For example, in normal development, we see a fairly universal pattern of physical development and some cognitive skills, regardless of context, while other aspects of cognition seem to be heavily influenced by our environment. When it comes to social, emotional, and moral development, research indicates that there may be underlying biological determinants of behavior, but that our experiences and culture play a role as well. In developmental psychopathology, we appreciate that all of these factors interact in complex manners to predict an individual’s likelihood of a developmental trajectory that includes psychopathology.
In the first section of this chapter, we discuss the family as a context for development and how aspects of the home affect infants’ and children’s development. In subsequent sections, we focus on specific aspects of development, including physical, cognitive, social‐emotional, moral, and sex‐role identity development across the infancy, childhood, and adolescent years.
The Family Context and Life Cycle Theory
In this section, we highlight how the family context and individual differences play an important role in predicting the development of psychopathology in children and adolescents. The family development theory classifies family and individual development according to developmental stages that encompass roles and tasks within the family dynamic over time. Duvall (1957) identified eight stages in this family life cycle: (1) beginning families, (2) childbearing families, (3) families with preschool children, (4) families with school children, (5) families with teenagers, (6) families as launching centers, (7) families in the middle years, and (8) aging families. There are other theories that classify the patterns of families based on different criteria; however, it is Duvall’s theory that has emerged as the most significant.
A major criticism of the family development theories is the assumption of universality, as they focused primarily on mid‐twentieth century, middle‐class, heterosexual, white families. Subsequent theories have attempted to address the complex challenges of parenting in a heterosexist society, and the unique experiences and perspectives of sexual minority parents. Further research within the field should attempt to address the increasingly diverse nature of individuals who comprise the family cycle.
Attachment
As we narrow our focus away from the general concept of the family life cycle, we begin to address the impact that specific aspects of the family—such as parenting—have on the developing child. We start by examining attachment: the quality of the bonds developed between parents (or caretakers) and infants. Though covered more thoroughly in the next chapter of this volume, Ainsworth, Bowlby, and others determined that attachment can be broadly categorized in two ways: secure and insecure. Research consistently suggests that parents who are affectionate, responsive, predictable, and sensitive when caring for their child are likely to have securely attached infants who develop better social competence, higher levels of psychological well‐being, and lower levels of behavior problems years later (Belsky, 2006). Securely attached children, adolescents, and adults are more likely to have more positive perceptions of their attachment figures, may communicate more effectively with others, and demonstrate more interpersonal flexibility (Lamb et al., 1999).
Temperament
Until the late 1950s, there was a tendency to attribute children’s maladjustment to poor parenting; specifically, poor mothering (Thomas & Chess, 1977). Born out of research investigating this assumption was the theory of temperament: the individual differences in behavioral styles, emotions, and characteristic ways of responding. Features of temperament can be observed even in early infancy and include rhythmicity of biological function, approach or withdrawal from new stimuli, adaptability, distractibility, activity level, quality of mood, persistence threshold or attention span, intensity of reaction, and sensory threshold of responsiveness. Such characteristics appear to be strongly heritable, emerge early in life, are relatively consistent across time and situations, and derive from interactions between genetic predispositions, environment, maturation, and individual experiences (Thompson, 1999).
In devising ways to classify children’s temperament and identify long‐term outcomes, Thomas and Chess (1977) identified four basic temperament styles. First, children with easy temperaments are generally of positive moods, adaptable, and persistent. Children who are slow‐to‐warm‐up take longer to adjust to changing circumstances but can adjust, especially if their temperament traits are respected. Children with difficult temperaments are irritable, react adversely, or withdraw when presented with changes in routine. Finally, children with average temperaments do not notably fall into any of these categories. Children with difficult temperaments are more likely to have internalizing and externalizing behavior problems (Lamb et al., 1999).
Another way to classify temperament comes from research by Rothbart and colleagues, who conceptualize temperament in terms of reactivity and self‐regulation. Reactivity reflects how easily a person is aroused by stimuli, measured by the speed of escalation, onset, persistence, and intensity of emotional reactions. Self‐regulation is how reactivity is modulated, including the child’s approach–withdrawal tendencies, soothability, emotion regulation, and adaptability (Rothbart & Bates, 1998; Thompson, 1999).
Goodness of Fit
Thomas and Chess (1977) determined that the goodness of fit, or compatibility between the environment and a child’s temperament, plays a significant role in their adjustment and the likelihood of eventual psychopathology. Poorness of fit occurs when the child’s temperament is not respected or accommodated in their environment. Children’s temperament not only influences the way in which they interact with others, but it also elicits certain reactions from people around them. In addition, parents’ own temperaments affect how they interact with their children. For instance, parents with easy temperaments may better accommodate their child with a difficult temperament, which may mitigate the child’s predisposition for psychopathology. Conversely, parents with difficult temperaments may not be able to adjust to the needs of children who are slow‐to‐warm‐up, and thus perpetuate the poorness of fit between the child’s temperament and their environment (Lamb et al., 1999).
Parenting Styles
It is clear from decades of research that parents and children shape one another’s behavior (Patterson, 1982), though the bulk of the research is focused on where parents fall on two primary domains: warmth–coldness and restrictiveness–permissiveness (Baumrind, 1989). Parents high in warmth are generally caring, supportive, and engage in behavior that demonstrates they enjoy spending time with their children, while parents low in warmth express few feelings of affection for their children and are more likely to physically discipline their children. Children of warm parents are more likely to develop internalized standards of conduct (i.e., a moral sense of conscience) and are more likely to have better social and emotional well‐being (Lau et al., 2006) than their peers with parents low in warmth. Parents also fall somewhere on the restrictiveness–permissiveness spectrum. Indeed, even the most well‐behaved children misbehave at times, and parents have to decide how they will respond to their children’s (mis)behavior and to what extent they will enforce boundaries or rules with their children. Parents who are restrictive tend to watch their children more closely and impose more rules than permissive parents.
Decades ago, Baumrind identified four styles of parenting (Baumrind & Black, 1967). Authoritative parents maintain consistent boundaries, use reasoning, and offer consistent affection and support for their child; this parenting style is associated with children who have the most favorable outcomes. Authoritarian parents value obedience, impose a forceful imposition of their will on their child, and offer little affection. Permissive parents are high in warmth, non‐intrusive, and lax, but are available as resources to their child when needed. Finally, neglectful or nonconformist parents are generally low on warmth and control, and tend to be uninvolved parents (Baumrind, 1975). Baumrind argued that authoritative parents—the ideal parenting style—instill values that contribute to their children’s sense of social responsibility