Comparative Analysis of Theoretical Perspectives in Developmental Psychology
The Major Difference between Skinner and Piaget
The major difference between Skinner and Piaget is in their different perspectives on the development of children. While Skinner argues that children learn through the process of reinforcement, Piaget argues that they learn via a natural process. Crain (2014) writes that the behavior of human beings starting from infancy is controlled by a reinforcing stimulus. For instance, infants can increase their sucking rates when sucking leads to sweetness instead of a liquid that is not sweet. In the same way, the rates of vocalization and smiling in infants are increased when the behavior results in rewards like attention, caresses, and smiles. However, there are two kinds of reinforcers: conditioned and primary reinforcers. Conditioner reinforcers include reinforcing stimuli like the adult’s attention, praise, or smiles, whereas the primary reinforcers include natural reinforcing aspects like the removal of pain or food (Crain, 2014). Do you need help with your assignment ? Get in touch with us at eminencepapers.com.
On the other hand, Piaget was for the assumption that children explore, manipulate and try to make sense of their environment constantly. In the process, they construct more elaborate and new structures actively to deal with the environment (Crain, 2014). In his theory, he argued that infants inherit reflexes like the sucking reflex, for instance. According to Crain (2014), he sometimes featured children’s activities in terms of tendencies of biology that are present in all organisms. These include organization, accommodation, and assimilation. He believed that the thinking of children is not shaped by the teachings of adults or the influences of the environment. Instead, he believed that children need to interact with their surroundings, but they, and not the external surroundings, build the new structures. Therefore, for Piaget, development is not governed by external or maturation teaching but is an active construction process through children’s activities. Therefore, children utilize their motor and sensory skills to explore and understand their environment without the intervention of their parents or any other person. On the contrary, for Skinner, development happens because of a reinforcing stimulus such as encouragement or discouragement from a parent or teacher.
Bandura’s View of Learning Versus Skinner’s View of Learning
Both Bandura and Skinner hold the same understanding that a person’s behavior is the result of their learning from their experience. As observed earlier, Skinner believed that environmental influences control human behavior. On the contrary, Bandura was for the idea that human beings are goal-oriented and have particular purposes and intentions (Ogwuanyi, Okeke & Ageda, 2020). His understanding was that people learn through the observation of others.
The contextual understanding of Skinner was that humans are what they have been reinforced for being, and he called this concept operant conditioning. For Bandura, individuals learn by other means beyond operant conditioning. He believed that individuals could learn by indirectly observing consequences, which were not the results of their own actions. Accordingly, this strikes an elaborate difference between the two theorists. While Skinner believes that a person learns after being influenced by their environment either positively or negatively, Bandura believes that individuals can learn from observing indirect results that were not the results of their own activities or actions in the environment (Ogwuanyi, Okeke & Ageda, 2020).
Bandura named his theory social learning theory, which later transitioned to social cognitive theory. He disagreed with Skinner’s adamant behavioral perspective on learning and added that reasoning and thinking are critical features in human learning. Therefore, for Bandura, both environment and cognitive aspects affect a person’s learning behavior. For example, for Skinner, a person can learn after they have been rewarded or punished for their actions. On the contrary, according to social cognitive theory, a person learns from the actions, behaviors and activities of others, such as parents and peers. This explains why a child would look at their mother clapping hands and do the same thing.
Piaget versus Bandura on How Children Develop
Piaget identified that the thinking of children goes through four distinct phases. These phases play an essential role in a child’s development, as thinking changes qualitatively in every stage. In his preliminary phase (Sensory-motor phase), which he believed happened from birth to the age of two years, children activate their physical and motor skills and their senses to explore the world and develop their cognitive understandings (Introbooks, 2018). The second phase is the pre-operation phase between the ages of two and seven years. In this phase, they become less reliant on physical exploration and senses and can use internal images and symbols, but they think illogically and unsystematically (Crain, 2014). In the concrete operation phase, between the ages of 7 and 12 years, they start thinking more systematically when they can refer to the activities and concrete objects (Crain, 2014). In the formal operation phase that happens between the ages of 12 and above, children are able to understand many things and solve issues because they can think systematically and on a purely hypothetical and abstract plane (Crain, 2014).
When it comes to Bandura’s theory, children develop through imitation of other people (Hansen & Zambo, 2005). Three aspects shape a child’s development: self-efficacy, reward, and influence. By influence, the child imitates the people they know, views them as accomplished, and admires them. Thus, they end up mimicking them, such as the child may mimic their mother and not strangers. As they grow, they expand the people they imitate, including fathers, older siblings, teachers, and friends. This explains why a parent may come to school complaining about how their child has picked something in school from another student. Bandura also believed that if a child sees that their older sibling is being punished for throwing tantrums, they are not likely to adopt that behavior. However, if they see that their older sibling is being gifted or praised for saying thank you, they would adopt that behavior. When they are older and can understand things better, say between the ages of 4 and 9 years, they view themselves and their abilities to adopt a behavior successfully in what Bandura called self-efficacy (Crain, 2014). For instance, if a child sees themselves as a dancer, they are likely to imitate what professional dancers do on television, which encourages their development in that area.
Zone of Proximal Development as a better indication of Students’ potential than Conventional Achievement Tests
The zone of proximal development is based on the concept that instruction is effective when it goes ahead of development (Newman & Holzman, 2013). When this happens, it wakens or impels an entire package of functions that are in a phase of maturation in the zone of proximal development. Vygotsky argued that one of the developmental results of learning that leads to development in the zone of proximal development is the ability of the child to engage in the activity of development volitionally and with the awareness that is conscious and not just spontaneous (Newman & Holzman, 2013). To Vygotsky, children must learn to get motivated, meaning that learning results in development (Newman & Holzman, 2013). Vygotsky believed that understanding what the student has learned would determine their potential, instead of the normal educators’ and parents’ understanding that children should be motivated to learn.
Rousseauist Critique
The concept of the zone of proximal development is challenged by Rousseau, who believed that children are not containers that are empty waiting to be filled. Rather, children have their own modes of thinking and feeling. Rousseau argues that this is because they develop in accordance with nature’s plan, which urges them to develop various modalities and capacities at various phases. Instead of allowing children to learn to be motivated, Rousseau believes that it is important to give nature the opportunity to guide a child’s growth (Crain, 2014). Essentially, this is because well-socialized adults often depend on other people’s opinions, do not think for themselves, and end up thinking and seeing only what society expects of them. To Rousseau, this did not seem right, and people should allow children to perfect their abilities and capacities in their own ways, the way nature intends. As a result, they will learn to depend on and trust their own judgment powers.
Freud’s Theory of the Oedipal Crisis and its Resolution in the Boy and the Girl
Freud’s Oedipal complex theory is about the psychosexual phases of development and represents both Electra and Oedipus complexes. The Oedipus complex happens in the Phallic phase, which occurs at the age of 3 to 6 years. At this phase, the source of libido is more in the erogenous area of a child’s body (Holtzman & Kulish, 2016). At this phase, a child experiences an unconscious desire for the opposite-sex parent, and they become jealous and envious of their same-sex parent (Holtzman & Kulish, 2016). This complex situation is resolved when the boy’s child starts to identify with his dad as a secondary way to have his mother.
For the girl child, Electra’s complex starts with the idea that she has been castrated. In turn, she directs the blame to the mother for this and begins to envy the penis. They then start identifying with their mother to have the father (Crain, 2014). According to Crain (2014), the girl’s motivation for giving up her dad as a love object to move back to her mother is not obvious compared to the boy’s motivation for identifying with the father. As a result, the identification of girls with their mothers is less than boys’ identification with their fathers. According to Crain (2014), this makes the superego of the females weaker, and their identity becomes separate; thus, an independent person becomes less well-developed. If this conflict is not resolved through identification, girls will become father-fixated, and boys will become mother-fixated. As adults, they would fail to form mature romantic relationships.
Major Criticism of Freud’s Theory
The main criticism of Freud’s theory is that it is mainly based on culture. For instance, Freud’s thinking was that penis envy was based on real biological inferiority, which is an understanding that was contextual to his society’s prejudice. However, writers and feminists such as Crara Thompson argued that penis envy is more about a cultural issue where girls feel inferior to boys since girls do not have the same privileges in previously male-dominated societies. This means that girls lacked opportunities for success, independence, and adventure. Thus, Freud’s theory ignored the legitimate desire of women for social equality.
In conclusion, Piaget’s understanding of children’s learning was through a natural process, whereas Skinner’s was through reinforcement from the environment. Bandura added that the process of learning is more than the reinforcement and that children have their own minds that they use to learn through observation. This idea was contested by Vygotsky, who argued that children need to learn to be motivated. This idea implies that children are like empty vessels waiting to be filled. Rousseau was correct in challenging this concept because children have independent minds to feel and think, and this is why they even cry when they are hungry. Therefore, they should be given the opportunity to naturally learn and grow their independent minds. When it comes to Freud’s theory, the whole perspective is scandalous because it mainly suggests incest and cultural perspectives of the society. Most probably, Freud borrowed from the then-toxic characteristics of society to formulate the theory.
References
Crain, W. (2014). Theories of development: Concept and applications, 6th edition. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice Hall.
Hansen, C. C., & Zambo, D. (2005). Piaget, meet Lilly: Understanding child development through picture book characters. Early Childhood Education Journal, 33(1), 39-45.
Holtzman, D., & Kulish, N. (2016). The femininization of the female oedipal complex, part I: A reconsideration of the significance of separation issues. Journal of the American Psychoanalytic Association, 48(4), 1413-1437.
IntroBooks (2018). Child Development Theories. IntroBooks.
Newman, F. & Holzman, L. (2013). Lev Vygotsky (Classic Edition): Revolutionary Scientist. New York” Psychology Press.
ORDER A PLAGIARISM-FREE PAPER HERE
We’ll write everything from scratch
Question 
What does the text consider to be the significant difference between Skinner and Piaget?
Briefly contrast Bandura’s view of learning with Skinner’s view.
Contrast the views of Piaget and Bandura on how children develop.
Comparative Analysis of Theoretical Perspectives in Developmental Psychology
4. a) Why did Vygotsky believe the “zone of proximal development” indicates students’ potential better than conventional achievement tests?
b) the textbook author presents a Rousseauist critique of this concept in the evaluation section. Discuss one of the points the text author makes.
5. a) Describe Freud’s theory of the Oedipal Crisis and its resolution in the boy and the girl.