SOCIAL PHOBIA IN MIDDLE CHILDHOOD & ADOLESCENCE

     In today’s society, there are numerous issues that children of middle age (6-11 Years) may have to face while going through this particular stage of developmental growth. One specific disorder that I have chosen for further review and/or discussion is “Social Phobia.” There are several children who have previously or are currently living with this devastating and life altering disorder. One major symptom of this disorder which can be observed during middle childhood is the total lack of interest or desire to associate with other children, adults and/or teachers. If untreated during this age span, social phobia can also be carried in to the next stage of developmental growth, which is known as adolescence (12-18 Years).

According to (Bukatko, D. 2008, p. 532) many “believe that adolescence is a time of storm and stress, emotional turmoil and extreme moodiness” therefore, as a parent or other caregiver, it is crucial to offer valid and beneficial information when communicating with a teenager about his or her mental thought processes.  Some of these thought processes include disclosure of personal opinion, individual emotions, beliefs and/or values. These issues can also negatively affect an adolescents overall developmental growth if they are not discussed openly in a safe and loving environment. However, the reality is that as a society we are so busy with work and home related duties that sometimes the child’s voice goes unheard for several years during crucial stages of developmental growth. This work will discuss a much broader review about abnormal developmental growth relating to social phobia by addressing these written publications:

1. Bronfenbrenner’s Ecological System’s Theory

2. Sigmund Freud’s Theory of Psychosexual Development

3. Social phobia in youth: The diagnostic utility of feared social situations.

Bronfenbrenner’s Ecological System’s Theory

According to (p. Bukatko, 2008, p. 28), Bronfenbrenner’s Ecological System’s Theory suggests that “development is influenced by experiences arising from broader social and cultural systems as well as a child’s immediate surroundings.” This means that a child’s overall development is determined not only through an individual biological and psychological makeup but also his or her family members, school, friends, neighborhood, and many other factors. According to his Ecological Model, the following four influential interrelated levels along with bidirectional and reciprocal relationships may occur and affect both middle childhood and/or adolescent stages of developmental growth:

MICROSYSTEM – This is determined by the child’s physical and social environment. It includes his or her home, family members, schooling, and neighborhood which the child will experience on a regular basis. If any of these factors are often negative or under-developed, then it could cause the child to withdraw from that portion of society and/or environment. Over time, this continuous or sporadic withdrawal may than cause periods of social phobia.  
MESOSYSTEM – This depicts all of the opportunities and expectations within the family unit. One example of how this level may negatively affect a child is if parents separate and he or she is forced to move between homes. The child may than find it difficult to relate to or build normal social relationships, due to experiencing abnormal or discontinued one’s at home. This could also cause the child to withdraw from peers in some or all social situations. If this peer avoidance continues for a long period of time, he or she could than develop social phobia. 
EXOSYSTEM – This includes factors which relate to a parent’s social, economic, political, religious and/or other environmental settings. An example of this could be if a parent takes work frustrations out directly on the child. The child could mentally process this frustration as possible personal anger or rejection. Over time, the child could start to gain an uneasy mistrust toward that parent which could than cause an uncontrollable desire to withdraw from that particular individual. If the child continuously spends time in his or her room versus with that parent, then he or she may also acquire social phobia.

MACROSYSTEM – This includes all of the influential attitudes within the child’s culture. According to (Bukatko, D. 2008, p. 337), one example is “gender stereotypes are the expectations or beliefs that individuals within a given culture hold about the characteristics of women and men.” There are also two different classifications among gender stereotypes. These are known as “Instrumental” for males and “expressive” for females. Parents may also inevitably instill these cultural beliefs upon their children. These beliefs may then become a permanent part of their child’s mental development. Two examples of gender stereotypes that parents may believe and therefore instill are that males should be masculine and out spoken or that females should be dainty and soft spoken. If a child learns these beliefs but sexual preference or personal opinion differs, than this could cause him or her to avoid the individual loved ones who think differently. This avoidance and/or sense of non-belonging could cause eventual social phobia. This social phobia could also lead to a more severe mental disorder, if left untreated.

Although, Bronfenbrenner’s Ecological System’s Theory does have different levels which determine a child’s overall development, there are similar factors within all four, which could cause a disorder like social phobia. These are the environmental influences which include family, friends, school, education, and other factors that determine a child’s whole self and being. One example of similar influence that could cause social phobia is that this lack of normal developmental growth may occur due to people who are continuously involved with the child. There are also several different unique distinctions which define each of the developmental levels within this model and could cause social phobia. These obvious differences also occur when a child moves from one level of development to another. One example of this is that a child will experience higher levels of individual expectations during the mesosystem versus the microsystem. If these expectations within the mesosystem are higher than those of the microsystem then the child may not experience social phobia until that level occurs.

Sigmund Freud’s Theory of Psychosexual Development

Although, there are several child development theories which exist, I believe that Sigmund Freud’s Theory of Psychosexual Development really compliments Bronfenbrenner’s Ecological Theory when considering how the lack of normal developmental growth, may cause disorders such as social phobia. My reason for this is because Freud’s theory was based on 5 stages of childhood sexuality which may create and/or initiate many facets of a child’s overall personality. According to his theory, during stages 4 and 5 these mental processes occur:

4th. LATENCY PERIOD – starts at five years of age (or middle childhood) to adolescence and is a period when his or her libidinal energy is either submerged or possibly expressed.

5th. GENITAL – this starts during adolescence and it will continue through adulthood. During this time, mature genital satisfaction will or will not occur.

After learning more details about Freud’s 4^th and 5^th stages, I really think that his theory appears to be extremely rational when discussing how an adolescent could acquire social phobia at least toward the opposite sex. This is because, if the child misses the opportunity to experience both of these crucial stages in a normal healthy manner, than he or she may not develop the mental ability to understand and comprehend the true concept of social and/or sexual interaction. The growing adolescent may then carry his or her misconstrued way of thinking well in to adulthood.   

Social phobia in youth: The diagnostic utility of feared social situations

One other specific article which further addressed that children may suffer from disorders such as social phobia is called, Social phobia in youth: The diagnostic utility of feared social situations. According to (Puliafico, Comer, Kendall, Philip, 2007. p. 1), “Research indicates that 1%–9% of the general youth population and up to 32% of clinical child samples meet social phobia (SP) criteria.” A comprehensive study was conducted and the results determined that there are several children and/or parents who suffer from fear during normal social situations or activities. This article also confirmed my theory that social phobia is a widespread childhood disorder, which needs further research in an effort to offer increased mass awareness and aide.  

After reviewing the previous information, it is apparent that there have been several theories and other valuable resources which address how social phobia may occur due to abnormal developmental stages of growth. Three of these more valid and viable sources are Bronfenbrenner’s Ecological System’s Theory, Sigmund Freud’s Theory of Psychosexual Development, and Social phobia in youth: The diagnostic utility of feared social situations. My ultimate goal for this written work was to also bring awareness to those who may need further information about the devastating and life altering childhood disorder known as social phobia. I also hope that this information might help those who may have a child and/or loved one who is showing symptoms of this mental disorder. This way, an immediate intervention might be conducted and the child will get the desperate help that he or she needs before it’s too late.

  

References:

Bukatko, D. (2008) Child and adolescent development, a chronological approach. Ohio; Cengage Learning. 

Kaplan Course Page (2010) Child and Adolescent Psychology: Unit 3/Theories of Child Development: Key Concepts 2. Retrieved on February 17, 2011 at http://kucourses.com

US: American Psychological Association. “Social phobia in youth: The diagnostic utility of feared social situations.” Puliafico, Anthony C.; Comer, Jonathan S.; Kendall, Philip C.; Psychological Assessment, Vol 19 (1) Mar, 2007. Retrieved from the Kaplan Library: PsycARTICLES.    

WHAT IS QUANTITATIVE & QUALITATIVE INQUIRY?

     For several years, researchers, scholars, psychologists and many other professionals have been trying to determine if quantitative or qualitative methods of inquiry are best. This difference in varied opinion has also caused a major debate within the scientific community. This is because collecting and analyzing data with each of these methods, can acquire varying results. When collecting quantitative data, the researcher will focus on numbers and it may include audio recordings, videos, photos and more. This method can also be beneficial when a researcher wants to determine the why and how that is associated with an inquiry. Those who support this method also believe that the acquired data is credible, scientific, hard and rigorous. However, when collecting qualitative data, the researcher will focus on words and the results can include statistical information. This method is best when a researcher wants to determine the what, who and when that is associated with an inquiry. Those who support this method also believe that the data is detailed, contextual, sensitive and nuanced compared to that of quantitative method.

One other major factor that initiates this debate is that “in quantitative research, the researcher is ideally an objective observer that neither participates in nor influences what is being studied. In qualitative research, however, it is thought that the researcher can learn the most about a situation by participating and/or being immersed in it” (Writing@CSU. 1993-2003).

With this in mind, the following paper provides several aspects that are associated with each of these inquiry methods. Some of these include the approaches and techniques that are used, along with individual strengths and weaknesses. One other major issue that has been addressed is how credibility can be an issue when conducting an inquiry. This includes the credibility of a researcher and which method is most credible within the scientific community. 

Approaches and techniques that are used for each method

     One other major reason that the quantitative versus qualitative debate may exist is because different approaches and/or data collection techniques are used for each method. According to (Griffin. 2001), “quantitative research is generally defined as four types: true experimental, quasi-experimental, ex post facto, and correlational” (p.1). The techniques that will be used are also based on statistics. The most common method of data collection is “surveys” which can be administered by one’s self or another individual. One other great thing about this technique is that they can be completed via face-to-face, mail, online or by telephone. A second technique that may be used is “questionnaires” and according to (Dawson, C. 2002. p.32), “there are three basic types of questionnaire – closed-ended, open-ended or a combination of both.” A third technique that can be used for quantitative inquiry is administration of pre-post tests. This can be beneficial because it may provide data that was collected prior to and after the inquiry. This is important because certain data can change over time and therefore, may affect the overall results of the inquiry.

When using the qualitative method, common approaches are grounded theory, ethnography, critical social research, foundational research, ethical inquiry, phenomenology, historical research, and philosophical research. The techniques are also non-statistical. One specific data collection technique is “interviews” which can be done to acquire data that offers lengthy details concerning individual opinion, experiences, and/or behaviors. This method can also be very beneficial if a researcher wants to inquire about complex or sensitive subject matter. According to (Patton. 2001), “interviews are interventions. They affect people. A good interview lays open thoughts, feelings, knowledge, and experience, not only to the interviewer but also to the interviewee. The process of being taken through a directed, reflective process affects the persons being interviewed and leaves them knowing things about themselves that they didn’t know- or at least were not fully aware of-before the interview” (p. 405). Since, this is the case, a good interviewer will consider what ethical codes may be pertinent to ensure that the interviewee is treated with respect and protected from further harm. A second technique that can be used is “focus groups.” This can include a small number of people who are non-randomly selected to share relevant experiences which are related to the inquiry. This can also be beneficial because it is a great way to generate possible ideas, strategies, definitions of a problem, or solutions among a small group. One other benefit of this technique is that may acquire more information than an interview can. A third technique that may be used in qualitative inquiry is “observations.” This can be used when a researcher wants to simply observe participants rather than question them. This is important in research because it can offer several benefits within the field of inquiry. One specific benefit may include the opportunity to better understand certain child or adult behavior/s. A second benefit of using this technique is that it can identify outcomes that were initially unanticipated.

Strengths and weaknesses of each method

     Since, there are many differences between quantitative and qualitative methods and/or techniques there are also times when “thinking about design alternatives and methods choices leads directly to consideration of the relative strengths and weaknesses of qualitative and quantitative data” (Patton. 2009. p. 13). This is a concern because these factors can ultimately determine which method should be used for the inquiry. One example of what a researcher may question during this process is which method can address several questions in less depth or only one question in greater depth. With this in mind, some specific strengths and weaknesses associated with quantitative and qualitative methods are as follows:

Quantitative strengths - This can produce data that is based on the reactions of many participants so the findings can be generalized to the overall population or community. The data that is collected with this method can also be easy to analyze, consistent, reliable and precise. One other major strength of this method is that it may save time and be cost efficient for the researcher/s.

Quantitative weaknesses - When using this method, secondary or follow up data is not available. It may be difficult or impossible for the researcher to access data that is available. One other major weakness with this method is that the collected data may lack breadth and depth.

Qualitative strengths - Qualitative methods can produce data which has greater breadth and depth concerning the topic of inquiry. The results may complement and refine any quantitative data that might be acquired during the inquiry. One other major strength of this method is that there are multiple methods that can be used to address sensitive subjects.

Qualitative weaknesses - Results usually can’t be generalized to the overall population or community because data is gathered from fewer participants. The data that is collected with this method can also be difficult to analyze, lack consistency, reliability and precision. One other major weakness of this method is that it may be time consuming and costly for the researcher/s.

Can quantitative and qualitative methods be combined to create one integrated inquiry?

     When conducting an inquiry, if a researcher evaluates these method techniques, strengths and weaknesses, but still can’t determine which is best, it is possible to combine them. Many researchers and other professionals also agree that combining quantitative and qualitative techniques should be done because it can utilize the strengths associated with both methods. When this is completed it is known as a mixed method inquiry. Following this process can also produce a more comprehensive and in depth inquiry.  

How does credibility affect the inquiry process?

     Credibility and acceptance in the scientific community - According to (Moore. 1999-2012), “in general, conclusions reached through quantitative research tend to be more specific and detailed than those reached through qualitative research. This is because qualitative research often starts out without a specific goal in mind, while quantitative research sets out to prove a hypothesis. In this way, quantitative results tend to be more "scientific" than qualitative results. However, qualitative research is often used to set up a quantitative inquiry” (p. 1).

The philosophical belief in the value of qualitative inquiry may also lead to questions of credibility. This is because some people in the scientific community may possess a strong fundamental appreciation for qualitative methods, inductive analysis, naturalistic inquiry, purposeful sampling, qualitative methods, and holistic thinking. When this is the case, issues with credibility may apply because these individuals want to ensure and protect their fundamental beliefs and/or principles. 

Credibility and the researcher - When conducting a quantitative or qualitative inquiry, it is very important to establish credibility so the results can be viewed as more viable and/or valuable in the field of science. However, there are times when this factor can become an issue due to researcher qualifications or inquiry results. This can also occur because there is no universal agreement among all people due to varying opinions, emotions, feelings, ideas and solutions.

One example is if a researcher conducted qualitative inquiry to address a topic of interest, but certain data and/or results cause skepticism among critics. In this case, it would be necessary to defend certain aspects of one’s inquiry approach, framework, methodology and/or results. A researcher could also accomplish this by providing data that supports 5 sets of criteria for judging quality and credibility of qualitative inquiry. These sets of criteria are as follows:

1. Traditional scientific research criteria - This includes validity, reliability, results that determined consistency of findings across methods and data sources, triangulation, the strength of evidence associated with a hypothesis when inquiry is combined with quantitative data, contributions to the theory and generalizability.  

2. Social construction and constructivist criteria - This includes enhanced or a deeper understanding, subjectivity, authenticity, reflexivity, particularity, praxis, capturing and respecting multiple perspectives via triangulation, trustworthiness, and contributions to dialogue.

3. Artistic and evocative criteria - This includes creativity, aesthetic quality, interpretive vitality, whether it was stimulating, level of connection with audience, level of expressiveness, and if it flows from self.

4. Critical change criteria - Some of these may include critical perspective, consequential validity, whether I presented potential change-making strategies, whether I made a collaborative and respectful effort to engage those peers who may have less power, and identified the nature and possible sources of certain inequalities and injustices.

5. Evaluation standards and principals - Certain peers may disagree with some of these aspects which are utility, ensuring responsibility to the general public, integrity, honesty, propriety, evaluator competence, fairness, accuracy, feasibility, and it is a systematic inquiry. During this overall process, the researcher would also need to keep an open mind and listen to all feedback by others. This is because some people could offer constructive criticism that proves or disproves certain aspects of the inquiry. This crucial information could also be used to try and increase the overall strength and/or viability of one’s overall work.

Conclusion

     Researchers, scholars, psychologists and other professionals have tried to determine if quantitative or qualitative methods of inquiry work best. This difference in opinion has also caused a major debate within the scientific community for many years. One reason for this data is due to the fact that both of these methods use different approaches and data collection techniques to acquire data. When collecting quantitative data, the researcher will focus on numbers and it can be beneficial to determine the why and how that is associated with an inquiry. Many who support this method believe that the results are credible, scientific, hard and rigorous. However, when collecting qualitative data, the researcher will focus on words and it can be used to determine the what, who and when that is associated with an inquiry. Supporters of this method also believe that the results are detailed, contextual, sensitive and nuanced compared to that of quantitative method. One other major factor that may be causing this debate is that in quantitative research, the researcher is objective but in qualitative research, the researcher is subjective. Since this is the case, my paper addressed several aspects concerning these inquiry methods. Some of these included which approaches and techniques are used, along with individual strengths and weaknesses. One other major issue that was addressed is how credibility may be an issue when conducting an inquiry. This included why the credibility of a researcher is important and which method is most credible and accepted within the scientific community. 

References:

Dawson, C. (2002). Practical research methods: A user-friendly guide to mastering research techniques and projects. Oxford, England: How to Books Ltd.

Patton, M.Q. (2001). Qualitative research & evaluation methods. Sage Publications.

Moore, M. (2012). Qualitative Vs. Quantitative Research Differences. Retrieved via the World Wide Web at http://www.ehow.com/info_8094966_qualitative-vs-quantitative-research-differences.html

Writing@CSU: The Qualitative versus Quantitative Debate (1993-2012). Retrieved via the World Wide Web at http://writing.colostate.edu/guides/research/gentrans/pop2f.cfm

Griffin, W. B. (2000). Quantitative Research Matrix. Retrieved via the World Wide Web at http://coe.georgiasouthern.edu/foundations/bwgriffin/edur7130/quantitative_research_matrix.htm

ADDRESSING EVOLUTIONARY PSYCHOLOGY & DEPRESSION

     Several years ago a man named Darwin founded the theory of evolution. In his research, he stated that “organisms” inherit physical structures via their parents. However, over the last 10-15 years, researchers have been laying a foundation which explains the theory evolutionary psychology. This states that not only are physical structures inherited but so are several psychological systems and tendencies which include, an individual’s emotions. According to this theory we are also continuously evolving both physically and psychological from the previous living and/or social environments of our ancestors.

The evolutionary psychology model also has a definition that may explain why certain emotional disturbances like depression, can affect so many individuals. Therefore, the goal of this work is to further examine this issue by reviewing how the evolutionary psychology model defines and explains depression, along with whether I agree or disagree with this theoretical belief and/or research finding.

HOW DOES THE EP THEORY DEFINE AND HELP EXPLAIN DEPRESSION?

     According to (Carey, 2005. p. 215), the Evolutionary Psychology model defines depression as  “a species-wide evolved suite of emotional programmes that are mostly activated by a perception, almost always over-negative, of a major decline in personal usefulness, that can sometimes be linked to guilt, shame or perceived rejection.” This means that people can experience depression due to a number of factors which can include psychological and/or physical demands that are not fulfilled. If the individual then begins to believe that he or she is not competent or capable enough to meet and face all of these obligations then negative feelings of self worthlessness could become a symptom. If other negative feelings about ones’ self are combined with self worthlessness, then full blown depression may be the result and/or diagnosis.    

Therefore, this model helps explain that people suffer from depression by conveying that disorders like this usually occur due to an individual’s underlying negative thoughts about themselves. There are also many times when these thoughts will start due to a direct result of unmet expectations within one’s living and/or social environment, along with possible inherited emotional make-ups.

DO I AGREE WITH THIS EXPLANATION?

     After learning more about how the evolutionary psychology model defines and explains depression, I fully agree with this theoretical belief and/or research finding. This is because there have been several times when I have experienced moments of depression within my own life. These feelings did occur because I felt that I was not the person that others expected. This also applied to different employment positions that I have obtained and due to obligations that were expected by loved ones. My initial thoughts were that I may not be intelligent enough to complete certain tasks according to the high standards that others had set or loving enough to provide all of the emotional support that is expected by each and every family member. There were also several times, when I found it difficult to balance these demands and instantly experienced severe feelings of shame, guilt, hopelessness and social embarrassment.

One other example of how this model and/or theory could apply in normal society is to explain why there are so many cases of suicide among teens. These young impressionable beings begin to feel symptoms of depression due to what others think or expect from them. During this period, these kids may also be experiencing serious physical harm at the hands of their abusers. These negative feelings can than propel to such a high level that the teen begins to believe that the only solution is to end such a useless life. I personally think that this is an act of total desperation and theories like this are also a valuable resource to explain such a devastating social phenomenon.

SUMMARY

     As previous stated, several years ago a man named Darwin founded the theory of evolution. According to this theory, he believed that all organisms will inherit physical structures directly from their parents. Over the last 10-15 years, researchers have also considered this theory along with laying a foundation to create evolutionary psychology. This theory states that both physical and psychological structures like emotions may also be inherited. According to this theory, another reason for this is because we are continuously evolving both physically and psychological from the previous living and/or social environments of our ancestors.

I also provided how the evolutionary psychology model defines depression, along with a comprehensive explanation about why this occurs to individuals. After reviewing this detailed information, I was than able to determine whether or not I agree or disagree with this theoretical belief and/or research finding. Once I made this determination, I was than able to state my opinion by applying the information to my own life experience and one major social issue. 
Overall, I believe that the evolutionary psychology theory and/or model could be an extremely useful tool to properly understand why depression can affect so many individuals. This is because many of us do judge who we are, based on the opinions, daily demands, and high expectations of people around us. We than subconsciously utilize this interpreted data within almost every aspect of our lives. If this data is positive then chances are we will make positive choices, however, if this data is viewed as negative, then it can cause devastating results.

Reference:

Carey J. T. (2005). Evolution, Depression & Counseling, Theory and Practice. Counseling Psychology Quarterly. Retrieved on October 19 2011 via the Kaplan University Library.