Developmental Crises in Adolescence Developmental

Developmental Crises in Adolescence

Developmental Crises

Developmental crises: The nature vs. nurture debate

Our culture regards adolescence as an inherently stressful period, because of the environmental pressures it places upon teens. However, there is also a great deal of evidence that 'nature' affects the ability of the individual to withstand stresses as much as 'nurture' and there is a certain consistency in a person's character throughout his or her lifetime regarding the ability to cope with stress. Adults may simply be better able to regulate stress because of their greater ability to control and choose their life situations but they may still exhibit the same easily stressed personality they manifested in childhood and adolescence. A longitudinal study of children who were chronically shy found that they tended to self-select careers that offered them greater control over their environment, versus their more daring peers (Kagan 2010: 5-6). Studies of infants' reactions to new stimuli, whether fearful or open, foreshadowed their reaction to later events as they aged (Kagan 2010: 10).

Yet social modeling can affect also affect the individual's responses, regardless of temperament, as seen in Bandura's studies of children modeling violent behavior only when it was suggested they do so, as well as chimpanzee's responses to snakes and potentially threatening stimuli (although not to non-threatening stimuli in the form of flowers). The nature-nurture conundrum is not a black-and-white debate. A host of different environmental and genetic factors interact in terms of how they may influence the reactions and behaviors of developing adolescents.

For example, some research which indicated that while some unpleasant smells and stimuli produced extremely negative reactions in infants, others did not. Social conditioning is not necessary for infants to react strongly to bitter smells and tastes, but even in the absence of stimuli, infants may mimic the responses of caretakers, demonstrating how they are 'social beings.' Even the most genetically-oriented theorists acknowledge that there may be certain developmental universals, such as the need for a secure attachment with a caretaker. "Because being attached to other humans is key to survival, disorders of attachment are regarded as serious; babies and toddlers who don't have a preference for primary caregivers are in danger of severe emotional disabilities. Some may seem independent, others appear too clingy, still others are too ready to take off with anyone" (Lecture notes 2011). A host of individualistic and general 'human' biological responses combined with environment shape the character.

Adolescence is a difficult time for young people, and the stressors that occur in utero can intensify those pressures. It has been found that the time of year, illnesses, and even weather conditions can increase the propensity of infants to develop schizophrenia. Although schizophrenia has a clear biological, genetic component, environmental conditions can cause those genes to manifest themselves more obviously. Similarly, sexual orientation can be affected by birth order and even 'handedness.' Later-born boys who are right-handed have a stronger propensity to be gay than first-born boys (Kagan 2010: 24).

Within the psychiatric profession, there have been oscillations between favoring the 'nature' and 'nurture' hypothesis. At present, after many years emphasizing Freudian conceptions of development, there has been a shift back to favoring a nature, or genetic and biologically-based thesis of development. The new understanding of the degree to which genes affect the brain and the explosion of experimental research has been a primary reason for this shift within the profession. Anxiety disorders and reactivity to new stimuli are not something that suddenly emerges during adolescence, although the biological and to some degree the cultural pressures of this time period may make them more evident. Even infants show high-reactive and low- reactive behavior patterns that continue in later life. When interviewed in adolescence, the high-reactive babies in one study became more worried, moody adolescents who reported more irrational fears than their low-reactive counterparts (Kagan 2010: 32-33). All adolescents manifest anxiety to some degree, but the more reactive teens reported frequent worries about talking to strangers, versus more practical concerns about athletic or academic performance. These teens reported not exhibiting positive risk-taking behaviors because of fears about talking to new people or trying new things. Unpredictability generated fear, not excitement.

A fear of unpredictability and uncertainty makes it difficult to cope with adolescence, when life is in a continual state of flux for even the most stable and grounded individual. "Students would burn out if forced to spend the entire day amidst the social intensity of the cafeteria and the hallways. Fortunately, the school authorities also schedule dormant periods, called classes, during which students can rest their minds and take a break. . .[They] correctly understand . . . that socialization is the most. . .morally important thing they will do in high school" (Brooks 2001:74-75, cited in lecture notes). Socialization requires adaptability and flexibility, which temperamentally-sensitive individuals lack and can make them more vulnerable to the stressors that all adolescents endure. Perhaps equally significantly, high-reactive adolescents recognized their challenges and rated themselves as more dour and serious than their peers who rated themselves as high on optimism. The biological tendency, once socially reinforced, became a kind of self-fulfilling prophesy for the high-reactive teens (Kagan 2010: 38).

Biological propensities to stress can be measured in both qualitative and quantitative ways. Quantitatively, brain scans subjects can demonstrate whether the regions of the brain associated with anxiety such as the amygdala, fire up when stimulated and the results can be compared between low-reactive and high-reactive subjects. Interviews, questionnaires, and self-perceptions of teens can also be assessed on a qualitative level. Comparing the anecdotal evidence of individuals who report high levels of anxiety and those who do not in terms of the reactivity of their brain enables scientists to demonstrate the clear impact of the physical structures of the brain on behavior, and also to analyze how there is interaction between the brain and development. Certain types of brains seem to have a greater propensity to 'fire off' anxiety-producing reactions than other brains, even when both are subjected to the same stimuli.

This example shows once again the complex interaction between nature and nurture. All human beings are subject to stressors simply by virtue of being human. The brain's structure propensity to react, depending on genetics and also the early environment of the developing child can create an adolescent who is more or less likely to react to stress in a particular fashion. Once patterns of reaction have been established, these habits become more and more difficult to break as they become ingrained responses within the individual's character (Kagan 2010: 42-43).

Anxiety can give rise to a host of different reactions, such as timidity, uncertainty of what behavior to display, and other behaviors which can increase the propensity of the adolescent to be rejected. Rejection sensitivity can actually create the fate the individual fears, and once again the self-fulfilling prophesy is reenacted, as a high-anxiety, high-reactivity individual who is uncertain, tenuous, and expects rejection is more likely to be rejected by his or her peer group.