<p>I teach an undergraduate child psychology course. My specialty is cognitive development, and I am not so knowledgeable about social/emotional development, which accounts for about 1/3rd of the course. In that part of the course, I devote about two class sessions to discussing major theories of social/emotional development.</p>
<p><strong>Which theories should I include or consider including in those two class sessions?</strong></p>
<p>I realize that the answer to this question might depend a lot on personal preferences. Here are mine.</p>
<p>(1) I prefer to focus on theories that are still taken seriously by modern researchers; I don't like covering theories that are mostly relevant for historical reasons. Perhaps Freud and Erikson fall into the latter category (tell me if I'm wrong).</p>
<p>(2) I prefer to focus on theories that are testable, have been tested, and are associated with a body of empirical work; I don't like covering theories that are more &quot;perspectives&quot; or ways of looking at things rather than claims about what is true and is not true. I get the sense that Bronfenbrenner falls into the latter category (again, tell me if I'm wrong).</p>
<p>(3) In these two class sessions, I want to focus on broad theories rather than theories that are mainly about some particular aspect of development (e.g. Attachment Theory, which I will cover later in the unit but not in the sessions on major theories).</p>

CC BY-SA 4.0
2023-10-10T03:02:31.147Z
I think it is an exaggeration to say that the empirical evidence is "pretty sparse on even the most prominent theories", but it would be fair to say that psychology is a young field and as such, many if not most of its theories (especially the broader ones) are less solidly grounded in empirical research than in some other areas of science. Nonetheless, certainly some psychological theories are more empirically grounded than others.
baixiwei
CC BY-SA 4.0
2023-10-11T14:10:04.827Z
I don't believe you're correct that there is zero evidence for fluid and crystallized intelligence, but I am not expert in this area and could be wrong. I also don't agree that this theory is a fundamental pillar of psychology. However, both of these issues are rather far from my question and so I would rather not engage in debate about them here. Hopefully, someone will respond to the question you posted elsewhere on this forum in a manner that you find satisfactory.
baixiwei
CC BY-SA 4.0
2023-10-11T16:19:07.180Z
That would only happen if a question were asked in the conventional manner, in it own thread. @QuietInMontana
Jiminy Cricket.
<developmental-psychology><teaching-of-psychology>
Which theories of social/emotional development should be included in an undergraduate child psychology course?
baixiwei
# Which theories of social/emotional development should be included in an undergraduate child psychology course?

(Asked by: username_0 on 2023-10-07)

I teach an undergraduate child psychology course. My specialty is cognitive development, and I am not so knowledgeable about social/emotional development, which accounts for about 1/3rd of the course. In that part of the course, I devote about two class sessions to discussing major theories of social/emotional development.

**Which theories should I include or consider including in those two class sessions?**

I realize that the answer to this question might depend a lot on personal preferences. Here are mine.

(1) I prefer to focus on theories that are still taken seriously by modern researchers; I don't like covering theories that are mostly relevant for historical reasons. Perhaps Freud and Erikson fall into the latter category (tell me if I'm wrong).

(2) I prefer to focus on theories that are testable, have been tested, and are associated with a body of empirical work; I don't like covering theories that are more "perspectives" or ways of looking at things rather than claims about what is true and is not true. I get the sense that Bronfenbrenner falls into the latter category (again, tell me if I'm wrong).

(3) In these two class sessions, I want to focus on broad theories rather than theories that are mainly about some particular aspect of development (e.g. Attachment Theory, which I will cover later in the unit but not in the sessions on major theories).

**Tags:** developmental-psychology, teaching-of-psychology

> **Comments:**
> **username_0**: I think it is an exaggeration to say that the empirical evidence is "pretty sparse on even the most prominent theories", but it would be fair to say that psychology is a young field and as such, many if not most of its theories (especially the broader ones) are less solidly grounded in empirical research than in some other areas of science. Nonetheless, certainly some psychological theories are more empirically grounded than others.  
> **username_0**: I don't believe you're correct that there is zero evidence for fluid and crystallized intelligence, but I am not expert in this area and could be wrong. I also don't agree that this theory is a fundamental pillar of psychology. However, both of these issues are rather far from my question and so I would rather not engage in debate about them here. Hopefully, someone will respond to the question you posted elsewhere on this forum in a manner that you find satisfactory.  
> **username_1**: That would only happen if a question were asked in the conventional manner, in it own thread. @QuietInMontana  

---

## 0 answers

