Language and Theory of Mind

Introduction
In an article written by Michael Corballis (2004), autonomous speech is considered as a critical factor in how humans became modern. The article focuses on the development of language from one that was dependent on manual and facial gestures to one that is autonomously vocal. But is autonomous speech no longer dependent on manual and facial gestures and completely autonomous? To answer this question one must look closely at the origins of modern language and the interwoven relationships involved in language acquisition. A possible alternative to Corballis’ (2004) theory of autonomous speech is the theory that modern language is still dependent on manual and facial gestures; however mental evolution created an interwoven relationship between language, a secondary representation and covert imitation. The present meta-analysis examines literature that explains how human cognition is different from nonhuman animals in an attempt to find the missing link in cognition that led to the evolution of language.

Origins of Language
It is believed that modern language began with a primitive use of symbols without grammatical structure called protolanguage (Bickerton, 1995, as cited in Corballis, 2004). “Protolanguage is roughly equivalent to the level of language demonstrated by a 2-year-old child or a person with Broca’s aphasia” (p.544). Corballis (2004) makes a distinction between the evolution of language and the evolution of speech. He states that the evolution of language began with the mirror neurons. In monkeys the mirror neurons are located in area F5, which is equivalent to the area of the human brain known as the Broca’s area. The mirror neurons in monkeys were shown to respond not only when the monkey makes a particular movement but also when it observes the same movement performed by another monkey (Rizzolatti, Fadiga, Gallese, & Fogassi, 1996, as cited in Corballis, 2004). But the mirror neurons in humans are different.
The mirror neurons in humans are not object dependent (Rizzolatti et al., 2001; as cited in Corballis, 2004) and may reflect a more abstract representational system. The mirror neurons are predominantly left hemispheric, as is the control of speech and are shown to be active when people “read” speech from facial gestures. The mirror neurons in humans would have the ability to interpret gestures into audible sounds, which could have evolved into words and even complete sentences (Corballis, 2004). But rather than autonomous speech being a human invention, it might have been the result of a genetic mutation.
The FOXP2 gene (forkhead box P2) on chromosome 7 is believed to play a role in incorporating speech into the mirror system of humans. A point mutation on the FOXP2 gene appears to be responsible for a speech and language disorder found in three generations of the KE family (Corballis, 2004). This gene has been called the “grammar gene” (Pinker, 1994, as cited in Corballis, 2004), however, the core deficit was seen in the articulation of phonological units. Further research has shown that subjects who carried the R328X mutation, a “nonsense” mutation on the FOXP2 gene different than the mutation carried by some of the KE family, had severe problems with communication (MacDermot et al. 2005). A closer look at the FOXP2 gene finds no evidence for its role in the evolution of vocal learning in non-humans (Webb, 2005) and found no association between the FOXP2 gene and autistic disorder (Gong et al. 2004), which also shows severe problems with communication. Perhaps the mutation of the FOXP2 gene allows us to examine the relationship between the mirror neurons and the representational skills involved in the evolution of language and theory of mind.
Thomas Suddendorf and Andrew Whiten (2001), explained how “a gradual rise of representational redescription may have made representations ever more explicit, enabled the development of a representational theory of mind, and to invent language” (p. 644). By using Perner’s (1991) representational capacities Suddendorf and Whiten tried to bridge the cognitive gap between humans and our closest relatives. Perner’s three stage model consists of a primary representation, a secondary representation, and a metarepresentation. In the first stage infants are limited to see things in reality. In the second stage children are able to take a primary representation of an object and go beyond reality to model hypothetical situations. A child no longer sees the banana as just a banana; now the banana could represent a phone or a gun. Pretend play becomes very important to the child. The final step in Perner’s representational model is metarepresentation which refers to representing a representation as a representation (Perner, 1991, as cited in Suddendorf et al., 2001). Theory of mind would only appear as a result of acquiring metarepresentations. Rather than focusing on the third stage, Suddendorf and Whiten compared secondary representations of humans with other animals.
Previous studies suggested that theory of mind was built around the pillar of false beliefs (Premack et al, 1978, as cited in Suddendorf, 2001), which would only be available for those animals that are capable of metarepresentations. These studies also showed no evidence of false beliefs in nonhuman primates (Call & Tomasello, 1999, as cited in Suddendorf, 2001). Suddendorf and Whiten (2001) suggest that the acquisition of theory of mind could be better understood through the representational capacities that lead up to a representational theory of mind. Perner’s (1991) secondary representation could also enhance our knowledge of representational capacities that lead up to language acquisition, such as hidden displacement and means-ends reasoning
In Piaget’s hidden displacement task, an object such as a ball is placed under a small box; which is then placed under a larger box. The small box reemerges empty. Perner (1991, as cited in Suddendorf, 2001) argued that in order for a child to pass this stage of object permanence one must not only have a present representation (an empty box), but also have a past or secondary representation of an object in the small box under the larger box. A child would also need to have this ability of representing the present objects as well as the past objects when using language. Perhaps passing a hidden displacement task is the precursor to understanding the causal relationship between present or recent representations objects and representations of objects in the past.
Another example of a secondary representational model is found in means-ends reasoning where one must be able to not only hold a present representation or primary perception in mind; but also a secondary representation of a desired goal. Then one must mentally manipulate the primary representation before acting on the environment (Suddendorf, 2001). Corballis (2004) used this means-end reasoning to explain how autonomous speech allows communication when obstacles intervene between the sender and the receiver. In this way, an object could be mentally represented and shared with another person. Then by sharing a secondary representation of the desired goal, pedagogy could be performed in the dark. However, both the sender and the receiver must be able to hold both representations in mind and mentally manipulate the present object to match the secondary object. But means-ends-reasoning is not only found in humans. There is substantial evidence showing that chimpanzees are able to express means-ends reasoning, as well as some evidence that gorillas and orangutans are able to use means-ends reasoning (Suddendorf, 2001). However, none of these animals have language or theory of mind. Rather than looking at the secondary representation, we need to take a closer look at how the perception of a primary representation is translated into an imitative representational model in the brain.
The Missing Link for Language
In a paper written by Margaret Wilson and Gűnther Knublich (2005), perception and imitation were examined. They found that “various brain areas involved in translating perceived human movement into corresponding motor programs collectively act as an emulator, internally simulating the ongoing perceived movement” (p.468). This emulation could then be used as overt imitation, working memory, or understanding others’ behavior. Their findings suggest that mirror neurons play a substantial role in creating covert imitations of the perceived environment. But the fact that mirror neurons are found in nonhuman primates that do not imitate and do not have theory of mind, leads one to question if the missing link in cognition is at the level of imitation or emulation. To further understand this concept we need to understand how covert imitation functions as an emulator in perceiving conspecifics.
According to Wilson and Knoblich (2005), conspecifics can be thought of as postures and actions primarily of other humans and the movements they make with their arms, legs, facial muscles, and vocal tracts. In humans these conspecifics are “covertly imitated, routinely and automatically” (p.460). One example of this can be seen in the chameleon effect showing the unconscious tendency for people to mimic the behavior of others’ or to mimic a person’s facial expression (Wilson and Knoblich, 2005). Another example of imitation comes from observing infants. “Neonates show imitation of simple facial gestures such as mouth opening and tongue protrusion”(Meltzoff & Moore, 1977; as cited in Wilson and Knoblich, 2005 p.461). Infants also show an ability to connect speech to corresponding motor representations. With these examples in mind, Wilson and Knoblich (2005) suggest that mirror neurons are an evolutionary precursor to imitation allowing humans to learn; understand other peoples’ actions, intentions and goals; and perhaps more importantly to develop a theory of mind. But mirror neurons are not enough to propel nonhuman animals to have greater cognitive abilities.
As mentioned earlier, the mirror neurons are believed to play a part in speech (Corballis, 2004). But nonhuman primates with mirror neurons do not speech or have language. Therefore there must be a second mechanism involved in language processing. “For language to be successful, users must be attuned to the functional equivalence between certain perceived and produced speech forms” and “covert imitation functions as part of a perceptual emulator, using implicit knowledge of one’s own body mechanics as a mental model to another person’s actions in real time” (Wilson, 2005, p.463). A closer look of mirror neurons in monkeys shows that the mirror neurons that respond to a hand grasping an object will also respond if the hand disappears behind a screen. This only happens if the monkey knows that there is an object behind the screen (Umilta et al., 2001; as cited in Wilson, 2005), which could suggest predictive capabilities of mirror neurons. The monkey would have a representation of the primary perception (hand with object) and without seeing the grasping action, activate the same neurons that would be activated if the monkey were to perform the same grasping behavior. Then why can’t monkeys with mirror neurons imitate?
Wilson and Knoblich (2005) state that unlike other animals humans have preexisting resources for representing the body and body movements that are perceived and covertly imitated. Evidence of this can be seen in functional MRI (magnetic resonance imaging) studies that show an activation of motor-related areas of the cortex while the subject observes movement of a hand, arm or mouth (Buccino et al., 2001; Graften, Arbib, Fadiga, & von Cramon, 2003; Rizzolatti et al., 1996; Stevens, Fonlupt, Shiffrar, & Decety, 2000; as cited in Wilson & Bnoblich, 2005). They noted however, that movements that were impossible to imitate did not activate the motor-related areas (Stevens et al., 2000; as cited in Wilson & Knoblich, 2005). Another important fact is that the mirror neurons in humans seem to be active while an action is being imitated (Buccino, Vogt, et al., 2004; as cited in Wilson & Knoblich, 2005). This alone could show that covert imitation in the mirror neuron system played a large role in the evolution of language.
In conclusion, the factors that separate humans from nonhumans are language and theory of mind. But in order to understand how these factors separated us we need to look at the basic mechanisms involved. New research on the FOXP2 gene along with research on imitation and mirror neurons allow science to breakdown language and theory of mind into experimentally tested mechanisms. Rather than viewing language and theory of mind as a philosophical leap of consciousness, science has shown that simple mechanisms such as the ability to imitate motor control would allow humans to learn language through observations. Future studies could show that covert imitation of primary and secondary representations leads to metarepresentations found in theory of mind. The missing link in cognition could be simple covert imitation.















Works Cited

Corballis, M., (2004). The origins of Modernity: Was autonomous speech the critical factor? Psychological Review. Vol. 3, No. 2, 543-552.
Gong, X., Jia, M., Ruan, Y., Shuang, M., Liu, J., Wu, S., Guo, Y., Yang, J., Ling, Y., Yang, X., and Zhang, D. (2004). Association between the FOXP2 gene and autistic disorder in Chinese population. American Journal of Medical Genetics Part B (Neuropsychiatric Genetics). 127B:113-116.
MacDermot, K., Bonora, E., Sykes, N., Coupe, A., Lai, C., Vernes, S., Vargha-Khadem, F., McKenzie, F., Smith, R., Monaco, A., and Fisher, S. (2005). Identification of FOXP2 truncation as a novel cause of developmental speech and language deficits. Am. J. Hum. Genet. 76:1074-1080.
Terrace, H., Metcalfe, J., (2005). The missing link in cognition: Origins of self-reflective consciousness. Oxford University Press. New York.
Webb, D., Zhang, J., (2005). FOXP@ in song-learning birds and vocal-learning mammals. Journal of Heredity. 96(3):212-216.
Wilson, M., & Knoblich, G., (2005). The case for motor involvement in perceiving conspecifics. Psychological Bulletin. Vol. 131, No. 3, 460-473.

Kinesics and Culture

In order to study a specific culture one must first learn the language; but verbal fluency is only one component of communication. In many cultures, non-verbal communication plays a large role in individual expression and often replaces their verbal forms in specific situations. Kinesics is the study of non-verbal communication such as gestures, body movement, facial expressions, and certain actions, that relay information from one person to another. This component of anthropological research is vital in documentation of culture elements. If the researcher overlooks this aspect of communication, the conclusion could be incorrect or not fully understood. In addition, a researcher must distinguish variations in non-verbal communication in relationship to sex, age, income level, familial status, ethnicity, or personal preferences. An example of non-verbal variations between men and women is illustrated in the documentary film of a family in Cortile Cascino.
In gathering information from the Documentary film, one would realize that an abundance of information is discovered in an extremely miniscule amount of time. This documentary centered on a family in a small Sicilian town called Cortile Cascino, located in the heart of Palermo. The environment of Cortile Cascino was relaxed while also being hectic at the same time. The women in the household performed most of the chores including laundry, childcare, cleaning, and cooking. The men of the house appeared to relax more while they were home. They were seen playing cards and socializing with other men. Italian was the only language observed throughout Cortile Cascino; however, communication was performed not only in spoken language but also in gestures with the hands, face, and body.
Physical contact was observed to play an important role in an individual’s form of communication. This contact varied in severity from male to female members. This was illustrated when the father reprimanded his daughter for not eating. Within a short span of time, the father found it necessary to reprimand his son for the same infraction. The daughter received a glare of disapproval while the son received a slap on the head. Variations also occurred when members who were in the same age range spoke to each other. Women appeared to speak to each other with fewer instances of physical contact while men exhibited physical contact in most conversations with other men. In conversations between men and women, physical contact was not exhibited; men appeared to refrain from physical contact with women. Both men and women expressed themselves using their hands and shoulders. In some cases it appeared as if they were dancing when they described events of the past. These expressions reminded me of stereotypes some Americans put on certain ethnic groups such as Italians.
Culture teaches us which style of communication we should employ. Children learn how to express themselves or how to respond from others around them. In North America, non-verbal communication varies dramatically from male to female. Women in the United States tend to be more expressive when they convey thoughts, feelings, or emotions to another person; men tend to be more conservative in their non-verbal communication. An example of this would be hand gestures of males and females. Women tend to be more animated by utilizing more body parts to express themselves. Many men in the U.S. are taught at a young age to inhibit their expressions. This is accomplished with the use of comments like “you’re acting like a girl” or “Don’t be a sissy.” Many women are also taught at a young age how to act and what forms of expression are preferred. Girls are often forbidden to demonstrate physical prowess.
Dominant communicative styles are generally not considered a positive feminine trait. The non-verbal communication here would be in the form of: eye contact, eyebrows raised, a straight back, or folded arms. If a woman were to communicate aggressively she could receive a negative reaction. In some American communities, this type of woman might find it difficult to communicating with others. Yet a man demonstrating this same aggressive behavior would be complimented for being assertive. On the other hand, if a man were to demonstrate recessive expressions of non-verbal communication, he would be perceived as inadequate. Examples of this would be lowering of the eyes, little to no eye contact, a lowered head, or poor posture. A woman displaying these same characteristics would be considered feminine or ladylike. Sexual mannerisms play an important role in personal sexual identity. Men in North American society adopt masculine characteristics while females acquire feminine qualities. These differences are observed not only in establishing identities but also in forms of communication. These characteristics of non-verbal communication transfer information to others without permission. Our minds are constantly evaluating information from both verbal and non-verbal forms of communication.
One of the goals of an Anthropologist is the ability to acquire information simply through the use of observation. If an anthropologist has the ability to collect visual symbols of communication, he or she might be able to better evaluate their environment. A subject could say one thing but mean the exact opposite. Without understanding subtle clues in non-verbal communication, the researcher could have the wrong conclusion. Parents are well known to have this ability. When asked, “who ate al the cookies in the cookie jar?” the child would answer “no.” The mother is able to interpret the differences between the truth and a lie. Even though the child said “no”, the mother knows he is lying and is the culprit. She translates his subtle clues of non-verbal communication. He might look down as he answers or he hesitates before giving an answer. Teachers acquire this ability when they ask questions in class. Teachers are able to identify the students who did not complete the reading assignment simply by observing the student’s body language. Subtle clues appear in the student’s actions. The student might hide behind another student or might be pretending he is writing something. Students sometimes wonder how the teacher knows who did not complete the assignment.
Profiling is another form of non-verbal observation. Police officers learn how to detect certain clues that warn of potential criminal behavior. When a person is pulled over, the officer must observe all forms of communication. Certain actions by the subject could be used as evidence for a search. Drivers would appear to be intoxicated, but when asked if they had been drinking, they would answer “no.” The officer could arrest an individual due to non-verbal evidence.
In conclusion, communication is very complicated. Language is only part of this intricate puzzle. Observation of people and cultures must include non-verbal communication in order to convey the information properly. An anthropologist could have an inadequate observation if he or she were to miss this element of culture. Kinesics is a vital part of Anthropological research that is always changing. Kinesics is also visible in other careers enabling people to develop a greater understanding.

Independence or Insecurity

The Family Visit

The plane lands in Louisville’s Standiford Field on a beautiful spring day in May. My friend Michele has accompanied me to witness my baby brother graduating from law school. Michele is eager and excited to meet my parents and spend some quality time with them. I, on the other hand, am stressed and overflowing with anxiety. Although Michele has heard innumerable complaints about my parents, she still believes that I must be exaggerating. Michele could not believe that a parent-child relationship could be so dysfunctional and unattached. But, as I introduce Michele to my parents, her eyes begin to see a relationship very different from the one to which she and her parents are accustomed. Michele is very close to her parents and must be in contact with them on a regular basis. I on the other hand, have a very distant relationship with my parents and interact with them mostly out of obligation. In only a week, Michele has learned to appreciate the bond to which she has with her parents and the struggle I have establishing one with mine. As the week ends, I wonder how Michele’s parental relationship could be so different from mine. Why are some people very close to their parents and others very distant? Is attachment the cornerstone of social, psychological, and physical health? Could someone repair or replace these attachments later in life?






Methodology

This research paper originated more than 15 years ago as I searched for answers to my own psychological health and well being. In that search, I uncovered possible explanations for the problems I was facing. One explanation involves the relationship between a child and a parent or a caregiver. It is this relationship in which I am the most interested.
My paper reviews existing research and follows a child from a zygote, through childhood, young adulthood, and into adulthood. I show how various other behavioral researchers also use attachment in their investigations into human development and behavior. I will examine my own life and apply these theories to myself and my family and I will show how attachment is the cornerstone of a socially, psychologically, and physically healthy human being. Finally, I will show ways of overcoming attachment issues later in life. But where does attachment begin?





In The Beginning
After fertilization, a zygote grows and attaches to the mother’s womb. This physical attachment enables the embryo to receive nourishment and protection directly from the mother. As the embryo develops, a psychological attachment could also be developing. Before birth, the fetus is able to hear and sense environmental stimuli, respond to the mother’s voice, and develop preferences to certain sounds. This observation brings up a very important question: Could psychological attachment begin before birth? The answer might lie in genetic research and the study of temperament.
Temperament is the way in which a person interacts with his or her surroundings. Temperament is very important in the way a baby and a caregiver respond to each other. This could prove to be an important factor in establishing an attachment. “The New York Longitudinal Study (NYLS),” begun in 1956 by Alexander T. Thomas, Stella C. Chess, and Herbert B. Birch, is considered the pioneering study on temperament” (Papalia 202). The New York Longitudinal Study established three different styles of behavior in children. These categories were easy children, difficult children, and slow-to-warm-up children. The study also observed that goodness of fit was “the match between a child’s temperament and the environmental demands and constraints the child must deal with” (Papalia 203). The study observed personality and disposition differences in fetuses. This could suggest that temperament is inborn or inherited. Nevertheless, this does not rule out the possibility that the environment or the mother’s behavior could have an effect on establishing the fetus’s temperament. Other studies also suggest that some aspects of attachment begin before the infant is born, such as the research on imprinting.
Newly hatched chicks will follow and become attached to the first moving object they see. The ethologist Konrad Lorenz, who got newborn ducklings to "love him like a mother," called this behavior imprinting. Thomas McAvoy/Life Magazine © Time Inc.

Konrad Lorenz also studied attachment in animals and believed that this mother-infant bond was a genetic characteristic. In his research, he observed newborn ducklings and found that they formed an attachment to the first moving object that they saw. Lorenz called this imprinting and observed it in adopted babies and caregivers other than the mother. Perhaps imprinting could also be found in newborn human infants and developing fetuses could be the important building-block of attachment. Konrad Lorenz observed a critical period of development. In this critical period of imprinting, the newborn ducklings formed an attachment. Could humans also have a critical period of attachment?
“A critical period is a specific time when a given event, or its absence, has the greatest impact on development. For example, if a woman receives X rays, takes certain drugs, or contracts certain diseases at certain times during pregnancy, the fetus may show specific ill effects. The amount and kind of damage will vary, depending on the nature of the "shock" and on its timing” (Papalia 118). The concept of a critical period was used in language acquisition. Eric Lenneberg proposed that there was a small window in which a child could learn a language. He believed that this period was from infancy to around puberty. If language was not learned in that timeframe, the child will have inadequate language skills. Perhaps there is a critical period for establishing an attachment either before birth or as soon as the fetus becomes fully developed and is born.





The Baby is Born
From birth until the age of 3, the child grows in one of the most critical periods of attachment. Mary Ainsworth was interested in researching attachment in a child’s most critical period. Her research uncovered just how important this relationship is for both the child and the parent or caregiver. Attachment is defined as “a reciprocal, enduring emotional tie between an infant and a caregiver, each of whom contributes to the quality of the relationship” (Papalia 211). In studying patterns of attachment, Ainsworth was able to observe the relationship between children and their caregivers. She then classified the behavior of each child into distinguishable patterns. These patterns of behavior were observed in 1 year old babies and were called secure attachment, avoidant attachment, ambivalent, or resistant attachment. Later, another pattern of behavior was added because of additional research. This forth pattern was called disorganized-disoriented attachment. However, before one can classify a particular behavior, one must first understand how attachment is established.
Ainsworth explained how babies and adults respond to certain behaviors such as crying or smiling. The simple touch of a mother’s skin, the smell of her perfume, and the sound of her voice all establish an attachment. Although a baby may not respond differently to people in his or her surroundings for the first 2 months, he or she learns to move toward the mother after only 8 to 12 weeks. This is observed when babies cry if someone, other than the mother, holds the baby or the baby actively searches for the mother with his or her eyes. By 6 or 7 months, a baby’s attachment to the mother is more defined. Fear of strangers could appear at anytime between 6 and 8 months. Ainsworth used this concept of fear of strangers as a way to assess attachment. She also observed the children in their homes. In order to achieve reliable results, babies were studied in a controlled environment and were subjected to a technique called a “strange situation.” In this form of a laboratory experiment, the baby’s attachment to the mother or caregiver can be adequately classified (Papalia 211).
Classifying a child’s behavior in a strange situation is very important in establishing the type of child-caregiver attachment. The child’s behavior is observed when the mother is present, as the mother leaves the room, while she is absent, and as she returns. The child’s behavior determines which form of attachment is present between the mother and the child. If the baby uses the mother as a form of security and appears content and happy in her presence, the baby is considered to be securely attached. In this form of attachment, the child becomes very upset if the mother leaves the room and is very happy when she returns (Papalia 212). The babies who do not appear to use the mother as a security figure and do not go to her in times of need are considered to be in an insecurely attached relationship. This is also called avoidant attachment. In this form of attachment children tend to be more angry, dislike being held, and dislike being put down. Another form of an insecure attachment is called ambivalent or resistant attachment. In this form of attachment, the child sends mixed signals to the mother. The child may seek out the mother while at the same time resisting contact. “Resistant babies do little exploration and are hard to comfort” (Papalia 212).
Disorganized-disoriented attachment was added to the list of attachment patterns as research continued in the field of child behavior. The babies with disorganized-disoriented attachments appear to be the most insecurely attached of all children. Their behavior is not consistent and may show behaviors of all patterns. One minute the baby could appear happy when the mother returns and the next minute appear ambivalent or resistant. “It is most likely to occur in babies whose mothers are single or are insensitive, intrusive, or abusive (Papalia 212). No matter which form of attachment an infant has, he or she must still grow and develop. Perhaps the picture below shows how strong the idea of attachment truly is and that a duckling, baby monkey, or child will find attachment without a mother.

In a series of classic experiments, Harry Harlow and Margaret Harlow showed that food is not the most important way to a baby's heart. When infant rhesus monkeys could choose whether to go to a wire surrogate "mother" or a warm, soft terry-cloth "mother," they spent more time clinging to the cloth mother, even if they were being fed by bottles connected to the wire mother.Harry Harlow Primate Laboratory, University of Wisconsin

Growing Up Unattached
As the infant grows and develops, his or her senses begin to operate. The brain of the baby is very sensitive to the environment allowing him or her to learn and remember, even early in life. The research of Harry and Margaret Harlow showed a different aspect of attachment. They showed that monkeys that were raised with a soft cloth surrogate mother were more likely to explore. One could compare these monkeys to securely attached children. The monkeys that were raise with only a wire surrogate mother were not as willing to explore but were also not securely attached. So what happens to children who are not securely attached? It appears that most psychologists, theorists, and researchers, attribute some, if not all, of psychological dysfunction to attachment.
Sigmund Freud was the first person to show how attachment is important in a child’s development. He believed that boys develop a sexual attachment to their mothers and girls to their fathers. Although many dispute Freud’s psychosexual stages, he was able to show that development occurred in stages. He was also the first researcher to show the importance of the mother or caregiver.
Erik Erikson followed in Freud’s footsteps and viewed development has periodic hurdles that must be successfully jumped. Erikson called his developmental crises psychosocial stages. Erikson showed how important the child’s attachment to the mother was in the child’s development. The first stages are basic trust versus basic mistrust and autonomy versus shame and doubt. One could easily understand that problems with attachment could prevent a child from successfully passing these crises. Should a child develop a basic mistrust perhaps this could lead that child into developing shame and doubt. But is every insecurely attached child destined for failure?
Erikson’s first stage of basic trust versus basic mistrust is very dependent on the relationship between the mother and the child. One would theorize that an insecurely attached child would develop a basic mistrust. Perhaps the answer could be found in Harlow’s experiment of infant rhesus monkeys. Without a mother, some of the monkeys developed an attachment for an artificial clothe mother. Those monkeys that were given the clothe monkey and became attached behaved similarly to securely attached children. As the research continued, it was observed that the monkeys did not grow up naturally and were unable to nurture there offspring. One could then argue that Harlow’s monkeys did not successfully pass through Erikson’s stages of development due to an inadequate mother-child attachment. Unlike Harlow’s rhesus monkeys, human children are able to find more alternatives and perhaps better solutions. As Erikson’s research continued, he realized that his psychosocial stages of development could be revisited and revised. If a child did not successfully pass one stage, he or she could successfully pass through that stage later in life. Successful passing of stages could be accomplished through learning.




.




Finding Alternative Attachments

Thankfully, not every psychologist, theorist, and researcher believes that a child’s attachment is the only marker of a psychologically healthy future. Many see a child as an independent organism that has choices. These behavioral choices are learned from experience or adapted from the environment. The learning perspective tries to explain the laws that govern behavior. Children learn through conditioning by using rewards, reinforcement, and punishment as the major factors for change. In this perspective, an insecurely attached child could learn the behavior that is needed for proper development. Classical conditioning could also be used to remove undesirable behavior. Social-learning theorists consider that children learn in a social context by observing and imitating other people around them. As a child eventually grows and interacts with his or her environment, the norms of behavior are constantly being tested. The behavior of an avoidant child could be just as unacceptable as that of a securely attached child. On the first day of the new kindergarten class, all of the students must leave their mothers. Securely attached students must learn to accept the absence of their mother.
Reflecting this research onto my own life, I could understand the important of learning in psychological development. Perhaps my attachment as a child could be considered as avoidant, ambivalent, or resistant. But I strongly believe that my extended family created an alternative to the traditional mother-child relationship. By finding alternative attachments and learning from others, I could pass each psychosocial stage. Urie Bronfenbrenner also believed that development occurs through interactions between a child and his or her surroundings. The bioecological theory uses “five interlocking contextual systems of influences, from microsystem to chronosystem” (Papalia 30).
Letting Go

As an adult, one could easily find a mother, father, or caregiver as the root of all psychological problems in which are inflicting an enormous amount of pain and anguish. But by stating that the child is unable to remedy situation as an adult, one must also state that the mother, father, or caregiver, is also confined to that same rule. Would this mean that a child from an unfit mother must become an unfit mother? Would this also mean that an insecurely attached child will only raise other insecurely attached children? Research is finally showing another aspect of development. Modern perspectives consider that individuals have the power to foster their own positive, healthy development. Therefore, no one is at fault or everyone is at fault.
As a child develops into an adult, he or she is faced with many challenges in his or her behavior and thought. The humanistic perspective considers that people have the ability to change their lives and encourage their own development. Abraham Maslow’s self-actualization theory places the power of psychological development back into the individual’s hands. Through the hierarchy of needs a person can rise from only having safety and security to becoming self-actualized.
My best friend Michele and I once again board the plane. This time we are returning to New York after a week with my parents. As wheels leave the ground, Michele turns to me and says: “I’m so glad we going home.” I tell her: “So am I.” Although I am happy to return to the life I have established, I find myself still wanting to be near my parents. Although my attachment may not have been Mary Ainsworth’s best choice, it was my only choice. As I become older and hopefully wiser, I realize that attachment is important in development but is not a clear marker for future psychological health. It is but one more step on a stairwell to somewhere. Although it is more difficult to climb steps without using every step, one could still reach the highest step.














Work Cited
Comer, F. J. Fundamentals of Abnormal Psychology. (3rd ed.). New York: Worth Publishers, 2002
Papalia, Danel E., Sally Wendkos Olds, Ruth Duskin Feldman. Human Development. Boston: McGraw Hill, 2001

Men and Monogamy

Introduction

For most of my adult life, I have been searching for the perfect relationship. My goal has always been acquiring and maintaining a long-term monogamous relationship. Growing up in a conservative Catholic family, my options were very limited in the type of relationship in which I would feel comfortable. Open relationships and infidelity were never an option for me. Even today, the notion of going outside of the relationship for sex has a tremendous amount of negative connotations. Perhaps my parents, my religion, or my environment has influenced my goals.
Seven months ago, I began dating and fell in love. As our relationship continues to change I feel a sense of insecurity about our future. I wonder if two people are able to remain in a committed monogamous relationship or if I am just fantasizing about impossibility. I truly want to believe that monogamous relationships are possible; however, history, statistics, and my own experiences have not supported this ideal. Our history is loaded with stories of infidelity. Novels, plays, poems, and short stories about failed relationships involving infidelity date back to the first written manuscripts. Statistics also illustrate the small percentage of couples who are committed to a monogamous relationship. I have found an enormous amount of statistical information going against my hopes and dreams. Finally, my experience in relationships could definitely support the notion that true monogamy is impossible. So what are the correct answers to these difficult questions? Where did the idea of monogamy come from? How has it shaped our society? Why is monogamy so important to many and yet so unattained? Can couples be faithful and remain content? Before answering these questions, one must have a full understanding of monogamy, the terms and conditions surrounding it, and the methodology for gathering research materials.



Monogamy and Methodology
One must have a clear understanding about monogamy before the debate begins. Monogamy is the sexual exclusivity of one sexual partner to another. Nonmonogamy is having more than one sexual partner (Byer, 2002). For the sake of clarity, I will focus on absolute heterosexual monogamy between two committed heterosexual adults. Although many of these couples could be legally married, as one will see later, marriage is not a necessary component of a monogamous relationship. Furthermore, monogamy is not a necessary component of marriage. Bill Clinton publicly proved that point on national TV. After admitting to his affair with Monica Lewinsky, his wife Hilary Clinton remained publicly by his side. This brings up another point of defining sexual exclusivity.
Before one can commit to sexual exclusivity with a partner, one must first define sexual intercourse. According to the American Heritage Dictionary of the English Language, Fourth Edition, sexual intercourse is “coitus between humans or the sexual union between humans involving genital contact other than vaginal penetration by the penis.” The dictionary also defines coitus as the “sexual union between a male and a female involving insertion of the penis into the vagina.” Therefore, any activity involving the genitals of another person shall be considered sexual intercourse and the Clintons would not meet these standards of a monogamous relationship. It is important to note that sexual monogamy in humans is an elected behavior. A person is physically and cognitively able to choose his or her sexual activity.
There is another term that is used by sociologists and social psychologist called serial monogamy. This occurs when a person participates in relatively short-term and frequent sexually exclusive relationships such as multi-marriages. "Most divorced people remarry only once, but a smaller number marry three or more times." (Schulz & Rodgers, 1980, p. 12) Elizabeth Taylor, Ronald Reagan, and many other celebrities appear monogamous to their partners until they decide to end the relationship.


Origins of Monogamy
Evolutionary psychologists have interesting perspectives on the origins of monogamous relationships. One perspective involves the spread of sexually transmitted diseases (STD’s) in a sexually promiscuous society. STD’s have been a part of human reproduction since the beginning of homo-sapiens. “The thesis that humans have been vulnerable to STDs for a long time can be inferred from the specificity of the pathogens: whether the pathogen is a virus, a bacterium, or a metazoan. For example, herpes simplex virus (HSV) Type 2 (HSV-2) is transferred sexually and has specialized in the genital area. Sakaoka et al. (1994) have suggested that the split between HSV-1, usually transmitted non-venereally, and HSV-2, usually transmitted venereally, occurred several million years ago.” (Mackey & Immerman, 2000, p. 50) If STD’s were affecting the reproductive viability of early homo-sapiens, the number of sexual partners would increase the risk of infection, infertility, sterility, and even death.
“It is suggested here that the counter pressure that was most effective in minimizing STDs within the group was pair bonding. Although pair bonding is often found with the lesser apes (e.g., gibbon and siamang), these animals are arboreal, are relatively small, and have little sexual dimorphism ( Jolly, 1985). Late australopithecine/early Homo was fully bipedal, increasingly terrestrial, and relatively large and had high sexual dimorphism. Models that presume universal mating within a tribe or troop that harbors an STD indicate that nearly all females become infected, and fairly quickly so.” (See Immerman ∧ Mackey, 1999, for examples.) (Mackey & Immerman, 2000, p. 52)
However, early homo-sapien females could have used sexual exclusivity as a form of currency in exchange for food, safety, and the protection of her children. Early homo-sapien males would have also used a steady supply of food as an assurance of easily accessible sexual contact. Pair bonding could have gained momentum if STD’s were to increase. Infected females would be less desirable because of the symptoms related to STD’s and would be less willing to mate. A woman who forms a pair bond with a man has reduced chances of (a) ectopic pregnancy, (b) infertility caused by PID, and (c) infirm offspring. In addition, both the man and the woman have reduced chances of being harmed by the negative consequences of STDs. (Mackey & Immerman, 2000, p. 53)
Another perspective on the origin of monogamy involves the use of evolved mechanisms such as jealousy. "Mechanisms that solve adaptive problems are like keys that fit particular locks. The efficiency, detail, and complex structure of the key must mesh precisely with the inner 'problem' posed by the lock.“ (Buss, 1995, p.12) Evolutionary psychologists try to uncover these keys for better understanding. Monogamy could have evolved because of the learned behavior of jealousy or visa versa. Jealousy is found in every part of human behavior. "Because both men and women over human evolutionary history have been damaged by relationship loss, both sexes have faced adaptive problems to which jealousy may have evolved as a solution.” (Buss, 1995, p. 14)
Evolutionary psychologists also link our behavior to the presence or absence of a father figure. There is some evidence that father absence during childhood shunts individuals toward a more promiscuous mating strategy, whereas the presence of an investing father during childhood shunts individuals toward a more monogamous mating strategy (Buss, 1995, p. 11) But where evolution ended, cultural practices continued.

Culture of Monogamy
If monogamous pair bonding was a characteristic of homo-sapiens, then monogamy would be the norm instead of the exception and infidelity would be limited. Instead, the condoning of premarital and extramarital sexual intercourse has been a norm rather than an exception. But why was sexual monogamy introduced into early homo-sapien lifestyles? One answer might simply be trial and error.
Although STD’s had an enormous impact on sexual viability of early homo-sapiens, so did the restrictions placed on the number of sexual partners. But reducing the number of sexual partners would have different outcomes. "Unfortunately, both our phylogenetic heritage as terrestrial primates and the ethnographic archives suggest that reciprocal monogamous mating has little chance of success." (Immerman & Mackey, 1997, p. 447) This is evident in the woman’s fertility, which is much more vulnerable than the man’s. Also STD’s are spread more efficiently from male to female than from female to male. If trial and error were used as a tool for establishing norms, repeated sexual trials of STD’s would have suggested that female monogamy would be more advantageous to the survival of early homo-sapiens. Females, easier to restrain physically, would be the more practical choice for cloistering. Thus, any preexisting tendency toward a double standard of sexual restraints would be reinforced, to minimize the level of STDs within a community. And such, of course, is the ethnographic reality: Sexual constraints, across cultures, are more severe on wives than on husbands. (Immerman & Mackey, 1997, p. 447)
Cultural norms were established because of underlying psychological mechanisms that had positive outcomes. As mentioned earlier, jealousy proved to be useful in protecting one’s investment by fighting off potential threats. Trial and error could reinforce cultural norms to prohibit potential threats and promote jealousy. Eventually, these cultural norms became implanted in the teachings of early religions.
In a journal article entitled “The Suspected Adulteress: A Study of Textual Embodiment”, Bonna Devora attempts to clarify theological references to sexual monogamy and “purity.” In Judaism, the goal is to achieve “purity” by becoming closer in proximity to the God’s temple. This proximity could be thought of as a marriage, which is a holy union. The laws of purity are expressed in terms of one's being permitted to have access to a house, a place, the holy territory of the Temple. In the code of conduct in marriage, the laws of purity are expressed in terms of being permitted to have intimate relations with one's partner. (Haberman, 2000, p. 30)
References


Borgmann, A. (1999). Gender, Nature, and Fidelity. Ethics and the Environment , 4(2), 131-142.

Buss, D. M. (1995). Evolutionary Psychology: a New Paradigm for Psychological Science. Psychological Inquiry , 6(1), 1-30.

Cramer, R. E., & Manning-Ryan, B. (2000). Sex Differences in Subjective Distress to Violations of Trust: Extending an Evolutionary Perspective. Basic and Applied Social Psychology , 22(2), 101-109.

Engels, F. (1902). The Origin of the Family, Private Property, and the State (Untermann, E., Trans.). Chicago: C.H. Kerr & Company.

Haberman, B. D. (2000). The Suspected Adulteress: A Study of Textual Embodiment. Prooftexts , 20(1,2), 12-42.

Immerman, R. S., & Mackey, W. C. (1997). Establishing a Link Between Cultural Evolution and Sexually Transmitted Diseases. Genetic, Social, and General Psychology Monographs , 123(4), 441-460.

Iversen, J. S. (1991). A Debate on the American Home: The Antipolygamy Controversy, 1880-1890. Journal of the History of Sexuality , 1(4), 585-602.

Jann, R. (1994). Darwin and the Anthropologists: Sexual Selection and Its Discontents. Victorian Studies , 37(2), 287-306.

Jochens, J. (1991). The Illicit Love Visit: An Archaeology of Old Norse Sexuality. Journal of the History of Sexuality , 1(3), 357-392.

LeMoncheck, L. (1997). Loose Women, Lecherous Men: A Feminist Philosophy of Sex. New York: Oxford University Press US.

Mackey, W. C., & Immerman, R. S. (2000). Sexually Transmitted Diseases, Pair Bonding, Fathering, and Alliance Formation: Disease Avoidance Behaviors as a Proposed Element in Human Evolution. Psychology of Men & Masculinity , 1(1), 49-61.

Mason, W. A. (1997). Award Address: Discovering Behavior. American Psychologist , 52(7), 713-720.

McLaren, A. (1992). Sex Radicalism in the Canadian Pacific Northwest, 1890-1920. Journal of the History of Sexuality , 2(4), 527-546.

Schulz, D. A., & Rodgers, S. F. (1980). Marriage, the Family, and Personal Fulfillment. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall.

Smith, T. S. (1999). Teaching Who We Are Testing Limits of Tolerance in a Course on Religion and Sexual Diversity. College Teaching , 47(2), 55-61.

Tiryakian, E. A. (1981). Sexual Anomie, Social Structure, Societal Change. Social Forces , 59(4), 1025-1053.

Westermarck, E. (1921). The History of Human Marriage (5th ed.) (Vol. 3). London: Macmillan.

Westermarck, E. (1936). The Future of Marriage in Western Civilization. New York: The Macmillan Company.

Comparing Effective Prevention Programs

As a returning college student at Columbia University, I am amazed by the number of volunteer groups, programs, and organizations that are interested in prevention. One might assume that most, if not all of these programs affiliated with the university, are effectively preventing what ever it is they say they are. But is this a safe assumption? Does the sexual violence prevention program actually prevent sexual violence? A practitioner, granting agency, or even a student wishing to volunteer in a prevention program is likely to be interested in evidence that a program is achieving its goal. Besides ensuring that funds and grants are allocated properly, private and public funders as well as eager volunteers are also interested in the most important bottom line: How effective is the program?
Nation et al.’s (2003) article “What works in prevention: Principles of effective prevention programs” points out that not all prevention programs are replicated from science-based research models demonstrating positive effects. Some prevention programs were created or adapted by local agencies and showed marginal effects. By using a “review-of-reviews approach” to identify general principles of effective prevention programs Nation et al. found characteristics that were generalizable across areas of substance abuse, risky sexual behavior, school failure, and juvenile delinquency and violence. Then they ranked each characteristic from strong to moderate based on the percentage of reviews endorsing the characteristic. This approach yielded 9 characteristics that were associated with effective prevention programs and listed the characteristics from strong to moderate endorsement: comprehensive, varied teaching methods, sufficient dosage, theory driven, positive relationships appropriately timed, socio-culturally relevant, outcome evaluation, and well-trained staff.
The purpose of this article is to compare an actual prevention program at Columbia University with current research on “What works in prevention” (Nation Et al. 2003). I compared Nation et al.’s findings with observable characteristics in the program Peace by Peace (PxP). By interviewing staff members and volunteers, participating in training and teaching as a volunteer I gathered specific characteristics that matched Nation et al.’s general principles of effective prevention programs. Although Nation et al.’s article focused on substance abuse, risky sexual behavior, school failure, and juvenile delinquency and violence; for the purpose of this comparison, I will only focus on aspects associated with juvenile delinquency and violence (the target population of Peace by Peace).
Peace by Peace (PxP) began originally as a conflict resolution program sponsored by Yale University’s undergraduate public service organization in 1992. At that time the program was called “Peace Games at Yale” and taught middle school students ways to find creative solutions to conflicts. In 1993, community impact, a community service organization of Columbia University, established a similar conflict resolution program in New York City (Peace Games New York). In 1998 the program was renamed to Peace by PEACE International (Playful Explorations in Active Conflict-resolution Education) and is now established in Atlanta, Baltimore, New Haven, New York, and Toronto. According to the PxP website, program directors and volunteers, the program is highly effective in resolving conflict and reducing student violence in school. To test this claim, I evaluated PxP’s program by using Nation et al.’s principles of effective programs.
According to Nation et al, a prevention program is effective if it is comprehensive, has varied teaching methods, provides sufficient dosage, is theory driven, promotes positive relationships, is appropriately timed, socio-culturally relevant, outcome evaluative, and has well-trained staff.
A comprehensive program provides multiple interventions such as increasing information and awareness or promoting skill development. The program should also have multiple settings that address school norms and combine parent, peer, and school interventions (Nation 2003). PxP increases information and awareness by defining conflict in the classroom and showing students how a conflict develops and escalates. The “students examine their body language, tone-of-voice, words and action” (Peace by Peace). By using games, skits, discussions, and journal writing students develop skills such as apologizing, learning how to use body language, and getting help from others. Unfortunately, PxP serves only 5 schools on the Upper West Side, Washington Heights and Harlem. Although the target population is “at risk” fifth graders, not all students in the designated schools attend the program. This is due to scheduling conflicts and volunteer accessibility and involvement. The lack of multiple setting would reduce the program’s comprehensiveness.
Nation et al. (2003) noted that a majority of effective prevention programs included varied teaching methods, which included interactive instruction and provided active, hands-on experience that increased the participant’s verbal, language and social skills. The teaching method of PxP uses all of these aspects in there teaching curriculum. Students are given interactive instructions by discussing important rules of behavior and participation before each class. Then the students are encouraged to participate in a game, skit, or discussion with various themes. One game is called “shocker” in which students stand in a circle holding hands. The volunteer begins the game by squeezing a student’s hand and starting the timer. The object of the game is to beat the clock and improve the time by working together. The goal of the game is to show positive results of working together as a group.
The next characteristic was the amount of intervention provided. Nation et al. (2003) noted that the amount of problems or deficits should be in direct correlation to the amount of interventions available. The targeted schools of PxP are in high risk neighborhoods; however, not all schools are considered high risk. One school, I.S. 223 Mott Hall school, is a public school for gifted student. By interviewing volunteer students I found out that the class environment was very different at Mott Hall as compared to the other schools. The volunteers at Mott claim that the kids are easier to teach, pay attention more, and follow directions better. One possible explanation is that the admission process is extremely selective for Mott Hall. Students are admitted on the basis of their test scores, teacher recommendations, a written exam, and an interview. One volunteer questioned the differences in effectiveness between the schools stating that the Mott Hall students were less at-risk than the students at the other schools. PxP would be more effective in producing the desired preventative effects if they provided at least minimal prevention at all schools and increasing prevention involvement in schools that are considered high risk.
The next characteristic found in effective prevention programs is “scientific justification”. According to Nation et al. (2003) theories that focus on the causes of the problem and theories that focus on changing or reducing these causes should be identified in the prevention program. “Once the causes are identified, effective prevention programs are then based on empirically tested intervention theories shown to produce the desired changes…” (p.453). The PxP website offers statistics on demographics, crime, and students’ performance. They also state “the problem”: violence, aggression, and unsafe schools. PxP gives research data showing that “schools that implemented a conflict resolution program saw a 29 percent decline in hitting and fighting and a 20 percent decline in verbal aggression. But the cause of violence, aggression, or even simple conflict in schools is not clearly stated unless you consider not having a conflict resolution program as a cause. PxP should explicitly state the risk (i.e. violence and aggression in each elementary school) and give empirical data showing the number of incidents in each school. They should also add empirical research showing the causes of violence and aggression (i.e. verbal ability or anger management). They could also use
Another important principle associated with effective prevention programs was the amount of exposure to positive relationships. Nation et al. noted that strong relationships with positive adult models were very important in areas of school failure and dropout. The training of PxP volunteers encourages a positive relationship between the students and volunteers by empowering the student to control his or her behavior and by allowing students to give feedback. Volunteers and students build a strong rapport by mutually respecting the learning environment and each other. Volunteers are asked to respond to children with sentences like “I understand that…” or “I see your side…” Unlike the normal teacher-student relationship, students and volunteers interact as peers. This serves as a bridge between controlled behavior and self-motivation and gives students an advantage for transitional success into middle school.
The time a program is initiated also had an impact on the effectiveness of the program. Dryfoos (1990, as sited in Nation, 2003) stated that “programs should be timed to focus on changeable precursor behaviors prior to the full-blown problem behavior being prevented” (p. 453). Although I could not find information from PxP pertaining to age appropriateness for prevention in 5th graders, research has shown that early adolescence was the beginning of a downward pattern of problems in some individuals (Eccles et al. 1993). The 6th and 7th grade adolescence begin a general phase of transition, both physically and emotionally. Variables such as puberty, a change in school, and a desire for independence are especially problematic for adolescents who do not have close relationships with adults outside of their homes (Eccles, 1993).
Another important characteristic that was found in many effective prevention programs was the socio-cultural relevance of the planning and implementation of the program to include the targeted group (Nation, 2003). Student participation is a major function of PxP’s curriculum. Although the class activities are coordinated in advance, students use their personal experiences, cultural norms, beliefs, and attitudes in PxP games, skits, and discussion. Rather than focusing on beliefs or practices that inadequate, students focus on finding alternative solutions to violence and anger while retaining their pride in culture, family, and school.
Characteristics that were moderately endorsed by Nation et al.’s (2003) study included outcome evaluation and involved well-trained staff. Studies have shown that some programs using anecdotal or case study evidence may actually not be effective. Studies have also shown that prevention programs are enhanced by staff members who are adequately trained, supported, and receive sufficient supervision. As mentioned earlier, PxP does not use empirical research theories for possible causes or theories showing successful treatments for school violence and aggression. Unfortunately, research-based outcome evaluations of the program are non-existent.
At present, PxP gives a two hour training and orientation session at the beginning of each semester. Volunteers also meet once a week in smaller groups to plan the week’s curriculum and discuss any problems or concerns from the previous meeting. PxP uses a “learn-as-you-go” method of training. Each volunteer is given a curriculum booklet (see attachment) which includes the activities for each session. The games, skits, and class discussions for each session are reviewed in the weekly group meetings.


Discussion
Before drawing any conclusions from this comparison, it is important to point out that PxP has an enormous of support in the elementary schools that are involved in the program. I observed 6 different classrooms in 3 New York City schools and received a massive amount of positive feedback. Both teachers and students look forward to each session. Volunteers are also enriched by the experience. Nicole Safranek, the co-director of Peace by Peace at Columbia University, has been involved in the program for 3 years. She stated that she has witnessed positive changes in the students’ behavior and attitudes. “One child explained how she used one activity at home when her mother was very angry”. Although PxP were unable to supply research information, research has shown the importance of various levels of the child’s environment.
As Bronfenbrenner (1986) pointed out, the child’s environment is extremely influential in fostering a healthy development and that this environment consisted of varying levels or models, such as the mesosystem model and exosystem model. Bronfenbrenner’s ecological model also shows which system has the greatest impact on the child, such as the direct relations between the child and the immediate environment (microsystem) vs. the network of interrelationships (mesosystem). But the majority of studies only focused on the influence of the family on the child’s performance in school rather than looking at the parent-child, student-teacher, or student-peer relationships.
Epstein’s research on “Longitudinal effects of family-school-person interactions on student outcomes” (1983a, 1983b, as cited in Bronfenbrenner,1986) showed that greater opportunities for communication and decision-making increased the child’s initiative and independence and led to higher grades. Epstein focused mainly on the processes involved in the family and classroom that impact the change in pupil’s attitudes and academic achievement. Although her research showed that family processes were more powerful than interactions in school, the processes in school were still effective in changing attitudes and academic achievements.
In conclusion, a practitioner, granting agency, or even a student wishing to volunteer in a prevention program, would have a difficult time evaluating PxP according to the principles of effective programs that were endorsed in Nation et al.’s (2003) article. This, by no means, shows that PxP is ineffective as a prevention program; rather, this comparison illustrates the difficulty in presenting and finding characteristics that empirically show program efficacy. Although many of the volunteers, teachers, and students are convinced that the program is highly successful in reducing violence and aggression in schools, anecdotal evidence and case-study interviews may not enough. Prevention programs need to use science-based research as evidence that the program is effective including using most, if not all of, the characteristics found in effective prevention programs. Efficacy information should be easy to locate and contain concise data allowing practitioners, granting agencies, and perspective volunteers to make educated appraisals of the prevention program.














Reference:
Bronfenbrenner, U. (1986). Ecology of the family as a context for human development: Research perspectives. Developmental Psychology, 22, 6, 723-742.
Eccles, J., Midgley, C., Wigfield, A., Miller-Buchanan, C., Reuman, D., Flanagan, C., Mac Iver, C. (1993). Development during Adolescence: The impact of stage-environment fit on young adolescents’ experiences in school and in families. American Psychologist, 48, 2, 90-101.
Nation, M., Crusto, C., Wandersman, A., Kumpfer, K., Seybolt, D., Morrissey-Kane, E., Davino, K. (2003) What works in prevention: principles of effective prevention programs. American Psychologist, 58, 6-7, 449-456.
Peace by peace. (2004). http://www.peacebypeace.org/
Safranek, N. (Feb. 7, 2005). Personal Interview. Co-director: Peace by Peace. Columbia University. New York
Surapaneni, P. (Feb. 13, 2005). Personal Interview. Group leader: Peace by Peace. Columbia University. New York