Investigating the Possibility of a Developmental Trend in the Way That Children Describe Themselves Essay Example for Free

Investigating the Possibility of a Developmental Trend in the Way That Children Describe Themselves Essay This version of Rosenberg’s research into children’s self-descriptions analysed data from semi-structured interviews with two children; Annie (8) and Kirsty (16). The data was interpreted to ascertain whether, as in Rosenberg’s research, children’s self-descriptions show evidence of a developmental progression and whether locus of self-knowledge shifts from other to self as children get older. Substantial support was found for Rosenberg’s theory that children’s self-descriptions become more complex with age and demonstrate a developmental trend. Some support was found for the idea that the locus of self-knowledge shifts from other to self with age but some of the children’s responses ran counter to expectation. Introduction A child’s sense of identity begins to form at a young age and develops throughout childhood. Eleanor Macoby (1980) pointed out that a sense of self emerges gradually as a child develops more complex understandings. Research shows that children differ in the way that they describe themselves at different ages. Bannister and Agnew (1977) and Harter (1983) found that as children get older they use more complex descriptions and include more references to emotions and attitudes. Younger children rely more on physical attributes, activities and preferences. Bannister and Agnew (1977) proposed that as children get older they become better able to ‘distinguish themselves psychologically’ from others (The Open University, 2009, p.20). Harter (1983) proposed that the way children describe themselves follows a developmental sequence which reflects the notion that identity develops in increments throughout childhood. Rosenberg (1979) focused part of his research into the self-concept on investigating this idea of a developmental trend in children’s sense of identity. He interviewed a sample of 8-18 year olds and created categories in which to sort the children’s responses. In keeping with the findings of Bannister and Agnew and Harter, Rosenberg found that younger children used mostly physical descriptions of themselves while older children relied more on character traits. As a result he concluded that ‘the self becomes less and less a perceptual object and more and more a conceptual trait system’ (Murphy (1947), as cited in The Open University, 2009, p.21). He found that, as children get older, they focus more on interpersonal traits and refer more frequently to relationships and inner qualities. Rosenberg also investigated what he called the ‘locus of self-knowledge’ – the extent to which children develop an ‘independent, self-reflective sense of self’ (The Open University, 2009, p.22). This was measured by asking children who knew them best, themselves or someone else. He found that younger children were more likely to claim that another, usually a parent, knew them better. Older children were more self-reliant when it came to judging themselves. Therefore, Rosenberg concluded that the locus of self-knowledge shifts with age from another to the self. Increased self-knowledge would result in more psychological self-descriptions so this relates to the idea of developmental progression being demonstrated in children’s self-descriptions. This study is based on Rosenberg’s research and is an analysis and interpretation of interview data. Children’s responses are allocated to Rosenberg’s categories in order to answer the research question: Do children’s self-descriptions show evidence of a developmental trend? This study will focus on answers to the ‘Who Am I?’ statements but will also pay attention to further interview responses to understand differences in the way children of different ages self-evaluate, view themselves and others and conceptualise an ideal self. This study also examines the concept of a locus of self-knowledge and asks: Does a child’s locus of self-knowledge shift from other to self with age? Method Design Rosenberg’s research design is employed in this study the responses from a semi-structured interview are compared. Participants The participants are Annie (8) and Kirsty (16), pupils from schools in the Milton Keynes area. They were recruited by the ED209 course team who asked school teachers for help in identifying willing participants. Materials A microphone and a video-recorder were used to amplify and record the interviews. Rosenberg’s semi-structured interview, with questions on self-description, self-evaluation, self and others, ideal self and locus-of self-knowledge was used. A sheet of A4 with the words ‘Who Am I?’ printed at the top and ten numbered lines beginning with ‘I’ was provided to enable participants to complete the written exercise. Adaptations of Rosenberg’s categories were used to analyse the responses to the Who Am I? exercise. The analysis of the ‘Who Am I?’ statements was presented on category analysis forms (appendix 1). A consent form was provided for the parents of the children to sign. Procedure The interviews took place in May 2005 during the day. Both children were interviewed by members of the ED209 course team in familiar rooms used by the schools. Annie was accompanied by a classroom assistant. The participants were told that they could stop the interviews at any time and were briefed as to the purpose of the research. A sound recordist and producer were present but efforts were made to ensure that neither they nor the equipment used inhibited the participants. Background noise was occasionally intrusive and recording halted. The final recording of the interviews was edited to ensure a smooth flow. The recorded interviews were listened to several times. The ‘Who Am I?’ statements were identified and transferred onto a pre-prepared category analysis form (appendix 1). The categories, Physical, Character, Relationships and Inner, were adapted from Rosenberg’s (see appendix 2). Each sentence read out by the interviewer was taken to constitute one statement. The statements were then coded. To ensure coding consistency, each statement was reviewed against the criteria for the inner category, then relationships, then character and then physical. Only if there was no way it could be said to fit within the ‘higher’ category was it pushed down. Even if it may have fitted within two categories, the fact that an order of review was applied meant that it would not be considered for a second category if it had already been allocated. Once the categories had been applied, the responses in each column were added up and the percentages calculated so that the results could be compared with Rosenberg’s findings. Next the detailed responses to the interview questions, including the locus of self-knowledge questions, were analysed in the context of Rosenberg’s research findings. The responses of the children were analysed to see if the same patterns were present. Ethics The data collected by the Open University ED209 course team was intended to comply with the BPS ethical code and principles. The children agreed to take part and their parents signed consent forms on their behalf. At the start of each interview the children were informed of their right to withdraw from the research and were told that they could ask for the recording to be stopped at any time. The purpose of the research and they way in which the data would be used was explained to them before the interviews began. Results The first research question was: Do children’s self-descriptions show evidence of a developmental trend? The second research question was: Does a child’s locus of self-knowledge shift from other to self with age? Table 1 shows a comparison between Annie and Kirsty’s self-descriptions. It shows that the majority (60%) of descriptors used by the younger child are about physical characteristics and activities and the remainder are character descriptors. She makes no reference to relationships or inner qualities. The majority of the older child’s responses relate to inner qualities (50%). She spreads the remainder of her descriptions across the physical, character and relationship categories. Self Evaluation When discussing their strengths and weaknesses, Kirsty focused far more on character and relationship descriptions than Annie, who focused on physical attributes, particularly for her weak points (‘my ears my legs’). However, Annie counted her friends as a strength and the fact that she likes ‘being myself’. Self and Others Annie’s awareness of similarity to others in her age group was centred on having the same likes and dislikes. She also identified differences between herself and others in this way. Kirsty talked about having the same experiences as others her own age but identified character and inner traits as distinguishing her from others. Ideal Self Annie’s notion of herself in later life was focused upon what job she might do and how else her time may be spent. Kirsty focused on the character traits that she hoped to have developed. Locus of Self-Knowledge The locus of self-knowledge responses were not straightforward as both participants gave ambiguous answers at times. Annie conceded that in some ways her mother would know her better than she knew herself and Kirsty insisted that her mother knew her just as well as she did herself. Discussion In the ‘Who Am I?’ data, it can be seen that, in accordance with Rosenberg’s findings, the majority (60%) of descriptors used by the younger child are about physical characteristics and activities. Rosenberg found that older children are more likely to use character traits to define the self. In this analysis, Kirsty actually uses a lower percentage of character descriptors than Annie, but this is influenced by the large percentage of inner descriptors used. The data in this study supports Rosenberg’s finding that older children referred more frequently to relationships. He also noticed that older children were more likely to reference inner qualities, which can be seen by the high percentage of Kirsty’s inner descriptors (50%). For the main part, the analysis of the self-description data supports Rosenberg’s findings. Rosenberg found that older children focused on interpersonal traits when describing their strengths and weaknesses. Kirsty’s responses follow this pattern but Annie also mentioned the large number of friends she has as a strength. She also said that ‘being myself’ was a strength which was interesting. The interviewer explored this a little more and she seemed to revert back to describing preferred activities. Further prompting, however, may have ascertained that by ‘being myself’ she meant that she was confident about who she was, which would be a character description. It is difficult to tell at this point if Annie lacks the ability to explain what she means which may affect the results. Rosenberg found that only 36% of 8 year olds mentioned interpersonal traits when talking about the person they would like to become, compared with 69% of 14-16 year olds. Annie and Kirsty’s responses fall into the majority pattern for their age group. Analysis of the data provides a positive answer to the research question, Do children’s self-descriptions show evidence of a developmental trend? The developmental trend as identified by Bannister and Agnew, Harter and Rosenberg, is characterised by younger children relying on physical attributes when describing themselves and older children being able to use more sophisticated and complex descriptions that focus more on psychological characteristics. The data in this study largely supports this theory. The evidence for the locus-of-self-knowledge shifting from other to self with age (as Rosenberg found) is less obvious. When asked about who knows her best at school Annie identifies teachers and parents as being the best judge of her performance, which supports the idea that the locus of self-knowledge in young children rests with another. However, when questioned further about who would be right if they had different answers about Annie’s maths performance, Annie’s responses indicate that she is the best judge of her ability. However, when questioned about her behaviour at home she places the locus of self-knowledge with her mother. Kirsty, somewhat surprisingly given her high percentage of references to inner qualities (indicating high self- knowledge), believes that her mother would know her just as well as she knows herself and explains that her mum has ‘pretty much figured me out’. She decides that any differences in answers about how she would behave at home would be a matter of different interpretations. It is possible that Kirsty is unsure about what is being asked and a reformulation of the questions might provoke different responses. Although Kirsty does not exactly place the locus of self-knowledge within herself, she does not place it with someone else either, and so the data does not, in itself, contradict Rosenberg’s theory. The analysis of the locus of self-knowledge responses produces some support for Rosenberg’s findings but it is not conclusive. However, it is important to remember that this is a sample of only two participants and so the data is not enough to prove or disprove his theory. Another limitation of this study is that the coding reliability was not checked. Coding was applied according to one person’s interpretation. Had the coding of the data been interpreted differently results may have been different for the self-descriptions data (see appendix 3 for alternative coding of Kirsty’s responses. In this instance the evidence in favour of a developmental trend in self-descriptions is present but less compelling). Another consideration lies with the ethics of the research. The issue of informed consent is often difficult in research with children. In the case of a young child, such as Annie, it is not clear that she fully understands the nature of the research, despite the fact that it is described in simpler terms than those used to explain it to Kirsty. It is also possible that the power-imbalance between the interviewers and the participants may prevent them from withdrawing from the interview, even if they are told that they can. Conclusion The results of this study provide support for the idea of a developmental progression in the way that children describe themselves, particularly the analysis of the ‘Who Am I?’ data. Qualitative analysis of the other interview questions, however, while showing some support for Rosenberg’s theory, also presents some deviation from expectations.