Model Essay
One claim in the psychology of human development is that experience during critical or sensitive periods causes lasting differences in later development. Discuss this claim with reference to one or more areas of development.
The claim that early experience shapes later development is supported by substantial research in developmental psychology, especially studies of attachment and deprivation. However, this claim should be discussed carefully because early experience does not act in a wholly deterministic way. Evidence suggests that early relationships and stimulation can have long-term effects, particularly during sensitive periods, but later experience, resilience and brain plasticity can also modify developmental outcomes.
One important line of evidence comes from research on attachment. Bowlby argued that infants are biologically predisposed to form attachments and that early attachment has consequences for later social and emotional development. This is linked to the idea of an internal working model: a mental representation of relationships formed from early interactions with caregivers. Support for this comes from Hazan and Shaver’s “love quiz” study, in which adults classified their current romantic relationships in ways that resembled infant attachment categories. Participants with secure attachment styles tended to report more trusting and stable relationships, whereas insecure participants reported jealousy, fear of closeness or anxiety. This suggests continuity from early attachment experience to later socio-emotional functioning. In other words, early experience appears to shape expectations and behaviour in later relationships.
At the same time, this evidence should not be overstated. Hazan and Shaver relied on self-report data from adults, so the findings may be affected by social desirability and retrospective bias. More importantly, the study is correlational. It does not prove that infant attachment caused later relationship style, because many intervening variables may be involved, such as later parenting, peer relations or life events. Therefore, although the study supports the claim that early experience matters, it cannot show that early experience alone determines later development.
A stronger example comes from research on extreme deprivation. Rutter et al.’s study of Romanian adoptees examined children who had experienced severe institutional deprivation before adoption into UK families. The researchers found that children adopted before about six months generally showed much better cognitive and emotional outcomes than those adopted after six months. Those adopted later were more likely to display disinhibited attachment, lower IQ scores and social difficulties. This supports the concept of a sensitive period, meaning a time in development when environmental input has especially strong and lasting effects. The findings therefore provide strong evidence for the claim, because differences in early deprivation were linked to measurable differences later in childhood.
However, the Romanian adoptee studies also provide an important counter-argument. Many of the adopted children showed substantial recovery once placed in supportive homes. This indicates brain plasticity: the capacity of the brain and behaviour to adapt in response to later experience. If early experience completely fixed later development, such improvement would not be expected. Instead, the evidence suggests that early deprivation increases risk, but later nurturing environments can reduce or partly reverse negative effects. This makes the relationship probabilistic rather than deterministic.
Another relevant study is Harlow’s work with rhesus monkeys. Infant monkeys preferred a soft cloth surrogate mother over a wire mother that provided food, and monkeys raised without normal attachment showed later social and emotional abnormalities. This suggests that comfort and attachment in early life are crucial for later development and not just feeding. The study was influential because it demonstrated long-term effects of early social experience under controlled conditions. Yet its applicability to human development is limited by species differences and by the artificial laboratory conditions. Ethical concerns also mean that such findings must be interpreted cautiously when discussing humans.
A major issue in evaluating the overall claim is that early experience is difficult to separate from later environment. Children who have poor early care often continue to experience disadvantage later, so long-term outcomes may reflect a combination of factors rather than a pure early effect. For example, deprivation may co-occur with poor nutrition, reduced stimulation, stress and later educational disadvantage. This makes causal conclusions difficult. Even in longitudinal studies, later outcomes may be shaped by adoption quality, schooling, peer support and temperament. Therefore, claims about early experience should avoid oversimplification.
It is also important to distinguish between different domains of development. Early experience may have stronger effects in some areas than others. For example, attachment disruptions may particularly affect emotional regulation and relationships, while cognitive development may be more responsive to later intervention and education. This again shows that the effects of early experience are not uniform.
In conclusion, the claim that early experience shapes later development is well supported by research on attachment and deprivation. Studies such as Rutter et al. and Harlow indicate that early social input can have long-lasting consequences, especially during sensitive periods. Nevertheless, the evidence also shows that later development is not fixed by early experience alone. Brain plasticity, supportive later environments and methodological difficulties in isolating causes mean that early experience should be seen as an important influence rather than a destiny. Overall, early experience shapes later development significantly, but not inevitably.
Tip:
However, this claim should be discussed carefully because early experience does not act in a wholly deterministic way.
This gives the essay a clear controlling argument straight away: early experience matters, but the response will weigh limits to that claim rather than treating it as absolute.
One important line of evidence comes from research on attachment.
This opening sentence clearly signals the first line of argument, helping the reader follow how the discussion will build from one body paragraph to the next.
Support for this comes from Hazan and Shaver’s “love quiz” study, in which adults classified their current romantic relationships in ways that resembled infant attachment categories.
This is a precise study detail rather than a vague reference to research, so it grounds the argument in specific psychological knowledge.
This suggests continuity from early attachment experience to later socio-emotional functioning.
Here the response moves beyond description and explains exactly what the study implies about development across time.
This is linked to the idea of an internal working model: a mental representation of relationships formed from early interactions with caregivers.
This is a strong conceptual move because it introduces terminology and immediately defines it in a clear, accurate way for the argument that follows.
At the same time, this evidence should not be overstated.
This transition is effective because it signals a deliberate shift from support to evaluation, which is essential in a balanced discussion.
Hazan and Shaver relied on self-report data from adults, so the findings may be affected by social desirability and retrospective bias.
This uses precise methodological detail as evidence for evaluation, showing exactly why the study’s conclusions need caution.
It does not prove that infant attachment caused later relationship style, because many intervening variables may be involved, such as later parenting, peer relations or life events.
This is strong analytical reasoning because it identifies the causal limitation of correlational evidence and explains what alternative influences could account for the findings.
Therefore, although the study supports the claim that early experience matters, it cannot show that early experience alone determines later development.
This sentence is a model evaluative judgement: it weighs support and limitation in one controlled statement instead of swinging to an extreme.
A stronger example comes from research on extreme deprivation.
This phrase guides the reader into the next example while also signalling comparative argument development, not just a list of studies.
The researchers found that children adopted before about six months generally showed much better cognitive and emotional outcomes than those adopted after six months.
This is well-chosen evidence because it gives the key comparative finding that directly supports the discussion of timing in development.
This supports the concept of a sensitive period, meaning a time in development when environmental input has especially strong and lasting effects.
The response does close conceptual work here by linking the findings to a developmental principle and explaining why timing matters.
Those adopted later were more likely to display disinhibited attachment, lower IQ scores and social difficulties.
This is effective writing because several outcomes are grouped in one concise sentence, showing breadth of impact while keeping the line of argument focused.
However, the Romanian adoptee studies also provide an important counter-argument.
This is a purposeful transition into the other side of the debate, showing that the essay is actively testing the claim rather than repeating it.
Many of the adopted children showed substantial recovery once placed in supportive homes.
This specific outcome is used well as evidence against a fully deterministic view of early experience.
If early experience completely fixed later development, such improvement would not be expected.
This is clear analytical logic: the writer tests the claim against the evidence and draws out what the recovery findings mean.
This indicates brain plasticity: the capacity of the brain and behaviour to adapt in response to later experience.
This is a strong explanatory technique because the key term is introduced and immediately defined in precise, accessible language.
Another relevant study is Harlow’s work with rhesus monkeys.
This signpost neatly introduces a new study while showing that it has a distinct contribution to the wider discussion.
Infant monkeys preferred a soft cloth surrogate mother over a wire mother that provided food, and monkeys raised without normal attachment showed later social and emotional abnormalities.
This gives concrete, memorable study detail that directly supports the idea that early attachment experience affects later development.
This suggests that comfort and attachment in early life are crucial for later development and not just feeding.
This is effective analysis because it interprets the finding rather than leaving it as raw description, drawing out the developmental implication.
Yet its applicability to human development is limited by species differences and by the artificial laboratory conditions.
This is a sharp evaluative move that qualifies the usefulness of the evidence without dismissing it entirely.
A major issue in evaluating the overall claim is that early experience is difficult to separate from later environment.
This topic sentence does important argumentative work by widening the discussion from individual studies to a broader methodological problem.
For example, deprivation may co-occur with poor nutrition, reduced stimulation, stress and later educational disadvantage.
These specific confounding factors make the point concrete and show detailed understanding of why developmental outcomes are hard to attribute to one cause.
This makes causal conclusions difficult.
The brevity of this sentence is effective: it distils the methodological problem into its central analytical consequence.
Therefore, claims about early experience should avoid oversimplification.
This is a strong argumentative technique because it draws the evaluation back to the essay question and states the implication in a measured register.
It is also important to distinguish between different domains of development.
This transition usefully refines the argument by showing that the writer will not treat development as one single outcome.
For example, attachment disruptions may particularly affect emotional regulation and relationships, while cognitive development may be more responsive to later intervention and education.
This gives a precise comparative detail that supports the idea that early experience affects developmental domains differently.
This again shows that the effects of early experience are not uniform.
This sentence turns the example into a broader conceptual conclusion, strengthening the essay’s nuanced discussion.
Early experience may have stronger effects in some areas than others.
This is a skilful qualifying statement: it keeps the argument balanced by avoiding blanket claims and sharpening the scope of the discussion.
In conclusion, the claim that early experience shapes later development is well supported by research on attachment and deprivation.
This concluding sentence synthesises the main line of argument clearly, returning directly to the wording of the question rather than merely repeating earlier points.