vs. inferiority and Ego identity vs. Role confusion. Erikson believes a crisis takes place at each stage, and these crises can only be resolved with the successful completion of each stage. If this is achieved, individuals will have the ability to develop a healthy person. Erikson’s work has successfully developed and expanded Freud’s theory of development, resulting in successful contributions to the psychoanalytical development theories.
Whilst it can be seen that the idea of development in stages receives a great amount of support, the theorists mentioned above have also been criticised on many different levels. Kuhn, Langer, Kohlberg & Haan (1977) have found evidence from cross-sectional studies that shows, contrary to the arguments of Piaget, individuals do not always undoubtedly progress onto the next stage as they get older, in fact only approximately 30-35% of individuals complete the formal operational stage. Furthermore, Piaget’s theory has received criticism for the fact that his stages are associated with chronological ages. Piagets stage theory portrays development as a rigid and set process whereby each stage is correlated with specific ages, however other theorists have discovered evidence which goes against this argument. Ennis (1975) has found that despite Piaget’s argument that 11-12 year olds were unable to solve problems of propositional logic, they in fact can. A study by Dias & Harris, English, Girotto et al., Hawkins et al (as cited in Lourenco and Machado, 1996) reinforces this contradiction by suggesting that 5-6 year olds have deductive reasoning skills. Erikson’s work has also received criticism for the ambiguity and abstract style of his explanation of stages. Therefore, it can be argued that stage theories are not always necessarily the most useful approach in understanding child development.
There is evidence to support the fact that development isn’t solely set in specific stages, but rather has a continuous manner. An example of this is Sieglers Overlapping waves theory. According to Siegler (2000) children make use of a variety of strategies in order to make sense of a problem, and an array of strategies can be used simultaneously over a long period of time rather than in set stages. The term ‘overlapping’ initiates the idea that any age children will adopt a variety of thought patterns in order to deal with situations. Therefore in contrast to the idea that certain thought patterns are assigned to certain stages based on an individuals age, they instead ‘overlap’ with one another according to what is deemed as most appropriate.
In weighing up the evidence, it can be concluded that continuous development theories do have validity and hold power as an alternative explanation where stage theories lack an answer. However, it is undeniable that stage theories, such as Piaget and Erikson’s theories of development, account for a well-rounded and solid explanation of not only cognitive development, but development all around. The stages proposed have a universal explanatory power which fits majority of the children regardless of their cultural, social or economic background; this argument can be applied to both past era’s and today’s modern era. Whilst it is apparent that stage theories contain some flaws, this can be counter acted with psychologists continuing to conduct research further into the field resulting in a more accurate and detailed understanding of stage theories within developmental psychology.