1.A.4
Development across the lifespan: risk, protection and timing
ASPPB's competency statement 1.A.4: Development and change across the lifespan (e.g., typical and atypical, individual-environment interaction, risk or protective factors), including the influence of diverse identities, family development, life events, disorders, or diseases
This statement covers typical and atypical development from infancy to old age, the interplay of person and environment, and the risk and protective factors that shift a person's course. Psychologists use developmental knowledge to judge whether a behavior is expected for age, to read what a risk factor does and does not predict, and to plan support that builds on the ordinary systems that protect development.
Key ideas
- Developmental sequences
- Many abilities emerge in a broadly consistent order. A meta-analysis of false-belief tasks found that preschoolers move from below-chance to above-chance understanding that others can hold mistaken beliefs, across countries and task versions, so a younger preschooler's errors are expected.
- Cumulative risk
- Adverse childhood experiences (ACEs), such as abuse or household dysfunction, show a graded relationship with adult health: the more categories of exposure, the higher the rates of depression, substance misuse, suicide attempts and several chronic diseases.
- Group versus individual prediction
- A risk factor that shifts group averages can still sort individuals poorly. In two birth cohorts, ACE scores forecast group differences in later health but had poor accuracy in predicting which individuals would develop health problems.
- Resilience
- Positive adaptation despite adversity is common and usually arises from ordinary human adaptive systems, such as relationships with caring adults and growing self-regulation. The greatest threats to development are adversities that damage those protective systems.
- Sensitive periods
- The timing of experience matters. In a randomized trial, young children moved from institutions into foster care showed better cognitive outcomes than those who stayed, and the gains were most marked for children placed youngest.
Worked example
A pediatric practice plans to give every family an ACE questionnaire and refer only children with a score of 4 or more to an intensive home-visiting program, reasoning that these are the children who will develop problems. The practice asks a consulting psychologist to review the plan.
- Acknowledge what the evidence shows: across a population, higher ACE counts go with higher rates of later mental and physical health problems.
- Separate group from individual prediction: in cohort studies ACE scores predicted individual outcomes with poor accuracy, so many children above the cut-off will do well and many below it will struggle.
- Bring in protection: resilience usually comes from ordinary supports, so the plan should look at current relationships and functioning, not only at a count of past events.
- Recommend a sounder design: offer support based on current needs and functioning, use ACE information as context in conversation, and evaluate whether the program improves outcomes.
A risk factor that raises a group's rates is not a forecast for any one child.
Check yourself
A father is worried because his 3-year-old, after watching a puppet leave the room and a toy then be moved to a new box, says the puppet will look for the toy in the new box. What is the best interpretation?
Sources
- Wellman, Cross and Watson (2001), Meta-analysis of theory-of-mind development: the truth about false belief, Child Development (PMID 11405571), Abstract
- Felitti, Anda, Nordenberg and colleagues (1998), Relationship of childhood abuse and household dysfunction to many of the leading causes of death in adults: the Adverse Childhood Experiences (ACE) Study, American Journal of Preventive Medicine (PMID 9635069), Abstract, Results and Conclusions
- Baldwin, Caspi, Meehan and colleagues (2021), Population vs individual prediction of poor health from results of adverse childhood experiences screening, JAMA Pediatrics (PMID 33492366), Abstract, Results and Conclusions
- Masten (2001), Ordinary magic: resilience processes in development, American Psychologist (PMID 11315249), Abstract and whole article (protective systems)
- Nelson, Zeanah, Fox, Marshall, Smyke and Guthrie (2007), Cognitive recovery in socially deprived young children: the Bucharest Early Intervention Project, Science (PMID 18096809), Abstract
- Piaget and Inhelder (1969), The Psychology of the Child, Chapters on object permanence and conservation