You are viewing a free preview of this lesson.
Subscribe to unlock all 9 lessons in this course and every other course on LearningBro.
The developmental area is the part of psychology that asks how behaviour, thinking and feeling change and develop over time, above all across childhood, and how those changes arise from the interplay of nature (maturation, genetic endowment, biological readiness) and nurture (learning, environment, culture, upbringing). Where the social area asks what the situation is doing to us right now, and the biological area asks what our brains and genes are doing, the developmental area adds a dimension the others lack: time. It treats the human being as a moving target — a creature whose capacities, moral understanding and habits are laid down, revised and reorganised as it grows.
This lesson sets out the defining assumptions of the developmental area, the methods it typically uses, its characteristic strengths and weaknesses, and how it differs from the other four areas on the OCR H567 course. It then introduces the four developmental core studies — Bandura et al. (1961), Chaney et al. (2004), Kohlberg (1968) and Lee et al. (1997) — as illustrations of the area's principles in action. Getting the area-level picture secure is the highest-yield preparation for Component 02 Section B, where you may be asked to evaluate an area as a whole, and it frames every one of the study lessons that follow.
| This lesson covers | OCR H567 Component 02 element | AO focus |
|---|---|---|
| The defining assumptions of the developmental area (change over time; nature and nurture; the centrality of childhood) | Section B — Areas: Developmental | AO1 knowledge |
| Typical methods of the area (longitudinal, cross-sectional, observation, interview, cross-cultural comparison) | Section B — Areas; links to Component 01 methods | AO1; AO3 |
| Strengths and weaknesses of the area as an explanatory framework | Section B — Areas, perspectives, debates | AO3 evaluation |
| How the developmental area differs from the social, cognitive, biological and individual-differences areas | Section B — Areas | AO1; AO3 |
| The four developmental studies as illustrations of the area's principles | Section A core studies ↔ Section B area | AO1; AO2 |
The specification is referenced descriptively; consult the official OCR H567 specification document for its exact published wording. This lesson develops AO1 (the assumptions and methods of the area), AO2 (recognising developmental explanations in novel material) and AO3 (weighing the strengths and limitations of a developmental approach against the other areas).
An explanation belongs to the developmental area when it accounts for behaviour by reference to how that behaviour came to be over time — through processes of growth, learning, maturation or socialisation — rather than by reference only to the present situation, the present brain state, or a fixed personality. Three assumptions define the area.
First, behaviour changes and develops across the lifespan, and especially in childhood. The developmental psychologist does not take the adult as the finished, default case and treat the child as a defective miniature. Instead the child is understood as passing through a sequence of qualitatively different stages or acquiring new capacities in an ordered way. A four-year-old does not merely know less than a ten-year-old; in many respects the four-year-old thinks and reasons differently, and part of the developmental project is to chart those differences and explain the transitions between them. Childhood is given special weight because it is the period of most rapid and most consequential change — the period in which language, morality, attachment, aggression and self-control are first laid down.
Second, development is driven by the interaction of nature and nurture. The area does not choose sides in the old debate; its most characteristic claim is that maturational readiness (nature) and experience (nurture) work together. Kohlberg's stages of moral reasoning, for instance, are held to unfold in a fixed order (a nature-like, maturational claim) but only if the child is exposed to moral discussion and role-taking opportunities (a nurture-like, experiential claim). Bandura's social learning, by contrast, leans heavily on nurture — children acquire aggression by observing and imitating models — but presupposes the natural cognitive machinery (attention, memory, the capacity to reproduce an action) that makes imitation possible. Almost every developmental study can be read as a particular settlement of the nature–nurture question rather than a victory for one side.
Third, early experience has lasting consequences. Because the area treats development as cumulative — later structures built on earlier ones — it takes seriously the idea that what happens early can shape what comes later. A child who learns aggression from models, or whose moral reasoning is arrested at a low stage, or who acquires poor health habits, may carry those patterns forward. This assumption gives the area much of its practical force: if early experience matters, then early intervention matters, and the developmental area feeds directly into education, parenting advice, and paediatric health.
Key definition — developmental area: the area of psychology concerned with how and why behaviour, cognition and emotion change over time, particularly across childhood, through the interaction of biological maturation (nature) and environmental experience (nurture).
It helps to see how these three assumptions hang together as a single coherent stance rather than three separate slogans. The claim that behaviour changes over time only becomes a scientific claim once we ask what drives the change — and the answer the area gives is the nature–nurture interaction. The claim that early experience has lasting consequences is, in turn, simply what follows if development is cumulative: if later structures are built on earlier ones, then the foundations matter disproportionately. So the three assumptions are really one idea viewed from three angles: development is an ordered, cumulative process in which biology and experience jointly build later capacities on earlier ones, with the earliest and fastest building happening in childhood. This is why a genuinely developmental explanation always has a temporal shape to it — it tells a story with a before and an after — in a way that a purely situational, biological or dispositional explanation need not.
A useful way to test whether you have grasped the area is to notice what it refuses to take for granted. It refuses to treat the adult mind as the natural baseline and the child's mind as a deficient version of it; instead it asks how the adult mind was built. It refuses to treat a behaviour as simply "there"; it asks how the behaviour was acquired. And it refuses the lazy either/or of nature-versus-nurture; it asks how the two combine. Each of these refusals corresponds to one of the four core studies. Bandura refuses to treat aggression as innate and asks how it is learned. Kohlberg refuses to treat morality as a fixed adult trait and charts how moral reasoning is built stage by stage. Chaney refuses to treat a health habit as unchangeable and engineers its acquisition through reinforcement. Lee refuses to treat one culture's moral norms as universal and asks how culture shapes moral evaluation. Seen this way, the four studies are not an arbitrary list but a set of concrete answers to the questions the area exists to ask.
Because the developmental area studies change over time and often studies children, it draws on a characteristic toolkit of methods, each with its own logic and limitations.
| Method | What it involves | Why the area uses it | Key limitation |
|---|---|---|---|
| Longitudinal design | Following the same individuals over months or years, measuring them repeatedly | The only design that directly observes development within a person over time | Slow, expensive; participant attrition; risk of practice effects |
| Cross-sectional design | Comparing different age groups at one point in time | Fast and cheap way to infer an age trend | Confounds age with cohort (generational) differences; cannot show individual change |
| Observation | Watching and recording behaviour, often using behavioural categories | Children cannot always report on themselves; behaviour can be seen directly | Observer effects; inference required about internal states |
| Interview / self-report | Asking children (or parents) about reasoning, feelings or behaviour | The only route to a child's reasoning (e.g. moral justifications) | Children's verbal limits; social desirability; parent reports are second-hand |
| Cross-cultural comparison | Comparing children raised in different cultures | Tests whether a developmental pattern is universal (nature) or culturally shaped (nurture) | Translation and equivalence problems; risk of imposing one culture's categories |
The four developmental core studies between them use most of this toolkit, which is one reason the area is such a good vehicle for revising Component 01. Bandura is a controlled observation (a laboratory experiment with observation as its measure). Chaney is a field study using parent self-report questionnaires. Kohlberg combined a cross-sectional snapshot with a genuinely longitudinal follow-up and cross-cultural samples, using the interview (the moral-dilemma method) as its instrument. Lee is a cross-cultural comparison using a structured task with rating scales. When you evaluate any one of them, you are also evaluating the strengths and weaknesses of the developmental method it exemplifies.
It uniquely addresses change over time. No other area can tell us how a behaviour comes to be. The biological area can tell us which brain regions support morality; only the developmental area can tell us how moral reasoning is acquired and in what order. This temporal dimension is the area's distinctive and irreplaceable contribution.
It generates highly useful applications. Because the area studies childhood and early experience, its findings translate readily into practice. Bandura's social-learning account underpins concerns about media violence and modelling in classrooms and homes. Chaney's operant-conditioning device improves real children's adherence to asthma medication. Kohlberg's stage theory informs moral and citizenship education. The usefulness debate is a natural strength of the developmental area.
It takes the nature–nurture interaction seriously. Rather than the sterile "which one?" framing, the best developmental work shows how biology and environment combine — a more sophisticated and defensible position than either extreme nativism or extreme empiricism.
It uses a rich methodological mix. The area's willingness to combine longitudinal tracking, cross-cultural comparison, observation and interview means that a well-supported developmental claim (such as the broad ordering of moral stages) rests on several converging kinds of evidence rather than one. When a longitudinal study, a cross-sectional snapshot and a cross-cultural comparison all point the same way, the conclusion is far more secure than any single study could make it — a principle of converging evidence that runs through the best developmental work.
It complements rather than competes with the other areas. A subtle strength, easily missed, is that the developmental account of a behaviour dovetails with the biological, cognitive and social accounts rather than contradicting them. When the biological area identifies the brain regions that support impulse control, the developmental area explains how those regions' functioning matures across childhood and adolescence; when the cognitive area describes the information-processing that underlies moral judgement, the developmental area describes how that processing is built up. The area therefore adds the temporal dimension that turns a static snapshot of the mind into a moving picture of how the mind came to be — exactly the contribution a full explanation of any human behaviour requires.
Researching children raises acute ethical problems. Children cannot give fully informed consent in the adult sense; researchers must rely on parental consent and the child's assent, and must weigh the child's right to withdraw and protection from harm especially carefully. Bandura's deliberate exposure of young children to an aggressive adult model, and the possibility that they learned aggression they would not otherwise have shown, is the standard example of this ethical tension.
Longitudinal research is slow and vulnerable to confounds. True developmental designs take years, cost a great deal, and suffer attrition as participants drop out — and those who remain may be unrepresentative. Cross-sectional shortcuts, meanwhile, confound age with cohort: a difference between eight- and sixteen-year-olds tested today might reflect the era they grew up in rather than the process of development itself.
The area risks over-generalising from narrow samples, inviting ethnocentrism. Much classic developmental theory was built on Western, often American, children, and then presented as a universal account of "the child". Kohlberg's stage sequence, derived largely from American boys, was later criticised for ethnocentrism (and androcentrism) when it was found to fit some non-Western and female samples less neatly. Lee's cross-cultural study is in part a corrective to exactly this danger.
Determinism looms. Stage theories that present development as a fixed, universal sequence edge toward a form of determinism — the implication that the child's path is largely pre-set — which sits uneasily with the everyday assumption of free will and with the observed variability between individuals.
The cleanest way to fix the developmental area in mind is to contrast the kind of cause each area appeals to for the very same behaviour. Take a single behaviour — say, a child hitting another child — and ask how each area would explain it.
| Area | Where it locates the cause | Explanation of a child's aggression |
|---|---|---|
| Developmental | In processes of change over time (learning, maturation, socialisation) | The child has learned aggression by observing and imitating models (Bandura), and this was acquired at a formative age |
| Social | In the present situation and other people | The child is aggressive because of the immediate situation — provocation, group norms, an authority sanctioning it |
| Cognitive | In mental processes (attention, memory, thinking) | The child has hostile information-processing biases — mis-reading neutral cues as threatening |
| Biological | In the brain, genes, hormones, neurochemistry | The child's aggression reflects biological factors — testosterone, amygdala reactivity, heritable temperament |
| Individual differences | In stable ways people differ from one another | The child scores high on a trait of aggressiveness that distinguishes them from peers |
The developmental answer is distinctive in two ways. First, it is the only one that is essentially historical — it explains the present by appeal to a developmental history. Second, it is the only one for which age itself is a central variable. The other areas can study children, but they do not treat the process of growing up as the explanatory engine; the developmental area does.
It is worth noting that these areas overlap rather than compete cleanly. Bandura's social-learning explanation is developmental (a child acquires behaviour over time) but has obvious social elements (the model is another person) and cognitive elements (attention and memory mediate imitation). This overlap is not a weakness to be hidden; in a Section B essay, showing that a study sits at the intersection of areas — and explaining why it is nonetheless best classified as developmental (because its central claim is about acquisition over childhood) — is exactly the kind of nuanced classification that earns credit.
The deeper point is that the areas are not five rival theories of the same thing but five different questions one can ask about any behaviour. "Where is the cause located?" is not a question with a single right answer; it depends on what kind of understanding you are after. A doctor treating a violent adolescent might reasonably reach for a biological explanation (is there a neurological or hormonal factor?), a teacher for a social one (what is the peer group rewarding?), and a developmental psychologist for a historical one (what did this young person learn, and when?). None of these is the explanation to the exclusion of the others; each answers a different question, and a complete account of the behaviour needs all of them. What distinguishes the developmental area within this division of labour is that its question is always, at bottom, "how did this come to be, over time?" — and because childhood is when most human capacities are first built, the area's answer characteristically reaches back into the person's early history. This is also why the developmental area is so often the bridge between the others: its temporal question links the present brain state, situation or trait to the past processes that produced them.
A further way the area differs is in what counts, for it, as an explanation. In the biological area, an explanation is complete when a physical mechanism has been identified. In the developmental area, an explanation is complete only when the process of acquisition has been described — the sequence of experiences and maturational steps by which the behaviour was built. This is a demanding standard, because it requires evidence about change, which is why the area leans so heavily on longitudinal and cross-cultural designs that can capture change directly or infer it across groups. When you evaluate a developmental study, then, one of the sharpest questions to ask is whether its method could actually observe the developmental process it claims to explain, or whether it merely photographs a single moment and infers the process — a distinction that separates the genuinely longitudinal work (Kohlberg's follow-up) from the essentially snapshot work (Bandura's single test session).
The two key themes of the developmental area each pair a classic study with a contemporary one, and together the four studies showcase the area's range.
Theme 1 — external influences on children's behaviour.
Theme 2 — moral development.
Read together, the four studies map the area's central tensions: nature vs nurture (Kohlberg's maturational stages vs Bandura's and Chaney's learning), universal vs culturally variable (Kohlberg's claimed universality vs Lee's cross-cultural divergence), and classic vs contemporary (older lab and interview work vs newer applied and cross-cultural designs). Each is examined in full in the lessons that follow.
"Discuss strengths and weaknesses of the developmental area, using examples from the studies you have learned. [15 marks]"
How the marks are structured (own-words breakdown). An area-evaluation question of this type is marked across AO1, AO2 and AO3. AO1 credit is for accurately stating the assumptions and methods of the developmental area; AO2 credit is for using the specific developmental studies aptly as evidence rather than describing them in isolation; AO3 credit — the largest slice on a 15-marker — is for a genuinely balanced and reasoned evaluation that weighs strengths against weaknesses and reaches a judgement. Answers stall in the mid-band when they list features of the area without evidencing them, or evaluate only one side.
Mid-band response (7/15): The developmental area says that behaviour changes over time, especially in childhood, because of nature and nurture. A strength is that it is useful — Chaney's Funhaler helped children take their asthma medicine, and Bandura's study helps explain why children copy violence they see. Another strength is that it studies how behaviour develops, which other areas do not. A weakness is that studying children is unethical because they cannot really consent, like in Bandura where children were made to see an aggressive model. Another weakness is that some studies used narrow samples, like Kohlberg who mostly used boys, so they might not apply to everyone. Overall the developmental area is useful but has ethical problems.
Examiner-style commentary: The assumptions are stated correctly and each point is tied to a named study, which lifts this above a bare list — so the AO1 and AO2 are sound. The evaluation is present but thin: strengths and weaknesses are asserted rather than developed, and there is no real weighing of one against the other. To move up, develop each evaluative point (e.g. why Bandura's design raises the ethical issue, and how it might be defended), add the nature–nurture and ethnocentrism dimensions explicitly, and close with a reasoned judgement rather than a restatement.
Stronger response (11/15): The developmental area explains behaviour by how it develops over time through the interaction of nature and nurture, with childhood as the critical period. Its central strength is explanatory reach that no other area has: only a developmental account can say how aggression is acquired (Bandura's children imitated an observed model, more when it was same-sex) or how moral reasoning is built up in an ordered sequence (Kohlberg's six stages). This translates into unusually strong usefulness — Chaney's operant-conditioning Funhaler produced a real, measurable rise in children's medication adherence. The area also handles nature and nurture with sophistication, treating Kohlberg's stages as maturationally ordered but experience-dependent. However, the same focus on children creates ethical strain: Bandura deliberately exposed young children to an aggressive model, risking teaching them aggression, and children cannot give adult informed consent. The area is also prone to ethnocentrism — Kohlberg's largely Western, male sample was over-generalised, a bias Lee's cross-cultural study helps expose by showing Chinese and Canadian children evaluate lying differently. On balance the area's temporal insight and applied value are considerable, but they are bought with genuine ethical and generalisability costs.
Examiner-style commentary: This is a strong, well-evidenced answer: each evaluative point is developed and tied to a specific study, and both nature–nurture and ethnocentrism are handled. What holds it just below the top band is the judgement — it reaches a sensible conclusion but does not fully synthesise the tension (for example, noting that the area's greatest strength, its focus on formative childhood, is the very thing that generates its ethical liability). Making that connection explicit is the discriminator to the top band.
Top-band response (14/15): The developmental area's defining claim — that behaviour is best explained by how it develops over time, especially in childhood, through the interaction of nature and nurture — is at once the source of its greatest strengths and its characteristic weaknesses, and a balanced evaluation is best organised around that single tension. Its strengths are explanatory and practical. Explanatorily, it captures something the other four areas cannot: the acquisition of behaviour over time. Only a developmental account explains how aggression is learned — Bandura showed children imitate an observed aggressive model, and more readily a same-sex one — or how moral reasoning is constructed in an ordered sequence, as in Kohlberg's six stages. Practically, this temporal focus yields exceptional usefulness, because developmental processes can be redirected early: Chaney's Funhaler applied operant reinforcement to lift children's asthma-medication adherence, a direct clinical payoff. The area also models the nature–nurture interaction more maturely than either extreme, treating Kohlberg's stages as maturationally ordered yet dependent on social experience. Yet each strength has a shadow. The very focus on formative childhood that gives the area its power also generates its sharpest ethical liability: to study how children acquire behaviour, Bandura had to expose young children to an aggressive model and risk teaching them lasting aggression — an intervention no adult-only design would require, and one children cannot properly consent to. The area's ambition to describe universal developmental sequences invites ethnocentrism: Kohlberg's largely Western, male sample was over-generalised as "the" course of moral development, a bias Lee's cross-cultural work exposes by showing Chinese and Canadian children diverge in evaluating pro-social lies. And stage models edge toward determinism, understating the individual variation real children show. The judgement, then, is that the developmental area is indispensable precisely because it studies the malleable, formative period of life — but that same feature is what makes it ethically fraught and prone to over-claiming universality, so it is most defensible when its developmental claims are held tentatively and tested cross-culturally, as the contemporary studies begin to do.
Examiner-style commentary: This response earns the top band because it does more than balance strengths and weaknesses — it organises the evaluation around a single, genuinely synoptic insight (that the area's focus on formative childhood is simultaneously its strength and the root of its ethical and ethnocentric weaknesses) and uses all four studies as evidence for that thesis. The nature–nurture, ethics, ethnocentrism and determinism strands are integrated rather than listed, and the conclusion is reasoned rather than asserted. That synthesis is the move that separates a top-band area evaluation from a merely thorough one.
This content is aligned with the OCR A-Level Psychology (H567) specification.