The Psychobiography of a Blonde

So I realise that I haven't actually posted any ponderings of mine yet! Goodness, where to start? I am surrounded by social issues that desperately need to be addressed, but I can't seem to pin my opinions and thoughts down into words that properly communicate my feelings. So here's a good starting point, just to warm you up to the idea of me rambling on without many pictures or mentions of thread.

If you are not familiar with the definition of a psychobiography, it is simply a biography that examines the events and experiences within a life, with a focus on psychological explanations and analysis. They usually focus on the childhood experiences of the person, since those are the formative years that yield a lot to psychological theory, although a good psychobiography will explore the whole lifespan of the individual.

Wikipedia (my favourite source for academic references, teehee) describes the application of psychobiographies to "historically significant individuals". What about the rest of us? In my second year of varsity we were assigned the task of writing our own psychobiographies (psycho-auto-biographies?) and everyone immediately started discussing the obvious theories and explanations for behaviour - the mother-child bond, seperation anxiety, pretty much everything John Bowlby ever wrote about. I really didn't feel like going into my family history and trying to draw causal links between every parental argument and being grounded and bullies at school and what have you. So I took a different approach. It's rather long, and full of theory (it was a university assignment) but it's quite an interesting read, if I do say so myself. One and a half years does not a psychologist make, however, so please excuse any mistakes or unfounded conclusions drawn.

My lecturer, who is an animal specialist, loved my essay and we both agree that more research into the field is needed.

If you're interested in such stuff, why not take a look at Severus Snape's psychobiography, which shows a really perceptive compassion for one of my favourite characters of all time! Read it here.

Introduction to the Theory

Lev Vygotsky (1896-1934) was a psychologist, although he regarded himself rather as a paedologist (Schneuwly, 1994). He was a social constructivist with an interest in child development, cognition and learning. Vygotsky’s interest in development never focussed on the child as an individual but rather on the child in their social and cultural context (Gray & MacBlain, 2012).

Vygotsky’s theories have the same underlying principles as Jean Piaget’s; namely, that children are born with the fundamental building blocks needed for cognition and learning (such as memory, information processing ability, attention, visual recognition, etc.), but Vygotsky made one important distinction. Many developmental psychologists discuss the relationship and differences between learning and cognitive development, but Vygotsky was the first to suggest that learning precedes (and causes) development (Vygotsky, 1978; Brossard & Schneuwly, 1994). This is to say that learning can occur before understanding has been achieved.

The strand of cognitive developmental psychology that Vygotsky follows is known as sociocultural theory, or social constructivism. As Gray and MacBlain (2012) state, social constructivism requires that one takes into account all social aspects of a child’s life (their age, culture, experiences, environment, etc.) before one can make any statements about their development. Vygotsky theorised that each learning process that a child performs occurs twice; first, on a social level, between people, and then individually when it becomes understood and internalised as mental concepts (Vygotsky, 1978).

The idea of learning in a social context continued in the work of Albert Bandura (born 1925) and his social learning theory. Bandura recognised the current theories of behaviourism initiating learning and cognition, but argued that imitation and identification were two factors that should also be considered (Gray & MacBlain, 2012). He felt that learning did not always follow changes in behaviour, and also that motivation and self-efficacy influenced the learning process (Gray & MacBlain, 2012).

Urie Bronfenbrenner (born 1917) was another child psychologist who was interested in the social aspect of learning (Gray & MacBlain, 2012). He emphasised the importance of social, political and economic influences on a child’s development. He also believed that the base of development was a child’s own biological disposition (Gray & MacBlain, 2012). His theory explores child development as a relationship between the child and their environments.

My Psychobiographic Experience Growing Up in a Farm Environment

Drawing on these social learning theories and Vygotsky’s work in particular, I will address significant events and experiences of my childhood and discuss the application of such theories on my cognitive and overall development. While many aspects of a person’s past can influence their adult personality, I want to focus specifically on the early years of my childhood, the pre-school days when learning came as much from playing in the mud and eating worms as it did from words on a chalkboard, and later from textbooks.

I grew up on farms, although not your typical Old-MacDonald farm. The farms I were familiar with had a single string of rusty wire for a fence, a handful of scrawny chickens, goats and a pot-bellied pig, enclosed by the indigenous Knysna rainforest. Also included were the beloved horses, numerous cats and dogs, and all the wildlife that typically thrives in such a rural area.

During those years of my life (from infancy to about 9 years of age) I happily spent most of my time outdoors. My father would drive into town for work while my mother busied herself with housework and taking care of my younger sister. I apparently had much too much energy and would be chased outdoors to “blow off steam” and not get in the way. A typical day would not be complete without climbing a few trees, grooming the horses, lifting up rocks in search of new creatures, and protecting my toes from the pecking of the chickens. Included in the package were numerous bites, stings and bruises.

Because I was mostly alone outside, exploration was a key component of the day. I was definitely an example of a child with a secure attachment base and positive internal working models (Bowlby, 1969; Ainsworth et al, 1978), as I was capable of wandering far from the gaze of my mother without anxiety. My mother, while very protective and caring, was not overly possessive and having her permission to wander away from her side perhaps allowed the development of my secure base attachment and confidence.

Vygotsky claimed that children did not learn in isolation but in a “social matrix... formed by the interconnection of social relationships and interactions between themselves and other children” (Gray & MacBlain, 2012, p.71). As my social environment consisted mostly of farm animals I want to take Vygotsky’s thoughts a stretch further and claim that cognitive functioning can arise from the observation of and interaction with all living creatures.

As such, I will be using examples primarily of my encounters with farm and wild animals. Existing research on human-animal relationships focuses mainly on the socioeconomic benefit of animals in the workforce or the social effects on pet ownership (Sanders & Arluke, 1993; Holden, 1981). The latter has been explored further by sociologists, psychologists and animal ecologists alike, as presented in the world’s first international conference on the “human/companion animal bond” in 1981 (Holden, 1981, p.418). However, until recently, child psychologists have ignored or downplayed an animal’s influence on children (Melson, 2003). As Melson (2003) points out, this is surprising, as children and animals have incredibly strong bonds and typically “go” together – South Africa has the largest amount of pets on the continent, with 7.4 million dogs and 2 million cats (Dray, 2014). Bronfenbenner and other social psychologists would insist on examining the child-pet relationship further, as a pet is a component of a child’s environment, and therefore a factor in the child’s development.

Gail Melson proposed that “although most studies of pets in children’s lives have understandably focused on social and emotional aspects, there are intriguing indications that companion animals also may play a role in perceptual, cognitive, and language development” (2003, p.33). This is the key interest of this essay. I will first focus on examples of my interactions with the domesticated pets of my household – referred to by professionals as ‘companions’. The assumption is that my learning processes included those described by Vygotsky, Bandura and Bronfenbenner; essentially, that I accumulated knowledge and skills through social interaction and communication and through the observance and imitation of others, but that it was strengthened by a biological propensity to do so.

A particularly salient memory I have is of playing with dolls, and trying to include my cats and dogs in the game. From a child’s first year of life, he/she can distinguish between the movement of a living, moving creature and the movement of an inanimate object (Melson, 2003). This is perhaps why moving inert toys around in a role-playing situation was unsatisfactory to me, and I insisted that the objects should have a will (and therefore a will to move) of their own. Cats and dogs have that will, and I tried to include them instead to make the role-playing more realistic. I recall also having the notion that the animals wanted to play with me; if I enjoyed it, they must also, surely? This illustrates two learning curves for me; firstly, that animals have different goals, or pleasures, as they very clearly did not want to be dressed in dolls clothes and play my childish games (also illustrating their non-humanness), and secondly, that communication with non-humans was possible, but limited. A key point in Vygotsky’s work is that social interaction prominently occurs through language (Fox & Riconscente, 2008). While the cat could communicate his desires through hissing, clawing, or simply moving away, I could not communicate what the game was about and how they should play it.

On the note of communication, I believe I was very fortunate to learn at a very early age that words and spoken language are only one method of communicating. Many a night I would be delighted when a cat would purr his approval of my stroking his ears. While my mother probably had to explain to me what this strange vibrating feeling was, I could easily comprehend that the cat was pleased. I viewed it as any other type of spoken language at the time, and wished I could respond in kind. In a 1984 study by Antonin Guttman (Spencer & Blades, 2006), boys who owned a pet had a greater ability to interpret non-verbal signals and information that boys who did not own pets, allowing them to be potentially better in communication.

In some instances I believe it to be more successful in the development of cognition and intelligence when a child interacts with a non-human creature. For example, compare a child poking at the eyes of his mother to a child doing the same thing to a dog, or a lizard. A mother, most likely, will scold the child verbally, perhaps including a light smack or waggling finger, and probably an explanation of why the activity is unpleasant and should not be continued. Very often, she would keep calm while explaining this, giving the child little visual indication of how she feels. An animal, on the other hand, does not have the benefit of spoken language to explain itself, and will only communicate through a physical response. This, I believe, has two lasting influences on the child; firstly, language is omitted, forcing the child to observe the physical cues and to interpret them as warnings in the case of a snarl, or pain if it’s a whimper, etc. Secondly, it sets the stage for one of the most fundamental concepts in learning and in life: the concept of cause and effect. The child poking at his mother initiated the activity (the cause), but the mother did not display the direct effect (of her annoyance/discomfort). However, a dog snarling after being poked at is a clear representation of cause-and-effect in play. Through experiencing the event and seeing the physical and/or emotional response, instead of merely being told off and explained to, the memory will last longer and have a stronger hold in the mind of the developing child.

I used this example of poking at an animal specifically because of a very early experience of cause and effect; watching a lizard on a stone in the garden, I chose to poke at it with a stick. I was expecting to be able to direct its movement with my stick, no harmful intentions, but what happened next was so unexpected and traumatising: the lizard’s tail fell off! To my six-year-old mind this was like lobbing off my arm, I didn’t know, and would never have thought, that it was a regular thing for a lizard to do. I had barely touched the animal and felt I had almost killed it. This traumatic experience opened my mind to so many concepts; namely that animals are more complex than a six-year old expects, that even after learning about a lizard’s tail-dropping I could still feel immensely guilty, the concept of action and consequence, and so much more. Exposure to animals, especially pets that require caring for, allows a child to develop more comprehensive concepts of the needs of animals and humans alike (Melson, 2003). Studies show that classrooms that include a pet such as a goldfish result in children having a higher understanding of unseen biological needs like hunger (Melson, 2003).

Another case was that of Princess Pink, a pig that was raised in the house much like the dogs. She was the size of a small Jack Russell when she was young, and I simply adored her. She was privilege to all the benefits of the dogs and cats, to the extent that she probably identified herself as one. To me, this was a perfectly natural state of affairs, that all creatures were allowed inside the house, with the exception of the roaming baboons who stole food, and the horses, who were simply too large. However, problems arose as Princess Pink grew larger and larger. Her appetite became immense and she would raid the kitchen cupboards instead of foraging in the outdoors like other pigs would. She was also accustomed to sitting on laps, which she continued to try to do until she was double the weight of any human adult. This fascinated me, since I was required to sit in my own chair when I grew too heavy for my mother’s lap, but the pig did not seem to understand this. This led to me to conclude that animals also have a sense of self, and also that self-awareness differed from person to person (or should I say, being to being). This allowed me to be more accepting in social situations. Exposure to pets is claimed to induce a greater sense of self, self-esteem, self-competency, self-regulation and autonomy (Myers, 2007; Spencer & Blades, 2006).

As with the case of the lizard, I was fascinated by the movements of “creepy-crawlies”, of small insects and other residents of the bottom of the garden. The presence of pets and other animals, according to Melson (2003), stimulates curiosity and promotes attention and concentration skills in children. Because animal behaviour is often unpredictable, they show “cognitive incongruity, moderate discrepancy from established schema, and novel information” (Melson, 2003, p.34), which is fundamentally essential for the developing mind (Gray & MacBlain, 2012). Vygotsky (1978) provides two reasons why animals are catalysts for cognitive development: 1) children learn and retain information better when it involves something they are emotionally attached to and 2) when learning occurs within a meaningful relationship. The first reason is applicable to all animals (if curiosity is piqued then I believe a child could have an emotional investment in the creature) whereas the second reason is only within the framework of a domesticated pet situation.

Spencer and Blakes (2006) claim that they found no empirical research on the effects of undomesticated animals or wildlife on childhood development. While the connotations of wild animals would differ from child to child (urban children may see them as more dangerous and exotic whereas rural children might see them as useful resources, for example), I believe that on a basic level interactions with wild animals would have similar, if lesser in scale, effects on a child’s development as domesticated animals. As such, I would like to apply the theories proposed about child-companion bonds to bonds or encounters with wild animals as well, within reason. Of course, more love and care would be directed to a family pet than to a stray animal, but following Bandura’s belief, observations of either would lead to learning of some or other kind.

I would constantly mimic the behaviour of the farm animals and pets. This not only supplied hours of role-playing and games, which encouraged abstract thinking (Vygotsky, 1978), but also allowed me to be more understanding and empathetic of others. Social behavioural skills were especially strengthened by these activities, as I learnt how treatment of others applied to the treatment of myself. The farm animals co-existed quite peacefully and respectfully of one another. Dogs would curl up next to the cats and pig as if they were family. The only disputes were between trespassers such as baboons, and the occasional rabbit chase. When I observed the way the animals interacted, I could apply the same principles of respect, care and protection to my interactions with other people. These acts of observation and mimicry run in accordance with Bandura’s observational theory of learning.

Perhaps the most cherished relationship I had during a certain time was with my horse. This was the first “pet” that was labelled exclusively as mine, and the responsibility of his care was placed solely in my hands. While this of course taught me many things about responsibilities and personal development, the biggest lesson that was learned was that, like any relationship, relationships were two-way operations. I had control over him, to a degree (in regards to feeding him as well as horse-riding) but he would suffer if I abused this control. In turn, he could buck or kick or bite and make me suffer if he chose. The only available research regarding horses discusses the higher levels of self-esteem in children who interacted with horses during therapy sessions (Dismuke, 1984, as cited in Spencer & Blakes, 2006). I cannot express more sincerely the positive effects that my horse had on my life. Not only was he my dearest friend, providing a secure attachment base (Bowly, 1969) equal to a parent because he was constantly present, he also would come to me of his own free will without being called for, giving me an immense feeling of self-worth (Myers et al, 2010). I had a higher sense of self-esteem overall when I had a good riding session, as I felt it was both a positive bonding experience as well as an accomplishment of my goal to become a skilled rider.

Simply working and playing in a farm environment allowed me a learning experience. Vygotsky (1978) distinguished between lower order thinking (involving memory, attention and intelligence) and higher order functions, which involve conscious, calculated actions such as problem solving and logical reasoning. I was accustomed to logical thinking often on the farm, when I posed questions such as “How do the mongooses get into the chicken coop even though there is a fence to keep them out?” and “How does the gecko stay on the wall and not fall off?”. I entertained myself by building houses for faeries and small creatures, which required logical deduction and planning. I saw that we didn’t need to water the plants if it had recently rained, or that we don’t mow the fields like my friends mowed their lawns because the horses needed the long grass for grazing. My father involved me in as many practical activities as possible, such as clearing gutters or fixing tiles on the roof, which also stimulated problem-solving responses. These events were always a collaboration between me and my father, with his assistance and direction, which Vygotsky claimed is the bridge which allows a child to pass from lower order thinking to higher order abstract thinking (1978).

One of the most noted and least understood concepts in child development is Vygotsky’s zone of proximal development (Gray & MacBlain, 2012). He defined it as:

not a specific quality of the child, nor is it a specific quality of the educational setting or educators ... it is ... collaboratively produced in the interaction between the child and more knowledgeable others. The aim of this collaborative interaction is to lift the learner to become ‘a head taller’. (Vygotsky, 1978, p.102).

Children at the lower level of the zone of proximal development are more in need of support and guidance in their learning. Vygotsky discarded the notion of staged development (i.e. that development reaches specific milestones at specific ages or stages) (Gray & MacBlain, 2012), so there is no bearing as to what age a child will reach a higher, independent level in regards to their zone of proximal development, but it can be understood that children of a lower age will ‘score’ lower in their zone of proximal development. The “mediated, social, collaborative activity” (Gray & MacBlain, 2012, p.73) that Vygotsky asserts is so fundamental to development occurred in my life mostly in the form of collaboration with animals. While, arguably, the animals did little to wilfully assist me, I was certainly assisted in my development due to their presence, whether intentional or not.

Interestingly, my mother will insist that a bull terrier named Daisy was my self-appointed “aunt”, and had such a mothering disposition towards me that sometimes my mother felt sidelined. Daisy assisted me when I was developing motor skills, guided me when I walked, and helped me in the most characteristically human mannerisms sometimes. I cannot convincingly argue that she did this intentionally with a full understanding of the consequences and reasoning of it, but I choose to believe she did, in an exemplary illustration of an animal’s mothering instinct.

There are mixed reports on the notion that caring for animals results in more compassion in people towards animals or other humans. Melson says that although childhood attention to pets led to “more humane attitudes” and “greater concern for animal welfare”, there is no consistent evidence that caring for pets results in more considerate attitudes (2003, p.36), but goes on to present findings that schoolchildren who owned pets displayed greater empathy towards their peers. Spencer and Blades (2006) suggest that there could be a pre-existing tendency towards compassion in families that choose to have pets, thereby making empathy a genetic predisposition and not a direct result of exposure to animals, and that pet ownership are just an indication of such empathy. In terms of my own experiences, I would be more inclined to follow the thinking of Melson. While I do have a very compassionate family and therefore a likely predisposition towards compassion, I believe the empathetic mechanisms I developed were also a result of having animals to care for and that cared for me in turn. However, I also acknowledge that studies relating empathy to pet ownership may be biased or incomplete as there are so many other causes or factors involved.

Daly and Morton presented their research in an article that claimed that animals do not bring to bear higher morality or compassion in people, that “(1) there was no difference in empathy (Bryan Empathy Index) between pet owners and non-owners; (2) there was no correlation between empathy and attachment to pets (Companion and Animal Bonding Scale); and (3) higher empathy scores were not related to pet-preference indicators” (2003, abstract). However, many other researchers and theorists in the fields of psychology, zoology and sociology propose otherwise.

While the focus is on my cognitive development, it is impossible to ignore the effects on my social, moral and personality development in this discussion. Animals have had a holistic effect on my life and understanding thereof, and it would be unjust to not mention the other developmental aspects. I found two main challenges in the writing of this psychobiography; firstly, that self-analysis is very difficult to document, and secondly that existing literature on human-animal relationships is somewhat lacking. The first challenge resulted in a somewhat historical account inconsistently woven into theoretical explanations. While a good psychobiography should take into account the broader context of the subject, I was quite isolated on the farm and as such the context hardly extends further than my family and the animals. Politics did not have much direct influence on my childhood development, nor did socio-economic status. We did not practice any religion in my family, and my culture could simply be described as one of communal care and respect for your surroundings. Keeping within the context of the farm also allowed for a narrower focus on the topic at hand. It should be noted that Vygotsky, Bandura and Bronfenner were used as the basis of this psychoanalysis because together they describe what I believe constituted the bulk of my learning experiences; that I accumulated knowledge and skills through social interaction and communication and through the observance and imitation of others, and that it was strengthened by a biological partiality to do so.

Conclusion

Because of the linguicentric constraints imposed by our Meadian heritage we have emphasized the differences that exist between humans and nonhuman animals and have “lost sight of all that we share with them” (Murphy, 1995, p.692). In failing to recognize the fact that we live in an interactional community composed of both human and nonhuman members, we have ignored an area of social life that is common-place, emotionally rich, and of significant analytic interest (Sanders, 2003, p.420-421).

With the exception of Daly and Morton (2003), two strands of thought are salient throughout these theories: 1) that there is a dismaying lack of focus and empirical research on human-animal bonds and the effects of animals on the development of young children, and 2) that despite this shortage, it is widely believed and somewhat established that there are significant effects of exposure to animals on a child’s development and disposition. It has been noted that among many benefits, the most salient effects are a higher empathy towards others, a better understanding of life and biological needs, as well as numerous improvements in self-esteem and self-efficacy.

In regard to my own experiences, it is not my intention to undermine the importance of my human family members and friends, but to acknowledge that animals have played a larger-than-most part in my development. As I stand today, twenty-one years of age, I can confidently attribute many of my successes and positive qualities to the influence that animals had on my cognitive, social, moral and personality development.

**all photographs are the property of Tracy Eray and Amba Eray, and have been used here with their kind permission. Please forgive the poor quality images - they were taken many years ago.

BIBLIOGRAPHY

In-text references:

Ainsworth, M.D.S., Blehar, M.C., Waters, E., et al. (1978). Patterns of attachment: A Psychological Study of the Strange Situation. Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.

Bowlby, J. (1969). Attachment and loss: Attachment. New York, NY: Basic Books.

Brossard, M., & Schneuwly, B. (1994). Learning and Development: Contributions from Vygotsky’s Theory. European Journal of Psychology of Education, 9(4), 279-280.

Daly, B., & Morton, L.L. (2003). Children with pets do not show higher empathy: A challenge to current views. Anthrozoos, 16(4), 298-314.

Dray, S. (2014). Number of Dogs and Cats in Households Worldwide. The nest [website]. Retrieved from http://pets.thenest.com/number-dogs-cats-households-worldwide-8973.html on 20 September 2014.

Fox, E., & Riconscente, M. (2008). Metacognition and Self-Regulation in James, Piaget, and Vygotsky. Educational Psychology Review, 20(4), 373-389.

Gray, C., & MacBlain, S. (2012). Learning Theories in Childhood. London: SAGE Publications.

Holden, C. (1981). Human-Animal Relationship Under Scrutiny. Science, 219(4519), 418-420.

Melson, G.F. (2003). Child Development and the Human-Companion Animal Bond. American Behavioral Scientist, 47(31), 31-39.

Myers, D., Abell, J., Kolstad, A., & Sani, F. (2010). Social Psychology. (European Edition). Berkshhire, London: McGraw-Hill.

Myers, G. (2007). The Significance of Children and Animals: Social Developmetns and Our Connection to Other Species. West Lafayette, Indiana: Purdue University Press.

Sanders, C.R., & Arluke, A. (1993). If Lions Could Speak: Investigating the Animal-Human Relationship and the Perspectives of Nonhuman Others. The Sociological Quarterly, 34(3), 377-390.

Schneuwly, B. (1994). Contradiction and Development: Vygotsky and Paedology. European Journal of Psychology of Education, 9(4), 281-291.

Spencer, C., & Blades, M. (2006). Children and Their Environments: Learning, Using and Designing Spaces. London: Cambridge University Press.

Vygotsky, L.S. (1978). Mind in Society: The Development of Higher Psychological Processes. Cambridge, Massachusetts: Harvard University Press

Other references not cited in-text (for inspiration/guidance):

Bumblebee_5n4p3 (2012). The Psychobiography of Severus Snape. Unpublished 3-rd year university paper. Retrieved from: http://www.wattpad.com/1912021-the-psychobiography-of-severus-snape. on 20 September 2014

Manganyi, N.C. (1983). Psychobiography and the Truth of the Subject. Biography, 6(1), 34-52.

Schultz, W.T. (2005). Handbook of Psychobiography. Oregon: Oxford University Press.

#animals #home #farm #psychology