INHE 2003 Week 6 Case Application Example

A Planned Block City, Endless Why Questions and Tears Over a Broken Clock: A Case Application Testing Each Detail of a Composite Five-Year-Old's Week Against Erikson's Initiative Versus Guilt in a Fit Table, Then Checking the Adjacent Stage Against the Same Details

Student Name

Walden University

INHE 2003: Human Development

Instructor Name

Month Day, Year

A Planned Block City, Endless Why Questions and Tears Over a Broken Clock: A Case Application Testing Each Detail of a Composite Five-Year-Old's Week Against Erikson's Initiative Versus Guilt in a Fit Table, Then Checking the Adjacent Stage Against the Same Details

The Case

A composite five-year-old spent a week of kindergarten break at home. On Monday she announced a plan to build a "whole city" with blocks and spent two afternoons on it, adding a library and a fire station. Throughout the week she asked a stream of why questions: why the sky is blue, why her grandmother walks slowly, why the dog cannot talk. She started three art projects and abandoned each partway through. On Thursday she took apart the kitchen clock to "see how it works," and when her father scolded her, she cried for a long time and said she was "bad."

The Stage

Erikson (1963) described the preschool years, roughly ages three to five, as the period of initiative versus guilt. Children at this stage begin to plan and carry out activities, take on tasks for the sake of being active and on the move, and test their ability to make things happen. When their initiative is supported, they develop a sense of purpose; when it is met with harsh criticism or their efforts cause trouble they feel responsible for, they may develop guilt about their own wishes and plans. Erikson (1968) later stressed that each stage builds on those before it, which is why the stage just before this one is worth testing too.

The Fit Table

Table 1

How Each Detail Fits Initiative Versus Guilt

Fit ratings are the author's judgments for this composite case.

Testing the Adjacent Stage

The stage before it, autonomy versus shame and doubt, covers roughly ages one and a half to three, when children assert independence and want to do things for themselves (Erikson, 1963). It explains part of the case: her insistence on taking apart the clock herself fits a wish for autonomy. But it explains less of the rest. Autonomy concerns doing things oneself; it does not account for the planning behind the block city, the purpose that held her to it for two days or the sense that her plans could be wrong in themselves. Her tears after the scolding were about being bad, not about being unable to do something alone, which is the kind of feeling Erikson linked to guilt rather than shame. The course textbook describes initiative as building on autonomy, adding planning and purpose to the earlier wish to act independently (Lally & Valentine-French, 2019).

Verdict

The case fits initiative versus guilt more strongly than the adjacent stage. The detail that matters most for her development is the scolding over the clock. Her curiosity about how it worked was initiative at its strongest; the scolding turned it into guilt. If adults can respond to such episodes by setting limits on the behavior, such as explaining that clocks are not for taking apart and offering an old one she can open, while supporting the curiosity behind it, the balance is more likely to tip toward purpose.

References

Erikson, E. H. (1963). Childhood and society (2nd ed.). W. W. Norton.

Erikson, E. H. (1968). Identity: Youth and crisis. W. W. Norton.

Lally, M., & Valentine-French, S. (2019). Lifespan development: A psychological perspective (2nd ed.). College of the Canyons.