++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
My good guess is that we must have a SELF to be able to THINK. What are some of the identifiable developmental processes involved that allow the thinking self to appear? We know that degrees of secure versus insecure attachment can be clearly measured by the time an infant is one year old. The next stage of infant development that can be identified when it ‘comes online’ is what is called ‘self-recognition’ – which happens for our close primate relatives just as it does for human infants.
++
— SELF RECOGNITION IN APES (video) [Especially note the point where the ‘little guy’ returns to his mother for the safe-secure attachment HUG! At about at the 2:50 mark]
“Scientists believe self-recognition is essential for our survival. We can live in large groups because we recognize similar features of our own in others. We can tell friend from foe. But is self-recognition uniquely human? Show a monkey a mirror and it thinks its another monkey. It attacks. But how will our closer relatives, the great apes, react when faced with their own image?
“This three-year-old Chimpanzee has never seen a mirror before. He’s not sure what to make of it. Erect fur is usually a sign of fear or anger. But his fear is soon replaced by curiosity.
“When chimps see themselves in mirrors the first time they naturally assume it’s another chimp the way a human being who has never seen their self before does, and begin to play with mirror image.”
“Soon this chimp will know it’s looking at it’s self, just like these older chimps. They know exactly what mirrors do.
“This chimp appears to know that’s her tongue and those are her teeth.
“Chimpanzees seem to have a concept of a bodily self that allows them to look into a mirror and say, “THAT image is equivalent to THIS body.
“But how can we prove that humans and chimpanzees really identify the figure in the mirror as themselves? Psychologists set a Wellman Test for this. It’s called the Mark Test. A researcher marks a child’s cheek. The child then looks in a mirror. He moves his hand up to the mark. He recognizes himself. By age two, half of all children can recognize their self. Soon, they all do.
“So, can our ape cousins pass this test? A keeper places a mark on a female orangutan. Next, they put her in front of a mirror. She has seen her reflection before, but this time she recognizes that something has changed. Her hand goes to the mark. All the great apes, gorillas, orangutans, chimps and bonobos, pass the mark test by a certain age.”
++
— Sense of self and the “mark test” – infant and chimpanzee results (video)
– SELF RECOGNITION DEVELOPMENT (video)
+++++++++++++++
Here are some reading links to very early research that sought to clarify any link between infant maltreatment as it impacts the security or insecurity of infant attachment and an infant’s ability to first self-recognize. After scanning through this information and other related research I quickly came to understand that researchers didn’t find that the quality of secure versus insecure attachment determines the developmental-maturational timeline along which any infant comes to self-recognize itself in the various mirror image ‘Mark Tests’, but it does effect the quality and nature of this first visual self-recognition by an infant.
Importantly, researchers did discover that the quality of attachment and degrees of maltreatment an infant has received DOES affect the emotional reaction an infant experiences and displays in response to its recognition of its own self in a mirror.
My next post will also present research that shows two other factors that ALSO appear to affect an infant’s emotional reaction to its first self-recognition that happens for all but a very few infants between the age 15 months and 2 years. I believe both of these factors can be directly influenced by an infant’s experience of maltreatment that happen in CONJUNCTION with unsafe and insecure early infant-caregiver interactions.
++
“…[This empirical study] considered the interaction between affect and cognition, focusing on both security of attachment and the emergence of visual self-recognition (Schneider-Rosen and Cicchetti, 1984). The sample consisted of 37 infants, all from families of low SES [socioeconomic status]. Of the infants, 18 had been maltreated while living in their natural homes, while 19 infants comprised the comparison group. The infants ranged in age from 18 months to 20 months. The mother-infant dyads were observed in the Strange Situation procedure, and infants were administered the standard mirror-and-rouge paradigm (Lewis and Brooks-Gunn, 1979) to assess visual self-recognition.
“It was found that 12 (67%) of the maltreated infants were classified as insecure…whereas 6 (33%) were classified as secure. In contrast, 5 (26%) of the 19 matched comparison infants were classified as insecure…whereas 14 (74%) were classified as secure….
“An interesting pattern of findings emerged with regard to the interaction between maltreatment, quality of attachment, and visual self-recognition. There were no differences in the number of maltreated and comparison infants who were able to recognize themselves. For the group as a whole, infants who manifested visual self-recognition were significantly more likely to be securely attached to their caregivers. A different pattern of results was revealed, however, when the maltreated and comparison infant groups wee analyzed separately. Of the comparison infants who recognized themselves, 90% were classified as secure… In contrast, there was no significant relationship between visual self-recognition and security of attachment for the maltreated infants. Of those maltreated infants who recognized themselves (N=5), three were insecurely attached and two were securely attached to their caregivers. These findings suggest that the effects of maltreatment may be sufficiently potent to disrupt the expected relationship between quality of attachment and visual self-recognition. The process by which maltreatment might have such an effect, however, has yet to be determined.”
— Child Abuse and Neglect: Biosocial Dimensions (Foundations of Human Behavior) by Richard J. Gelles and Jane Lancaster (Dec 31, 1987) — (above is from pages 288-289)
++
“Examined the association among child maltreatment, socioeconomic status (SES), visual self-recognition, and emotional responses to mirror images. Children were assessed cross-sectionally at 18, 24, and 30 mo. The nonmaltreated children spanned 2 SES groups (lower and middle), and the maltreated children came from the lower SES. Maltreated children did not differ from the lower- or middle-SES comparison children in the development of visual self-recognition. Differences between the samples were observed in the quality of affective reactions to mirror self-images. Hierarchical loglinear modeling was used to test for associations among the variables of self-recognition, age, SES, maltreatment, and affective reactions to mirror images (positive, negative, and neutral, as well as coy affective responses). Results are discussed in terms of the complex interactions among these variables, indicating that the ontogenesis of self-knowledge is determined by multiple interrelated influences.” (PsycINFO Database Record (c) 2010 APA, all rights reserved) [bold type and underline added]
Schneider-Rosen, Karen; Cicchetti, Dante
Developmental Psychology, Vol 27(3), May 1991, 471-478.
++
+THINKING ABOUT THINKING (PART ONE): WHOSE PROBLEM IS IT?
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
Stop the Storm 