CHAPTER 1 HISTORY, THEORY, AND RESEARCH STRATEGIES

WHAT’S AHEAD IN CHAPTER 1

1.1 The Field of Child Development

Domains of Development • Periods of Development

1.2 Basic Issues

Continuous or Discontinuous Development? • One Course of Development or Many? • Relative Influence of Nature and Nurture? • A Balanced Point of View

■ BIOLOGY AND ENVIRONMENT: Resilient Children

1.3 Historical Foundations

Medieval Times • The Reformation • Philosophies of the Enlightenment • Scientific Beginnings

1.4 Mid-Twentieth-Century Theories

The Psychoanalytic Perspective • Behaviorism and Social Learning Theory • Piaget’s Cognitive-Developmental Theory

1.5 Recent Theoretical Perspectives

Information Processing • Developmental Neuroscience • Ethology and Evolutionary Developmental Psychology • Vygotsky’s Sociocultural Theory • Ecological Systems Theory • Development as a Dynamic System

■ SOCIAL ISSUES: HEALTH: Family Chaos Undermines Children’s Well-Being

1.6 Comparing Child Development Theories

1.7 Studying the Child

Common Research Methods • General Research Designs • Designs for Studying Development • Improving Developmental Designs

■ CULTURAL INFLUENCES: Immigrant Youths: Adapting to a New Land

1.8 Ethics in Research on Children

The youngest of six children, Reiko Nagumo was born in Los Angeles in 1934 to Japanese-immigrant parents who had become naturalized U.S. citizens. On December 7, 1941, when Reiko was in second grade, the Japanese bombed Pearl Harbor, an event that caused the United States to declare war on Japan and enter World War II. In the days that followed, Reiko’s best friend, Mary Frances, approached her at school and said, “Reiko, my mama told me to tell you that I’m not allowed to play with you anymore because you’re Japanese, and we’re at war with Japan.”

The only Japanese student in her class, Reiko became the target of her classmates’ harassment, including name-calling, hitting, and spitting. Still, Mary Frances remained Reiko’s friend at school, becoming her protective, side-by-side partner as the children transitioned between their homeroom and the school library—a kindness encouraged by the girls’ classroom teacher. After returning from winter break in January of 1942, Mary Frances approached Reiko excitedly and invited her over to see the gifts she had received at Christmastime.

“But you’re not allowed to play with me,” Reiko reminded Mary Frances.

“Oh, my mama won’t know,” Mary Frances replied. “She works at the hospital, and I have a key.”

After school, the two friends ran to Mary Frances’s home, but as they entered, they heard her Uncle Bill approaching through another door. Quickly, Mary Frances directed Reiko to hide behind the sofa, but Uncle Bill, hearing the girls talking, found Reiko, dragged her out, and told her to go home and never come back. Then he threatened, “Mary Frances, I’m going to punish you.”

Soon after, the U.S. government issued an executive order requiring tens of thousands of American citizens of Japanese ancestry to be relocated from their homes to internment camps. Reiko, her parents, and her siblings were rounded up with other Japanese Americans, herded onto busses, and transported to a holding center where, for three months, all eight family members slept in the same room on canvas bags they had stuffed with hay. Then, the incarcerated citizens boarded trains for Heart Mountain Relocation Center in Wyoming, where they were held for three years.

An active, curious child, Reiko was overcome with sadness at being separated from her home and daily routines. Her parents, despite the trauma of their desolate surroundings and denial of their Constitutional rights, managed to provide their children with affection and support, including encouragement to do well academically in the camp’s makeshift school using barracks as classrooms. Soon, Reiko’s buoyancy returned: She passed time playing “school” and “library” with other camp children and made playing cards, checkerboards, and other games out of cardboard. Charitable organizations sent in teachers with whom Reiko forged close relationships.

When the war ended in 1945, Reiko and her family moved back to their former neighborhood. Memories of peer mistreatment caused Reiko to fear returning to school, but as she set foot in the play yard, a teacher welcomed her and made her feel safe. Reiko soon found Mary Frances—the only child who reached out and took her hand in friendship.

In the years that followed, Reiko and Mary Frances lost contact. Reiko went on to earn bachelor’s and master’s degrees in nursing and pursued an adventurous international opportunity as a public health nurse before returning to California to work in a hospital neonatal intensive care unit. Now retired, she regularly gives talks to schoolchildren about her wartime experiences of internment and what we can learn from history. Reiko never forgot Mary Frances, who befriended her during a time of intense prejudice against anyone Japanese. As she grew old, Reiko began to search for her. Seventy years after the two friends had last seen each other, they were reunited (Elk Grove Unified School District, 2018; PBS, 2018).

• • •

Reiko’s story raises a wealth of fascinating issues about child development:

What determines the physical, mental, and behavioral attributes that Reiko and Mary Frances share with their agemates and those that make each child unique?

How did Reiko manage to sustain an active, curious disposition despite the trauma of internment? What enabled Mary Frances to remain Reiko’s steadfast friend in the face of adult and peer condemnation?

In what ways are children’s home, school, and neighborhood experiences the same today as they were in Reiko and Mary Frances’s generation, and in what ways are they different?

How do historical events—for Reiko, wartime persecution and dislocation—affect children’s development and well-being?

These are central questions addressed by child development, a field of study devoted to understanding constancy and change from conception through adolescence. Child development is part of a larger, interdisciplinary field known as developmental science, which includes all changes we experience throughout the lifespan (Lerner et al., 2014; Overton & Molenaar, 2015). The interests and concerns of the thousands of investigators who study child development are enormously diverse. But all have a common goal: to describe and identify those factors that influence the consistencies and changes in young people during the first two decades of life. ■

1.1 THE FIELD OF CHILD DEVELOPMENT

1.1a Describe the field of child development, along with factors that stimulated its expansion.

1.1b Explain how child development is typically divided into domains and periods.

The questions just listed are not just of scientific interest. Each has applied, or practical, importance as well. In fact, scientific curiosity is just one factor that led child development to become the exciting field it is today. Research about development has also been stimulated by social pressures to improve the lives of children. For example, the beginning of public education in the early twentieth century led to a demand for knowledge about what and how to teach children of different ages. The interest of pediatricians and nurses in improving children’s health required an understanding of physical growth and nutrition. The social service profession’s desire to treat children’s emotional and behavior problems and to help them cope with challenging life circumstances, such as the birth of a sibling, parental divorce, poverty, bullying in school, or racial and ethnic prejudices, required information about personality and social development. And parents have continually sought advice about child-rearing practices and experiences that would promote their children’s development and well-being.

Our large storehouse of information about child development is interdisciplinary. It has grown through the combined efforts of people from many fields. Because of the need to solve everyday problems concerning children, researchers from psychology, sociology, anthropology, biology, and neuroscience have joined forces with those from education, family studies, medicine, public health, and social service, to name just a few. Together, they have created the field of child development as it exists today—a body of knowledge that is not just scientifically important but also relevant and useful.

1.1.1 Domains of Development

To make the vast, interdisciplinary study of human constancy and change more orderly and convenient, development is often divided into three broad domains: physical, cognitive, and emotional and social. Refer to Figure 1.1 for a description and illustration of each. In this text, we will largely consider the three domains in the order just mentioned. Yet the domains are not really distinct. Rather, they combine in an integrated, holistic fashion to yield the living, growing child. Furthermore, each domain influences and is influenced by the others. For example, in Chapter 5 you will see that new motor capacities, such as reaching, sitting, crawling, and walking (physical), contribute greatly to infants’ understanding of their surroundings (cognitive). When babies think and act more competently, adults stimulate them more with games, language, and expressions of delight at their new achievements (emotional and social). These enriched experiences, in turn, promote all aspects of development.

You will encounter instances of the interwoven nature of all domains on nearly every page of this text. In its margins, you will find occasional Look and Listen activities—opportunities for you to see everyday illustrations of development by observing what real children say and do or by attending to everyday influences on children. Through these experiences, I hope to make your study of development more authentic and meaningful.

Also, at the end of major sections, look for Ask Yourself, a feature designed to help deepen your understanding. Within it, I have included Connect questions, which help you form a coherent, unified picture of child development; Apply questions, which encourage you to apply your knowledge to controversial issues and problems faced by parents, teachers, and children; and Reflect questions, which invite you to reflect on your own development and that of people you know well.

1.1.2 Periods of Development

Besides distinguishing and integrating the three domains, another dilemma arises in discussing development: how to divide the flow of time into sensible, manageable parts. Researchers usually use the following age periods, each of which brings new capacities and social expectations that serve as important transitions in major theories:

The prenatal period: from conception to birth. In this nine-month period, the most rapid time of change, a one-celled organism is transformed into a human baby with remarkable capacities for adjusting to life in the surrounding world.

Infancy and toddlerhood: from birth to 2 years. This period brings dramatic changes in the body and brain that support the emergence of a wide array of motor, perceptual, and intellectual capacities; the beginnings of language; and the first intimate ties to others. Infancy spans the first year. Toddlerhood spans the second, during which children take their first independent steps, marking a shift to greater autonomy.

Early childhood: from 2 to 6 years. The body becomes longer and leaner, motor skills are refined, and children become more self-controlled and self-sufficient. Make-believe play blossoms, reflecting and supporting many aspects of psychological development. Thought and language expand at an astounding pace, a sense of morality becomes evident, and children establish ties with peers.

Middle childhood: from 6 to 11 years. Children learn about the wider world and master new responsibilities that increasingly resemble those they will perform as adults. Hallmarks of this period are improved athletic abilities; participation in organized games with rules; more logical thought processes; mastery of fundamental reading, writing, math, and other academic knowledge and skills; and advances in understanding the self, morality, and friendship.

Adolescence: from 11 to 18 years. This is the intervening period between childhood and adulthood. Puberty leads to an adult-sized body and sexual maturity. Thought becomes increasingly complex, abstract, and idealistic, and schooling is directed toward entry into higher education and the world of work. During this period, young people establish autonomy from the family and define personal values and goals.

For many contemporary youths in industrialized nations, the transition to adult roles has become increasingly prolonged—so much so that some researchers have proposed an additional period of development called emerging adulthood that extends from age 18 to the mid- to late-twenties. Although emerging adults have moved beyond adolescence, they have not yet fully assumed adult responsibilities. Rather, during the college years and sometimes beyond, these young people intensify their exploration of options in love, career, and personal values before making enduring commitments (Arnett, 2015). Perhaps emerging adulthood is your period of development.

With this introduction in mind, let’s turn to some basic issues that have captivated, puzzled, and sparked debate among child development theorists. Then our discussion will trace the emergence of the field and survey major theories.We will return to each contemporary theory in greater depth in later chapters.

1.2 BASIC ISSUES

1.2 Identify three basic issues on which theories of child development take a stand.

Research on child development did not begin until the late nineteenth and early twentieth centuries. But ideas about how children grow and change have a much longer history. As these speculations combined with research, they inspired the construction of theories of development. A theory is an orderly, integrated set of statements that describes, explains, and predicts behavior. For example, a good theory of infant–caregiver attachment would (1) describe the behaviors of babies around 6 to 8 months of age, when they start to actively seek the affection and comfort of a familiar adult, (2) explain how and why infants develop this strong desire to bond with a familiar caregiver, and (3) predict the consequences of this emotional bond for future relationships.

Theories are vital tools for two reasons. First, they provide organizing frameworks for our observations of children. In other words, they guide and give meaning to what we see. Second, theories that are verified by research often serve as a sound basis for practical action. Once a theory helps us understand development, we are in a much better position to know how to improve the welfare and treatment of children.

As we will see later, theories are influenced by the cultural values and belief systems of their times. But theories differ in one important way from mere opinion or belief: A theory’s continued existence depends on scientific verification. Every theory must be tested using a fair set of research procedures agreed on by the scientific community, and findings that verify the theory must endure, or be replicated over time.

Within the field of child development, many theories offer different ideas about what children are like and how they change. The study of child development provides no ultimate truth because investigators do not always agree on the meaning of what they see. Also, children are complex beings; they change physically, cognitively, emotionally, and socially. No single theory has explained all these aspects. But the existence of many theories helps advance knowledge because researchers are continually trying to support, contradict, and integrate these different points of view.

Although there are many theories, we can easily organize them by looking at the stand they take on three basic issues: (1) Is the course of development continuous or discontinuous? (2) Does one course of development characterize all children, or are there many possible courses? (3) What are the roles of genetic and environmental factors in development? Let’s look closely at each of these issues.

1.2.1 Continuous or Discontinuous Development?

A mother reported with amazement that her 20-month-old son Angelo had pushed a toy car across the living room floor while making a motorlike sound, “Brmmmm, brmmmm,” for the first time. When he hit a nearby wall with a bang, Angelo let go of the car, exclaimed, “C’ash!” and laughed heartily.

“How come Angelo can pretend, but he couldn’t a few months ago?” his mother asked. “And I wonder what ‘Brmmmm, brmmmm’ and ‘Crash!’ mean to Angelo. Does he understand motorlike sounds and collision the same way I do?”

Angelo’s mother has raised a puzzling issue about development: How can we best describe the differences in capacities and behavior between small infants, young children, adolescents, and adults? As Figure 1.2 on page7 illustrates, most major theories recognize two possibilities.

One view holds that infants and preschoolers respond to the world in much the same way as adults do. The difference between the immature and the mature being is one of amount or complexity. For example, little Angelo’s thinking may be just as logical and well-organized as our own. Perhaps (as his mother reports) he can sort objects into simple categories, recognize whether he has more of one kind than of another, and remember where he left his favorite toy at child care the week before. Angelo’s only limitation may be that he cannot perform these skills with as much information and precision as we can. If this is so, then Angelo’s development is continuous—a process of gradually adding more of the same types of skills that were there to begin with.

Figure 1.2 Is development continuous or discontinuous? (a) Some theorists believe that development is a smooth, continuous process. Children gradually add more of the same types of skills that were there to begin with. (b) Other theorists think that development takes place in discontinuous stages. Children change rapidly as they step up to a new level and then change very little for a while. With each step, the child interprets and responds to the world in a qualitatively different way.

According to a second view, Angelo’s thoughts, emotions, and behavior differ considerably from those of adults. His development is discontinuous—a process in which new ways of understanding and responding to the world emerge at specific times. From this perspective, Angelo is not yet able to organize objects or remember and interpret experiences as we do. Instead, he will move through a series of developmental steps, each with unique features, until he reaches the highest level of functioning.

Theories that accept the discontinuous perspective regard development as taking place in stages—qualitative changes in thinking, feeling, and behaving that characterize specific periods of development. In stage theories, development is much like climbing a staircase, with each step corresponding to a more mature, reorganized way of functioning. The stage concept also assumes that children undergo periods of rapid transformation as they step up from one stage to the next, alternating with plateaus during which they stand solidly within a stage. In other words, change is fairly sudden rather than gradual and ongoing.

Does development actually occur in a neat, orderly sequence of stages? This ambitious assumption has faced significant challenges (Collins & Hartup, 2013). Later in this chapter, we will review some influential stage theories.

1.2.2 One Course of Development or Many?

Stage theorists assume that people everywhere follow the same sequence of development. For example, in the domain of cognition, a stage theorist might try to identify the common influences that lead children to represent their world through language and make-believe play in early childhood, to think more logically and systematically in middle childhood, and to reason more systematically and abstractly in adolescence.

At the same time, the field of child development is becoming increasingly aware that children grow up in distinct contexts—unique combinations of personal and environmental circumstances that can result in different paths of change. For example, a shy child who fears social encounters develops in very different contexts from those of an outgoing agemate who readily seeks out other people. Children in non-Western village societies have experiences in their families and communities that differ sharply from those of children in large Western cities. These varying circumstances foster different intellectual capacities, social skills, and feelings about the self and others (Kagan, 2013a; Mistry & Dutta, 2015).

As you will see, contemporary theorists regard the contexts that shape development as many-layered and complex. On the personal side, these include heredity and biological makeup. On the environmental side, they include both immediate settings (home, child-care center, school, neighborhood) and circumstances that are more remote from children’s everyday lives (community resources, societal values, historical time period). Furthermore, new evidence is increasingly emphasizing mutually influential relations between individuals and their contexts: Children not only are affected by but also contribute to the contexts in which they develop (Elder, Shanahan, & Jennings, 2015). Finally, researchers today are more conscious than ever before of cultural diversity in development.

1.2.3 Relative Influence of Nature and Nurture?

In addition to describing the course of child development, each theory takes a stand on a major issue about its underlying causes: how to characterize the relative influence of genetic and environmental factors in development? This is the age-old nature–nurture controversy. By nature, we mean the hereditary information we receive from our parents at the moment of conception. By nurture, we mean the complex forces of the physical and social world that influence our biological makeup and psychological experiences before and after birth.

Although all theories grant roles to both nature and nurture, they vary in emphasis. Consider the following questions: Is the older child’s ability to think in more complex ways largely the result of a built-in timetable of growth, or is it heavily influenced by stimulation from parents and teachers? Do children acquire language because they are genetically predisposed to do so or because parents intensively teach them from an early age? And what accounts for the vast individual differences among children in height, weight, physical coordination, cognitive abilities, personality traits, and social skills? Is nature or nurture more responsible?

A theory’s position on the roles of nature and nurture affects how it explains individual differences. Theorists who emphasize stability—that children who are high or low in a characteristic (such as verbal ability, anxiety, or sociability) will remain so at later ages—typically stress the importance of heredity. If they regard environment as important, they usually point to early experiences as establishing a lifelong pattern of behavior. Powerful negative events in the first few years, they argue, cannot be fully overcome by later, more positive ones (Bowlby, 1980; Sroufe, Coffino, & Carlson, 2010). Other theorists, taking a more optimistic view, see development as having substantial plasticity throughout life—as being open to change in response to influential experiences (Baltes, Lindenberger, & Staudinger, 2006; Overton & Molenaar, 2015).

Throughout this book, you will see that investigators disagree, often sharply, on the question of stability versus plasticity. Their answers have great applied significance. If you believe that development is largely due to nature, then providing experiences aimed at promoting change would seem to be of little value. If, on the other hand, you are convinced of the importance of early experience, then you would intervene as soon as possible, offering high-quality stimulation and support to ensure that children develop at their best. Finally, if you think that environment is profoundly influential throughout development, you would provide assistance any time children or adolescents face difficulties, in the belief that, with the help of favorable life circumstances, they can recover from negative events.

1.2.4 A Balanced Point of View

So far, we have discussed basic issues of child development in terms of solutions favoring one side or the other. But as we trace the unfolding of the field in the rest of this chapter, you will see that the positions of many theorists have softened. Today, some theorists believe that both continuous and discontinuous changes occur. Many acknowledge that development has both universal features and features unique to the individual and his or her contexts. And a growing number regard heredity and environment as inseparably interwoven, each affecting the potential of the other to modify the child’s traits and capacities (Lerner et al., 2014; Overton & Molenaar, 2015). We will discuss these contemporary ideas about nature and nurture in Chapter 2.

Biology and EnvironmentResilient Children

John and his best friend, Gary, grew up in a rundown, crime-ridden urban neighborhood. By age 10, each had experienced years of family conflict followed by parental divorce. Reared from then on in mother-headed households, John and Gary rarely saw their fathers. Both dropped out of high school and were in and out of trouble with the police.

Then their paths diverged. By age 30, John had fathered two children with women he never married, had spent time in prison, was unemployed, and drank alcohol heavily. In contrast, Gary had returned to finish high school, had studied auto mechanics at a community college, and became manager of a gas station and repair shop. Married with two children, he had saved his earnings and bought a home. He was happy, healthy, and well-adapted to life.

A wealth of evidence shows that environmental risks—poverty, negative family interactions and parental divorce, job loss, mental illness, and drug abuse—predispose children to future problems (Masten, 2013). Why did Gary “beat the odds” and come through unscathed?

Research on resilience—the ability to adapt effectively in the face of threats to development—is receiving increased attention as investigators look for ways to protect young people from the damaging effects of stressful life conditions (Wright & Masten, 2015). This interest has been inspired by several long-term studies on the relationship of life stressors in childhood to competence and adjustment in adolescence and adulthood. In each study, some individuals were shielded from negative outcomes, whereas others had lasting problems (Werner, 2013). Four broad factors seemed to offer protection from the damaging effects of stressful life events.

Personal Characteristics

A child’s genetically influenced characteristics can reduce exposure to risk or lead to experiences that compensate for early stressful events. High intelligence and socially valued talents (in music or athletics, for example) increase the chances that a child will have rewarding experiences at school and in the community that offset the impact of a stressful home life. Temperament is particularly powerful. Children who have easygoing, sociable dispositions and who can readily inhibit negative emotions and impulses tend to have an optimistic outlook on life and a special capacity to adapt to change—qualities that elicit positive responses from others. In contrast, emotionally reactive and irritable children often tax the patience of people around them (Wang & Deater-Deckard, 2013). For example, both John and Gary moved several times during their childhoods. Each time, John became anxious and angry, whereas Gary looked forward to making new friends.

A Warm Parental Relationship

A close relationship with at least one parent who provides warmth, appropriately high expectations, monitoring of the child’s activities, and an organized home environment fosters resilience (Shonkoff & Garner, 2012). But this factor (as well as other sources of social support) is not independent of children’s personal characteristics. Children who are self-controlled, socially responsive, and able to deal with change are easier to rear and more likely to enjoy positive relationships with parents and other people. At the same time, children may develop more attractive dispositions as a result of parental warmth and attention (Luthar, Crossman, & Small, 2015).

Social Support Outside the Immediate Family

The most consistent asset of resilient children is a strong bond with a competent, caring adult. For children who are not close to either parent, a grandparent, aunt, uncle, or teacher who forms a special relationship with the child can promote resilience (Masten, 2013). Gary received support in adolescence from his grandfather, who listened to Gary’s concerns and helped him solve problems.

Associations with rule-abiding peers who value school achievement are also linked to resilience (Furman & Rose, 2015). But children who have positive relationships with adults are far more likely to establish these supportive peer ties.

Community Resources and Opportunities

Community supports—good schools, convenient and affordable health care and social services, libraries, and recreation centers—foster both parents’ and children’s well-being. In addition, engaging in extracurricular activities at school and religious youth groups, scouting, and other organizations teach important social skills, such as cooperation, leadership, and contributing to others’ welfare. As participants acquire these competencies, they gain in self-reliance, self-esteem, and community commitment (Leventhal, Dupéré, & Shuey, 2015). As a college student, Gary volunteered for Habitat for Humanity, joining a team building affordable housing in low-income neighborhoods. Community involvement offered Gary opportunities to form meaningful relationships, which further strengthened his resilience.

A 16-year-old student at a high school for the arts walks off stage after performing a musical number and is congratulated by a returning student with a leading role in the successful show, “Motown the Musical.” Personal characteristics (such as exceptional talent), a strong bond with an adult (like this successful performer), and skill-building extra-curricular activities foster resilience in this teenager.

Lara Cerri/Tampa Bay Times/ZUMA Press

Research on resilience highlights the complex connections between heredity and environment (Masten, 2016). Armed with positive characteristics, which stem from native endowment, favorable rearing experiences, or both, children and adolescents can act to reduce stressful situations. But when many risks pile up, they are increasingly difficult to overcome (Evans, Li, & Sepanski Whipple, 2013). To fortify children against the negative effects of risk, interventions must not only reduce risks but also enhance children’s protective relationships at home, in school, and in the community.

Finally, as you will see later in this text, the relative impact of early and later experiences varies greatly from one domain of development to another and even—as the Biology and Environment box on page 10 indicates—across individuals! Because of the complex network of factors contributing to developmental change and the challenges of isolating the effects of each, more researchers are envisioning it from a developmental systems perspective—as a perpetually ongoing process that is molded by a complex network of genetic/biological, psychological, and social influences (Lerner, 2015). Our review of child development theories will conclude with influential systems theories.

Ask Yourself

Connect ■ Provide an example of how one domain of development (physical, cognitive, or emotional/social) can affect development in another domain.

Apply ■ Review Reiko’s story in the introduction to this chapter. What factors likely contributed to her resilience in the face of wartime persecution, relocation, and internment?

Reflect ■ Describe an aspect of your development that differs from a parent’s or a grandparent’s when she or he was your age. How might differing contexts be responsible?

1.3 HISTORICAL FOUNDATIONS

1.3 Describe major historical influences on theories of child development.

Contemporary theories of child development are the result of centuries of change in Western cultural values, philosophical thinking about children, and scientific progress. To understand the field as it exists today, we must return to its early beginnings—to ideas about children that long preceded scientific child study but that linger as important forces in current theory and research.

1.3.1 Medieval Times

At least since medieval times—the sixth through the fifteenth centuries—childhood has been regarded as a separate period of life. Medieval painters often depicted children wearing loose, comfortable gowns, playing games, and looking up to adults. Written texts contained terms that distinguished children under age 7 or 8 from other people and that recognized even young teenagers as not fully mature. By the fourteenth century, manuals offering advice on many aspects of child care, including health, feeding, clothing, and games, were common (Heywood, 2013; Lett, 1997). Laws recognized that children needed protection from people who might mistreat them, and courts exercised leniency with lawbreaking youths because of their tender years (Hanawalt, 1993).

1.3.2 The Reformation

In the sixteenth century, the Puritan belief in original sin gave rise to the view that children were born evil and stubborn and had to be civilized (Heywood, 2013). Harsh, restrictive child-rearing practices were recommended to tame the depraved child. Children were dressed in stiff, uncomfortable clothing that held them in adultlike postures, and disobedient students were routinely beaten by their schoolmasters. Nevertheless, love and affection for their children prevented most Puritan parents from using extremely repressive measures (Moran & Vinovskis, 1986).

As the Puritans emigrated from England to the New World, they brought the belief that child rearing was one of their most important obligations. Although they continued to regard the child’s soul as tainted by original sin, they tried to teach their sons and daughters to use reason to tell right from wrong (Clarke-Stewart, 1998). As they trained their children in self-reliance and self-control, Puritan parents gradually adopted a moderate balance between severity and permissiveness.

1.3.3 Philosophies of the Enlightenment

The seventeenth-century Enlightenment brought new philosophies that emphasized ideals of human dignity and respect. Conceptions of childhood were more humane than those of the past.

John Locke

The writings of British philosopher John Locke (1632–1704) served as the forerunner of a twentieth-century perspective that we will discuss shortly: behaviorism. Locke viewed the child as a tabula rasa—Latin for “blank slate.” According to this idea, children begin as nothing at all; their characters are shaped entirely by experience. Locke (1690/1892) saw parents as rational tutors who can mold the child in any way they wish through careful instruction, effective example, and rewards for good behavior. He was ahead of his time in recommending child-rearing practices that present-day research supports—for example, the use of adult attention and approval as rewards, rather than money or sweets. He also opposed physical punishment: “The child repeatedly beaten in school cannot look upon books and teachers without experiencing fear and anger.” Locke’s philosophy led to a change from harshness toward children to kindness and compassion.

Look carefully at Locke’s ideas, and you will see that he regarded development as continuous: Adultlike behaviors are gradually built up through the warm, consistent teachings of parents. His view of the child as a tabula rasa led him to champion nurture—the power of the environment to shape the child. And his faith in nurture suggests the possibility of many courses of development and of high plasticity at later ages due to new experiences. Finally, Locke’s philosophy characterizes children as doing little to influence their own destiny, which is written on “blank slates” by others. This vision of a passive child has been discarded. All contemporary theories view children as active, purposeful beings who contribute substantially to their own development.

Jean-Jacques Rousseau

In the eighteenth century, French philosopher Jean-Jacques Rousseau (1712–1778) introduced a new view of childhood. Children, Rousseau claimed, are not blank slates to be filled by adult instruction. Instead, they are noble savages, naturally endowed with a sense of right and wrong and an innate plan for orderly, healthy growth. Unlike Locke, Rousseau believed that children’s built-in moral sense and unique ways of thinking and feeling would only be harmed by adult training. His was a child-centered philosophy in which the adult should be receptive to the child’s needs at each of four stages: infancy, childhood, late childhood, and adolescence.

Rousseau’s philosophy includes two influential concepts. The first is the concept of stage, which we discussed earlier. The second is the concept of maturation, which refers to a genetically determined, naturally unfolding course of growth. In contrast to Locke, Rousseau saw children as determining their own destinies. And he viewed development as a discontinuous, stagewise process that follows a single, unified course mapped out by nature.

1.3.4 Scientific Beginnings

The study of child development evolved quickly in the late nineteenth and early twentieth centuries. Early observations of children were soon followed by improved methods and theories. Each advance contributed to the firm foundation on which the field rests today.

Darwin: Birth of Scientific Child Study

British naturalist Charles Darwin (1809–1882) joined an expedition to distant parts of the world, where he observed infinite variation among plant and animal species. He also saw that within a species, no two individuals are exactly alike. From these observations, he constructed his famous theory of evolution.

The theory emphasized two related principles: natural selection and survival of the fittest. Darwin (1859/2003) explained that certain species survive in particular parts of the world because they have characteristics that fit with, or are adapted to, their surroundings. Other species die off because they are less well-suited to their environments. Individuals within a species who best meet the environment’s survival requirements live long enough to reproduce and pass their more beneficial characteristics to future generations. Darwin’s emphasis on the adaptive value of physical characteristics and behavior eventually found its way into important developmental theories.

During his explorations, Darwin discovered that early prenatal growth is strikingly similar in many species. Other scientists concluded from Darwin’s observation that the development of the human child followed the same general plan as the evolution of the human species. Although this belief eventually proved inaccurate, efforts to chart parallels between child growth and human evolution prompted researchers to make careful observations of all aspects of children’s behavior. Out of these first attempts to document an idea about development, scientific child study was born.

The Normative Period

G. Stanley Hall (1844–1924), one of the most influential American psychologists of the early twentieth century, is generally regarded as the founder of the child-study movement (Cairns & Cairns, 2006). Inspired by Darwin’s work, Hall and his well-known student Arnold Gesell (1880–1961) devised theories based on evolutionary ideas. They regarded development as a maturational process—a genetically determined series of events that unfold automatically, much like a flower (Gesell, 1933; Hall, 1904).

Hall and Gesell are remembered less for their one-sided theories than for their intensive efforts to describe all aspects of child development. They launched the normative approach, in which measures of behavior are taken on large numbers of individuals, and age-related averages are computed to represent typical development. Using this procedure, Hall constructed elaborate questionnaires asking children of different ages almost everything they could tell about themselves—interests, fears, imaginary playmates, dreams, friendships, everyday knowledge, and more. Similarly, through observations and parent interviews, Gesell collected detailed normative information on the motor achievements, social behaviors, and personality characteristics of infants and children.

Gesell was also among the first to make knowledge about child development meaningful to parents by telling them what to expect at each age. If, as he believed, the timetable of development is the product of millions of years of evolution, then children are naturally knowledgeable about their needs. His child-rearing advice, in the tradition of Rousseau, recommended sensitivity to children’s cues (Thelen & Adolph, 1992). Along with Dr. Spock’s Baby and Child Care, Gesell’s books became a central part of a rapidly expanding popular literature for parents.

The Mental Testing Movement

While Hall and Gesell were developing their theories and methods in the United States, French psychologist Alfred Binet (1857–1911) was also taking a normative approach to child development, but for a different reason. In the early 1900s, Binet and his colleague Theodore Simon were asked by Paris school officials to find a way to identify children with learning problems who needed to be placed in special classes. To address these practical educational concerns, Binet and Simon constructed the first successful intelligence test.

Binet began with a well-developed theory of intelligence. Capturing the complexity of children’s thinking, he defined intelligence as good judgment, planning, and critical reflection (Sternberg & Jarvin, 2003). Then he created age-graded test items that directly measured these abilities.

In 1916, at Stanford University, Binet’s test was adapted for use with English-speaking children. Since then, the English version has been known as the Stanford-Binet Intelligence Scale. Besides providing a score that could successfully predict school achievement, the Binet test sparked tremendous interest in individual differences in development. Comparisons of the scores of children who vary in gender, ethnicity, birth order, family background, and other characteristics became a major focus of research. And measures of intelligence rose quickly to the forefront of the nature–nurture controversy.

1.4 MID-TWENTIETH-CENTURY THEORIES

1.4 Describe theories that influenced child development research in the mid-twentieth century.

In the mid-twentieth century, the field of child development expanded into a legitimate discipline. A variety of theories emerged, each of which continues to have followers today. In these theories, the European concern with the child’s inner thoughts and feelings contrasts sharply with the North American academic focus on scientific precision and concrete, observable behavior.

1.4.1 The Psychoanalytic Perspective

By the 1930s and 1940s, parents on both sides of the Atlantic increasingly sought professional help in dealing with children’s emotional difficulties. The earlier normative movement had answered the question, What are children like? Now another question had to be addressed: How and why do children become the way they are? To treat psychological problems, psychiatrists and social workers turned to an emerging approach to personality development that emphasized each child’s unique history.

According to the psychoanalytic perspective, children move through a series of stages in which they confront conflicts between biological drives and social expectations. How these conflicts are resolved determines the person’s ability to learn, to get along with others, and to cope with anxiety. Among the many contributors to the psychoanalytic perspective, two were especially influential: Sigmund Freud, founder of the psychoanalytic movement, and Erik Erikson.

Freud’s Theory

Freud (1856–1939), a Viennese physician, sought a cure for emotionally troubled adults by having them talk freely about painful events of their childhoods. Working with these recollections, he examined his patients’ unconscious motivations and constructed his psychosexual theory, which emphasizes that how parents manage their child’s sexual and aggressive drives in the first few years is crucial for healthy personality development.

In Freud’s theory, three parts of the personality—id, ego, and superego—become integrated during five stages, summarized in Table 1.1. The id, the largest portion of the mind, is the source of basic biological needs and desires. The ego, the conscious, rational part of personality, emerges in early infancy to redirect the id’s impulses so they are discharged in acceptable ways. Between 3 and 6 years of age, the superego, or conscience, develops as parents insist that children conform to the values of society. Now the ego faces the increasingly complex task of reconciling the demands of the id, the external world, and conscience—for example, the id impulse to grab an attractive toy from a playmate versus the superego’s warning that such behavior is wrong. According to Freud, the relations established between id, ego, and superego during the preschool years determine the individual’s basic personality.

Table 1.1 Freud’s Psychosexual Stages and Erikson’s Psychosocial Stages Compared

APPROXIMATE AGE

FREUD’S PSYCHOSEXUAL STAGE

ERIKSON’S PSYCHOSOCIAL STAGE

Birth–1 year

Oral: If oral needs are not met through sucking from breast or bottle, the individual may develop such habits as thumb sucking, fingernail biting, overeating, or smoking.

Basic trust versus mistrust: From warm, responsive care, infants gain a sense of trust that the world is good. Mistrust occurs if infants are neglected or handled harshly.

1–3 years

Anal: Toddlers and preschoolers enjoy holding and releasing urine and feces. If parents toilet train before children are ready or make too few demands, conflicts about anal control may appear in the form of extreme orderliness or disorder.

Autonomy versus shame and doubt: Using new mental and motor skills, children want to decide for themselves. Parents can foster autonomy by permitting reasonable free choice and not forcing or shaming the child.

3–6 years

Phallic: As preschoolers take pleasure in genital stimulation, Freud’s Oedipus conflict for boys and Electra conflict for girls arise: Children feel a sexual desire for the other-sex parent. To avoid punishment, they give up this desire and adopt the same-sex parent’s characteristics and values. As a result, the superego is formed, and children feel guilty when they violate its standards.

Initiative versus guilt: Through make-believe play, children gain insight into the person they can become. Initiative—a sense of ambition and responsibility—develops when parents support their child’s sense of purpose. If parents demand too much self-control, children experience excessive guilt.

6–11 years

Latency: Sexual instincts die down, and the superego strengthens as the child acquires new social values from adults and same-sex peers.

Industry versus inferiority: At school, children learn to work and cooperate with others. Inferiority develops when negative experiences at home, at school, or with peers lead to feelings of incompetence.

Adolescence

Genital: With puberty, sexual impulses reappear. Successful development during earlier stages leads to marriage, mature sexuality, and child rearing.

Identity versus role confusion: By exploring values and vocational goals, young people form a personal identity. The negative outcome is confusion about future adult roles.

Early adulthood

Erik Erikson

© Jon Erikson/Science Source

Intimacy versus isolation: Young adults establish intimate relationships. Because of earlier disappointments, some individuals cannot form close bonds and remain isolated.

Middle adulthood

Generativity versus stagnation: Generativity means giving to the next generation through child rearing, caring for others, or productive work. The person who fails in these ways feels an absence of meaningful accomplishment.

Old age

Integrity versus despair: Integrity results from feeling that life was worth living as it happened. Older people who are dissatisfied with their lives fear death.

Freud (1938/1973) believed that during childhood, sexual impulses shift their focus from the oral to the anal to the genital regions of the body. In each stage, parents walk a fine line between permitting too much or too little gratification of their child’s basic needs. If parents strike an appropriate balance, children grow into well-adjusted adults with the capacity for mature sexual behavior and investment in family life.

Freud’s theory was the first to stress the influence of the early parent–child relationship on development. But his perspective was eventually criticized. First, it overemphasized the influence of sexual feelings in development. Second, because it was based on the problems of sexually repressed, well-to-do adults in nineteenth-century Victorian society, it did not apply in other cultures. Finally, Freud had not studied children directly.

Erikson’s Theory

Several of Freud’s followers improved on his vision. The most important is Erik Erikson (1902–1994), who expanded the picture of development at each stage. In his psychosocial theory, Erikson emphasized that in addition to mediating between id impulses and superego demands, the ego makes a positive contribution to development, acquiring attitudes and skills that make the individual an active, contributing member of society. A basic psychological conflict, which is resolved along a continuum from positive to negative, determines healthy or maladaptive outcomes at each stage. As Table 1.1 shows, Erikson’s first five stages parallel Freud’s stages, but Erikson added three adult stages. He was one of the first to recognize the lifespan nature of development.

Unlike Freud, Erikson pointed out that normal development must be understood in relation to each culture’s life situation. For example, in the 1940s, he observed that the Yurok Indians of the U.S. northwest coast deprived newborns of breastfeeding for the first 10 days, instead feeding them a thin soup. At age 6 months, infants were abruptly weaned—if necessary, by having the mother leave for a few days. From our cultural vantage point, these practices may seem cruel. But Erikson explained that because the Yurok depended on salmon, which fill the river just once a year, the development of self-restraint was essential for survival. In this way, he showed that child rearing is responsive to the competencies valued and needed by the child’s society.

Contributions and Limitations of the Psychoanalytic Perspective

A special strength of the psychoanalytic perspective is its emphasis on understanding the individual’s unique life history. Consistent with this view, psychoanalytic theorists favor the clinical, or case study, method, which synthesizes information from a variety of sources into a detailed picture of the personality of a single child. (We will discuss this method at the end of this chapter.) Psychoanalytic theory has also inspired a wealth of research on many aspects of emotional and social development, including infant–caregiver attachment, aggression, sibling relationships, child-rearing practices, morality, gender roles, and adolescent identity.

Despite its extensive contributions, the psychoanalytic perspective is no longer in the mainstream of child development research. Psychoanalytic theorists may have become isolated from the rest of the field because they were so strongly committed to the clinical approach that they failed to consider other methods. In addition, many psychoanalytic ideas, such as psychosexual stages and ego functioning, are too vague to be tested empirically (Miller, 2016). Nevertheless, Erikson’s broad outline of psychosocial change captures the essence of personality development during childhood and adolescence. Consequently, we will return to it in later chapters.

1.4.2 Behaviorism and Social Learning Theory

As the psychoanalytic perspective gained prominence, child study was also influenced by a very different perspective. According to behaviorism, directly observable events—stimuli and responses—are the appropriate focus of study. North American behaviorism began in the early twentieth century with the work of psychologist John Watson (1878–1958), who wanted to create an objective science of psychology.

Traditional Behaviorism

Watson was inspired by Russian physiologist Ivan Pavlov’s studies of animal learning. Pavlov knew that dogs release saliva as an innate reflex when they are given food. But he noticed that his dogs started salivating before they tasted any food—when they saw the trainer who usually fed them. The dogs, Pavlov reasoned, must have learned to associate a neutral stimulus (the trainer) with another stimulus (food) that produces a reflexive response (salivation). Because of this association, the neutral stimulus alone could bring about a response resembling the reflex. Eager to test this idea, Pavlov successfully taught dogs to salivate at the sound of a bell by pairing it with the presentation of food. He had discovered classical conditioning.

In a historic experiment that applied classical conditioning to children’s behavior, Watson taught Albert, an 11-month-old infant, to fear a neutral stimulus—a soft white rat—by presenting it several times with a sharp, loud sound, which naturally scared the baby. Little Albert, who at first had reached out eagerly to touch the furry rat, began to cry and turn his head away at the sight of it (Watson & Raynor, 1920). In fact, Albert’s fear was so intense that researchers eventually challenged the ethics of studies like this one. Consistent with Locke’s tabula rasa, Watson concluded that environment is the supreme force in development and that adults can mold children’s behavior by carefully controlling stimulus–response associations. He viewed development as continuous—a gradual increase with age in the number and strength of these associations.

Another form of behaviorism was B. F. Skinner’s (1904–1990) operant conditioning theory. Skinner showed that the frequency of a behavior can be increased by following it with a wide variety of reinforcers, such as food, praise, or a friendly smile, or decreased through punishment, such as disapproval or withdrawal of privileges. As a result of Skinner’s work, operant conditioning became a broadly applied learning principle. We will consider these basic learning capacities further in Chapter 5.

Social Learning Theory

Psychologists wondered whether behaviorism might offer a more direct and effective explanation of the development of children’s social behavior than the less precise concepts of psychoanalytic theory. This sparked approaches that built on the principles of conditioning, offering expanded views of how children and adults acquire new responses.

Several kinds of social learning theory emerged. The most influential, devised by Albert Bandura (1925–), emphasizes modeling, also known as imitation or observational learning, as a powerful source of development. The baby who claps her hands after her mother does so, the child who angrily hits a playmate in the same way that he has been punished at home, and the teenager who wears the same clothes and hairstyle as her friends are all displaying observational learning. In his early research, Bandura found that diverse factors influence children’s motivation to imitate: their own history of reinforcement or punishment for the behavior, the promise of future reinforcement or punishment, and even observations of the model being reinforced or punished.

Bandura’s work continues to influence much research on children’s social development. But today, his theory stresses the importance of cognition, or thinking. Bandura has shown that children’s ability to listen, remember, and abstract general rules from complex sets of observed behaviors affects their imitation and learning. In fact, the most recent revision of Bandura’s (1992, 2001) theory places such strong emphasis on how children think about themselves and other people that he calls it a social-cognitive rather than a social learning approach.

In Bandura’s revised view, children gradually become more selective in what they imitate. From watching others engage in self-praise and self-blame and through feedback about the worth of their own actions, children develop personal standards for behavior and a sense of self-efficacy—the belief that their own abilities and characteristics will help them succeed. These cognitions guide responses in particular situations (Bandura, 2011, 2016). For example, imagine a parent who often remarks, “I’m glad I kept working on that task, even though it was hard,” and who encourages persistence by saying, “I know you can do a good job on that homework!” Soon the child starts to view herself as hardworking and high-achieving and selects people with these characteristics as models. In this way, as children acquire attitudes, values, and convictions about themselves, they control their own learning and behavior.

Contributions and Limitations of Behaviorism and Social Learning Theory

Behaviorism and social learning theory have had a major impact on practices with children. Applied behavior analysis consists of observations of relationships between behavior and environmental events, followed by systematic changes in those events based on procedures of conditioning and modeling. The goal is to eliminate undesirable behaviors and increase desirable responses. It has been used to relieve a wide range of difficulties in children and adults, ranging from poor time management and unwanted habits to serious problems such as language delays, persistent aggression, and extreme fears (Heron, Hewar, & Cooper, 2013).

Nevertheless, behaviorism and social learning theory offer too narrow a view of important environmental influences. These extend beyond immediate reinforcement, punishment, and modeled behaviors to children’s rich physical and social worlds. Behaviorism and social learning theory have also been criticized for underestimating children’s contributions to their own development. Bandura, with his emphasis on cognition, is unique among theorists whose work grew out of the behaviorist tradition in granting children an active role in their own learning.

1.4.3 Piaget’s Cognitive-Developmental Theory

No single individual has had more influence on the contemporary field of child development than Swiss cognitive theorist Jean Piaget (1896–1980). North American investigators had been aware of Piaget’s work since 1930. But they did not grant it much attention until the 1960s, mainly because Piaget’s ideas were at odds with behaviorism, which dominated North American psychology in the mid-twentieth century (Watrin & Darwich, 2012). Piaget did not believe that children’s learning depends on reinforcers, such as rewards from adults. According to his cognitive-developmental theory, children actively construct knowledge as they manipulate and explore their world.

Piaget’s Stages

Piaget’s view of development was greatly influenced by his early training in biology. Central to his theory is the biological concept of adaptation (Piaget, 1971). Just as structures of the body are adapted to fit with the environment, so structures of the mind develop to better fit with, or represent, the external world. In infancy and early childhood, Piaget claimed, children’s understanding is different from adults’. For example, he believed that young babies do not realize that an object hidden from view—a favorite toy or even the parent—continues to exist. He also concluded that preschoolers’ thinking is full of faulty logic. For example, children younger than age 7 commonly say that the amount of a liquid changes when it is poured into a different-shaped container. According to Piaget, children eventually revise these incorrect ideas in their ongoing efforts to achieve an equilibrium, or balance, between internal structures and information they encounter in their everyday worlds.

In Piaget’s sensorimotor stage, infants learn by acting on the world. As this 1-year-old bangs a wooden spoon on a coffee can, he discovers that his movements have predictable effects on objects, and that objects influence one another in regular ways.

In Piaget’s preoperational stage, preschoolers represent their earlier sensorimotor discoveries with symbols, and language and make- believe play develop rapidly. These Cambodian children pretend to purchase items at a store.

Table 1.2 Piaget’s Stages of Cognitive Development

STAGE

PERIOD OF DEVELOPMENT

DESCRIPTION

 

Sensorimotor

Birth–2 years

Infants “think” by acting on the world with their eyes, ears, hands, and mouth. As a result, they invent ways of solving sensorimotor problems, such as pulling a lever to hear the sound of a music box, finding hidden toys, and putting objects into and taking them out of containers.

Jean Piaget

Preoperational

2–7 years

Preschool children use symbols to represent their earlier sensorimotor discoveries. Development of language and make-believe play takes place. However, thinking lacks the logic of the two remaining stages.

Concrete operational

7–11 years

Children’s reasoning becomes logical and better organized. School-age children understand that a certain amount of lemonade or play dough remains the same even after its appearance changes. They also organize objects into hierarchies of classes and subclasses. However, children think in a logical, organized fashion only when dealing with concrete information they can perceive directly.

Formal operational

11 years on

The capacity for abstract, systematic thinking enables adolescents, when faced with a problem, to start with a hypothesis, deduce testable inferences, and isolate and combine variables to see which inferences are confirmed. Adolescents can also evaluate the logic of verbal statements without referring to real-world circumstances.

In Piaget’s theory, as the brain develops and children’s experiences expand, they move through four broad stages, each characterized by qualitatively distinct ways of thinking. Table 1.2 provides a brief description of Piaget’s stages. Cognitive development begins in the sensorimotor stage with the baby’s use of the senses and movements to explore the world. These action patterns evolve into the symbolic but illogical thinking of the preschooler in the preoperational stage. Then cognition is transformed into the more organized, logical reasoning of the school-age child in the concrete operational stage. Finally, in the formal operational stage, thought becomes the abstract, systematic reasoning system of the adolescent and adult.

In Piaget’s concrete operational stage, school-age children think in an organized, logical fashion about concrete objects. This 7-year-old understands that the quantity of pie dough remains the same after he changes its shape from a ball to a flattened circle.

In Piaget’s formal operational stage, adolescents think systematically and abstractly. These high school students grapple with abstract principles in a discussion of medical ethics in a science class.

© LAURA DWIGHT PHOTOGRAPHY

Piaget devised special methods for investigating how children think. Early in his career, he carefully observed his three infant children and also presented them with everyday problems, such as an attractive object that could be grasped, mouthed, kicked, or searched for. From their responses, Piaget derived his ideas about cognitive changes during the first two years. To study childhood and adolescent thought, Piaget adapted the clinical method of psychoanalysis, conducting open-ended clinical interviews in which a child’s initial response to a task served as the basis for Piaget’s next question.

Contributions and Limitations of Piaget’s Theory

Piaget convinced the field that children are active learners whose minds consist of rich structures of knowledge. Besides investigating children’s understanding of the physical world, Piaget explored their reasoning about the social world. His stages have sparked a wealth of research on children’s conceptions of themselves, other people, and social relationships. In practical terms, Piaget’s theory encouraged the development of educational philosophies and programs that emphasize children’s discovery learning and direct contact with the environment.

Despite Piaget’s overwhelming contributions, his theory has been challenged. Research indicates that Piaget underestimated the competencies of infants and preschoolers. When young children are given tasks scaled down in difficulty and relevant to their everyday experiences, their understanding appears closer to that of the older child and adult than Piaget assumed. Also, adolescents generally reach their full intellectual potential only in areas of endeavor in which they have had extensive education and experience. These findings have led many researchers to conclude that cognitive maturity depends heavily on the complexity of knowledge sampled and the individual’s familiarity with the task (Miller, 2016).

Furthermore, children’s performance on Piagetian problems can be improved with training—findings that call into question Piaget’s assumption that discovery learning rather than adult teaching is the best way to foster development (Klahr, Matlin, & Jirout, 2013). Critics also point out that Piaget’s stagewise account pays insufficient attention to social and cultural influences—and the resulting wide variation in thinking among children and adolescents of the same age.

Today, the field of child development is divided over its loyalty to Piaget’s ideas. Those who continue to find merit in Piaget’s stages often accept a modified view—one in which changes in children’s thinking take place more gradually than Piaget believed (Case, 1998; Halford & Andrews, 2011; Mascolo & Fischer, 2015). Among those who disagree with Piaget’s stage sequence, some have embraced an approach that emphasizes continuous gains in children’s cognition: information processing. And still others have been drawn to theories that highlight the role of children’s social and cultural contexts (Lourenço, 2016). We take up these approaches in the next section.

Ask Yourself

Connect ■ What aspect of behaviorism made it attractive to critics of psychoanalytic theory? How did Piaget’s theory respond to a major limitation of behaviorism?

Apply ■ A 4-year-old becomes frightened of the dark and refuses to go to sleep at night. How would a psychoanalyst and a behaviorist differ in their views of how this problem developed?

Reflect ■ Illustrate Bandura’s ideas by describing a personal experience in which you observed and received feedback from another person that strengthened your self-efficacy. How did that person’s message influence your self-perceptions and choice of models?

1.5 RECENT THEORETICAL PERSPECTIVES

1.5 Describe recent theoretical perspectives on child development.

New ways of understanding the child are constantly emerging—questioning, building on, and enhancing the discoveries of earlier theories. Today, a burst of fresh approaches and research emphases is broadening our understanding of children’s development.

1.5.1 Information Processing

In the 1970s and 1980s, researchers turned to the field of cognitive psychology for ways to understand the development of children’s thinking. The design of digital computers that use mathematically specified steps to solve problems suggested to psychologists that the human mind might also be viewed as a symbol-manipulating system through which information flows—a perspective called information processing. From the time information is presented to the senses at input until it emerges as a behavioral response at output, information is actively coded, transformed, and organized.

Information-processing researchers often design flowcharts to map the precise steps individuals use to solve problems and complete tasks, much like the plans devised by programmers to get computers to perform a series of “mental operations.” They seek to clarify how both task characteristics and cognitive limitations—for example, memory capacity or available knowledge—influence performance (Birney & Sternberg, 2011). To see the usefulness of this approach, let’s look at an example.

In a study of problem solving, a researcher gave school-age children a pile of blocks varying in size, shape, and weight and asked them to build a bridge across a “river” (painted on a floor mat) that was too wide for any single block to span (Thornton, 1999). Whereas older children easily built successful bridges, only one 5-year-old did. Careful tracking of her efforts revealed that she repeatedly tried unsuccessful strategies, such as pushing two planks together and pressing down on their ends to hold them in place. But eventually, her experimentation triggered the idea of using the blocks as counterweights, as shown in Figure 1.3. Her mistaken procedures helped her understand why the counterweight approach worked. Although this child had no prior understanding of counterweight and balance, she arrived at just as effective a solution as older children, who started with considerable task-relevant knowledge. Her own actions within the task triggered new insights that facilitated problem solving.

Figure 1.3 Information-processing flowchart showing the steps that a 5-year-old used to solve a bridge-building problem. Her task was to use blocks varying in size, shape, and weight, some of which were planklike, to construct a bridge across a “river” (painted on a floor mat) too wide for any single block to span. The child discovered how to counterweight and balance the bridge. The arrows reveal that even after building a successful counterweight, she returned to earlier, unsuccessful strategies, which seemed to help her understand why the counterweight approach worked. (Based on Thornton, 1999.)

Many information-processing models exist. Some, like the one just considered, track children’s mastery of one or a few tasks. Others describe the human cognitive system as a whole (Gopnik & Tenenbaum, 2007; Ristic & Enns, 2015; Westermann et al., 2006). These general models are used as guides for asking questions about broad age changes in children’s thinking: Does a child’s ability to solve problems become more organized and “planful” with age? What strategies do younger and older children use to remember new information, and how do those strategies affect children’s recall?

The information-processing approach has also been used to clarify the processing of social information. For example, flowcharts exist that track the steps children use to solve social problems (such as how to enter an ongoing play group) and acquire gender-linked preferences and behaviors (Liben & Bigler, 2002; Rubin, Begle, & McDonald, 2012). If we can identify how social problem solving and gender stereotyping arise in childhood, then we can design interventions that promote more favorable social development.

Like Piaget’s theory, the information-processing approach regards children as active, sense-making beings who modify their own thinking in response to environmental demands (Halford & Andrews, 2011). But unlike Piaget’s theory, it does not divide development into stages. Rather, most information-processing researchers regard the thought processes studied—perception, attention, memory, categorization of information, planning, problem solving, and comprehension of written and spoken prose—as similar at all ages but present to a lesser or greater extent. The view of development is one of continuous change.

A great strength of the information-processing approach is its commitment to rigorous research methods. Because it has provided precise accounts of how children and adults tackle many cognitive tasks, its findings have important implications for education. Currently, researchers are intensely interested in the development of an array of “executive” processes that enable children and adults to manage their thoughts, emotions, and actions. These capacities—variously labeled executive function, self-control, self-regulation, delay of gratification, and more—are essential for attaining our goals in challenging situations (Carlson, Zelazo, & Faja, 2013; Chevalier, 2015; Müller & Kerns, 2015). Executive processes are consistent predictors of both academic achievement and socially competent behavior.

Nevertheless, information processing has fallen short in some respects. It has been better at analyzing thinking into its components than at putting them back together into a comprehensive theory. And it has had little to say about aspects of children’s cognition that are not linear and logical, such as imagination and creativity (Birney & Sternberg, 2011).

1.5.2 Developmental Neuroscience

Over the past three decades, as information-processing research expanded, an area of investigation arose called developmental cognitive neuroscience. It brings together researchers from psychology, biology, neuroscience, and medicine to study the relationship between changes in the brain and the developing child’s cognitive processing and behavior patterns.

Improved methods for analyzing brain activity while children perform various tasks have greatly enhanced knowledge of relationships between brain functioning and behavior (de Haan, 2015). Armed with these brain electrical-recording and imaging techniques (which we will consider in Chapter 5), neuroscientists are tackling questions like these: How does genetic makeup combine with specific experiences at various ages to influence the growth and organization of the child’s brain? How do changes in brain structures support rapid memory development in infancy and toddlerhood? What transformations in brain systems make it harder for adolescents and adults than for children to acquire a second language?

A complementary new area, developmental social neuroscience, is devoted to studying the relationship between changes in the brain and emotional and social development. When researchers started to tap convenient measures that are sensitive to psychological state, such as heart rate, blood pressure, and hormone levels detected in saliva, an explosion of social-neuroscience investigations followed.

Active areas of study include identification of the neural systems underlying infant gains in perception of facial expressions, adolescent risk-taking behavior, and individual differences in sociability, anxiety, aggression, and depression. One particularly energetic focus is the negative impact of extreme adversity, such as early rearing in deprived orphanages or child abuse and neglect, on brain development and cognitive, emotional, and social skills (Anderson & Beauchamp, 2013; Gunnar, Doom, & Esposito, 2015). Another burgeoning interest is uncovering the neurological bases of autism—the disrupted brain structures and networks that lead to the impaired social skills, language delays, and repetitive motor behavior associated with this disorder (Stoner et al., 2014). As these efforts illustrate, researchers are forging links between cognitive and social neuroscience, identifying brain systems that affect both domains of development.

Rapid progress in clarifying the types of experiences that support or undermine brain development at diverse ages is contributing to effective interventions for enhancing cognitive and social functioning. Today, researchers are examining the impact of various treatment techniques on both brain functioning and behavior (Johnson & de Haan, 2015; Lustig & Lin, 2016). Although much remains to be discovered, developmental neuroscience is broadening our understanding of development and yielding major practical applications.

Neuroscience research has so captivated the field that it poses the risk that brain properties underlying children’s behavior will be granted undue importance over powerful environmental influences, such as parenting, education, and economic inequalities in families and communities. Although most neuroscientists are mindful of the complex interplay between heredity, individual experiences, and brain development, their findings have too often resulted in excessive emphasis being placed on biological processes (Kagan, 2013b). Consequently, psychological outcomes in children have sometimes been wrongly attributed mostly or entirely to genetic and brain-based causes.

Fortunately, an advantage of having many theories is that they encourage researchers to attend to previously neglected dimensions of children’s lives. The final four perspectives we will discuss focus on contexts for development. The first of these views emphasizes that the environments to which humans have been exposed over their long evolutionary history influence the development of many capacities.

A therapist works with a 6-year-old who has autism to improve impaired social skills associated with this disorder. Developmental social neuroscientists are intensely interested in identifying the neurological bases of autism and using those findings to devise effective interventions.

Amelie-Benoist/BSIP/Alamy Stock Photo

1.5.3 Ethology and Evolutionary Developmental Psychology

Ethology is concerned with the adaptive, or survival, value of behavior and its evolutionary history. Its roots can be traced to the work of Darwin. Two European zoologists, Konrad Lorenz and Niko Tinbergen, laid its modern foundations. Watching diverse animal species in their natural habitats, Lorenz and Tinbergen observed behavior patterns that promote survival. The best known of these is imprinting, the early following behavior of certain baby birds, such as geese, which ensures that the young will stay close to the mother and be fed and protected from danger (Lorenz, 1952). Imprinting takes place during an early, restricted period of development. If the mother goose is absent during this time but an object resembling her in important features is present, young goslings may imprint on it instead.

Observations of imprinting led to a major concept in child development: the critical period. It is a limited time span during which the child is biologically prepared to acquire certain adaptive behaviors but needs the support of an appropriately stimulating environment. Many researchers have investigated whether complex cognitive and social behaviors must be learned during certain periods. For example, if children are deprived of adequate physical and social stimulation during their early years, will their intelligence, emotional responsiveness, and social skills be impaired?

In later chapters, we will discover that the term sensitive period applies better to human development than the strict notion of a critical period (Knudsen, 2004). A sensitive period is a time that is biologically optimal for certain capacities to emerge because the individual is especially responsive to environmental influences. However, its boundaries are less well-defined than are those of a critical period. Development can occur later, but it is harder to induce.

Ethology focuses on the adaptive, or survival, value of behavior and its evolutionary history, as reflected in similarities between human behavior and that of other species, including our primate relatives. Observing this chimpanzee mother cuddling her infant helps us understand the human infant–caregiver relationship.

© MARTIN HARVEY/GETTY IMAGES

Inspired by observations of imprinting, British psychoanalyst John Bowlby (1969) applied ethological theory to understanding the human infant–caregiver relationship. He argued that infant smiling, babbling, grasping, and crying are built-in social signals that encourage the caregiver to approach, care for, and interact with the baby. By keeping the parent near, these behaviors help ensure that the infant will be fed, protected from danger, and provided with the stimulation and affection necessary for healthy growth. The development of attachment in human infants is a lengthy process involving changes in psychological structures that lead the baby to form a deep affectionate tie with the caregiver. In Chapter 7, we will consider how infant, caregiver, and family context contribute to attachment and how attachment influences later development.

Observations by ethologists have shown that many aspects of children’s social behavior, including emotional expressions, aggression, cooperation, and social play, resemble those of our primate relatives. Recently, researchers have extended this effort in a new area of research called evolutionary developmental psychology. It seeks to understand the adaptive value of species-wide cognitive, emotional, and social competencies as those competencies change with age (King & Bjorklund, 2010; Lickliter & Honeycutt, 2013; Tomasello & Gonzales-Cabrera, 2017). Evolutionary developmental psychologists ask questions like these: What role does the newborn’s visual preference for facelike stimuli play in survival? Does it support older infants’ capacity to distinguish familiar caregivers from unfamiliar people? How does an early appearing “helping motive”—evident in toddlers’ sharing, expressions of comfort, and efforts to assist others to attain a goal—contribute to the development of uniquely human cooperative skills? What do children learn from playing in gender-segregated peer groups that might lead to adult gender-typed behaviors, such as male dominance and female investment in caregiving?

As these examples suggest, evolutionary psychologists are not just concerned with the genetic and biological roots of development. They recognize that humans’ large brain and extended childhood resulted from the need to master an increasingly complex environment, so they are also interested in the roles of experience and learning. In sum, evolutionary developmental psychology aims to understand the entire person–environment system (Bjorklund & Ellis, 2014). The next contextual perspective we will discuss, Vygotsky’s sociocultural theory, serves as an excellent complement to the evolutionary viewpoint because it highlights the social and cultural dimensions of children’s experiences.

1.5.4 Vygotsky’s Sociocultural Theory

The field of child development has recently seen a dramatic increase in research demonstrating that development and culture are closely interwoven (Mistry & Dutta, 2015). The contributions of Russian psychologist Lev Vygotsky (1896–1934) and his followers have played a major role in this trend. Although Vygotsky proposed his ideas in the 1920s and early 1930s, they remained virtually unknown in North America until the 1980s, when questioning of Piaget’s theory spurred psychologists and educators to search for alternative approaches to understanding cognitive development.

Vygotsky’s (1934/1987) perspective, commonly referred to as sociocultural theory, focuses on how culture—the values, beliefs, customs, and skills of a social group—is transmitted to the next generation. According to Vygotsky, social interaction—in particular, cooperative dialogues with more knowledgeable members of society—is necessary for children to acquire the ways of thinking and behaving that make up a community’s culture. Vygotsky (1934/1987) believed that as adults and more expert peers help children master culturally meaningful activities, the communication between them becomes part of children’s thinking. As children internalize features of these dialogues, they can use the language within them to guide their own thoughts and actions and to acquire new skills (Fernyhough, 2016; Lourenço, 2012). The young child instructing herself while working a puzzle or preparing a table for dinner has begun to produce the same kinds of guiding comments that an adult previously used to help her master important tasks.

Vygotsky agreed with Piaget that children are active, constructive beings. But whereas Piaget emphasized children’s independent efforts to make sense of their world, Vygotsky viewed cognitive development as a socially mediated process, in which children depend on assistance from others as they tackle new challenges.

In Vygotsky’s theory, children undergo certain stagewise changes. For example, when they acquire language, they gain in ability to participate in dialogues with others, and mastery of culturally valued competencies surges forward. When children enter school, they spend much time discussing language, literacy, and other academic concepts—experiences that encourage them to reflect on their own thinking ( Kozulin, 2003). As a result, they gain dramatically in reasoning and problem solving.

According to Lev Vygotsky, shown here with his daughter, many cognitive processes and skills are socially transferred from more knowledgeable members of society to children. Vygotsky’s sociocultural theory helps explain the wide cultural variation in cognitive competencies.

COURTESY OF JAMES V. WERTSCH, WASHINGTON UNIVERSITY IN ST. LOUIS

At the same time, Vygotsky stressed that dialogues with experts lead to continuous changes in thinking that vary greatly from culture to culture. Consistent with this view, a major finding of cross-cultural research is that cultures select different tasks for children’s learning, and social interaction surrounding those tasks leads to competencies essential for success in a particular culture. For example, in industrialized nations, teachers help people learn to read, drive a car, or use a computer. Among the Zinacanteco Indians of southern Mexico, adult experts guide young girls as they master complicated weaving techniques (Greenfield, 2004). In Brazil, child candy sellers with little or no schooling develop sophisticated mathematical abilities as the result of buying candy from wholesalers, pricing it in collaboration with adults and experienced peers, and bargaining with customers on city streets (Saxe, 1988).

Research stimulated by Vygotsky’s theory reveals that children in every culture develop unique strengths. Nevertheless, Vygotsky’s emphasis on culture and social experience led him to neglect the biological side of development. Although he recognized the importance of heredity and brain growth, he said little about their role in cognitive change. Furthermore, Vygotsky’s focus on social transmission of knowledge meant that, compared with other theorists, he placed less emphasis on children’s capacity to shape their own development.

With her father’s guidance, a child from the Kamtsa ethnic group in Colombia learns to make a papier mâché doll to carry in a community festival. Consistent with Vygotsky’s theory, she acquires a culturally valued skill through interaction with an adult expert.

Daniel Romero/VW PICS/Universal Images Group via Getty Images

Followers of Vygotsky stress that children strive for social connection, actively participating in the conversations and social activities from which their development springs. From these joint experiences, they not only acquire culturally valued practices but also modify and transform those practices (Daniels, 2011; Rogoff, 2003). Contemporary sociocultural theorists grant the individual and society balanced, mutually influential roles.

1.5.5 Ecological Systems Theory

Urie Bronfenbrenner (1917–2005) is responsible for an approach to child development that moved to the forefront of the field because it offers the most differentiated and complete account of interrelated contextual influences on children’s development. Ecological systems theory views the child as developing within a complex system of relationships affected by multiple levels of the surrounding environment. Because the child’s biologically influenced dispositions join with environmental forces to mold development, Bronfenbrenner characterized his perspective as a bioecological model (Bronfenbrenner & Morris, 2006).

Figure 1.4 Structure of the environment in ecological systems theory. The microsystem concerns relations between the child and the immediate environment; the mesosystem, connections among immediate settings; the exosystem, social settings that affect but do not contain the child; and the macrosystem, the values, laws, customs, and resources of the culture that affect activities and interactions at all inner layers. The chronosystem (not pictured) is not a specific context. Instead, it refers to the dynamic, ever-changing nature of the child’s environment.

Bronfenbrenner envisioned the environment as a series of interrelated, nested structures that form a complex functioning whole, or system. These include but also extend beyond the home, school, and neighborhood settings in which children spend their everyday lives (see Figure 1.4). Each level joins with the others to powerfully affect development.

The Microsystem

The innermost level of the environment, the microsystem, consists of activities and interaction patterns in the child’s immediate surroundings. Bronfenbrenner emphasized that to understand child development at this level, we must keep in mind that all relationships are bidirectional: Adults affect children’s behavior, but children’s biologically and socially influenced characteristics—their physical attributes, personalities, and capacities—also affect adults’ behavior. A friendly, attentive child is likely to evoke positive, patient reactions from parents, whereas an easily upset, emotionally negative child is more likely to receive impatience, restriction, and punishment (Streit et al., 2017). When these reciprocal interactions occur often over time, they have an enduring impact on development.

Third parties—other individuals in the microsystem—also affect the quality of any two-person relationship. If they are supportive, interaction is enhanced. For example, when parents encourage each other in their child-rearing roles, each engages in more effective parenting. In contrast, marital conflict is associated with inconsistent discipline and hostility toward children. In response, children often react with fear and anxiety or anger and aggression, and their well-being suffers (Cummings & Davies, 2010; Low & Stocker, 2012). Similarly, children can affect their parents’ relationship in powerful ways. In one investigation, parental reports of child-rearing stressors predicted worsening couple communication, in the form of criticism, defensiveness, anger, and other expressions of negativity, which undermined parents’ relationship satisfaction (Zemp et al., 2017).

The Mesosystem

The second level of Bronfenbrenner’s model, the mesosystem, encompasses connections between microsystems, such as home, school, neighborhood, and child-care center. For example, a child’s academic progress depends not just on activities that take place in classrooms but also on parent involvement in school life and on the extent to which academic learning is carried over into the home (Wang & Sheikh-Khalil, 2014). Similarly, parent–child interaction at home is likely to affect caregiver–child interaction in the child-care setting, and vice versa. Each relationship is more likely to support development when links are forged between home and child care, in the form of visits and cooperative exchanges of information.

The Exosystem

The exosystem consists of social settings that do not contain children but that nevertheless affect children’s experiences in immediate settings. These can be formal organizations, such as parents’ workplaces, their religious institutions, and community health and welfare services. Flexible work schedules, paid maternity and paternity leave, and sick leave for parents whose children are ill are examples of ways that work settings can support child rearing and, indirectly, enhance children’s development. Exosystem supports also can be informal, such as parents’ social networks—friends and extended-family members who provide advice, companionship, and even financial assistance.

Research confirms the negative impact of a breakdown in exosystem activities. Families who are affected by unemployment or who are socially isolated, with few personal or community-based ties, show increased rates of conflict and child abuse (Tomyr, Ouimet, & Ugnat, 2012). Refer to the Social Issues: Health box on page 28 for an additional illustration of the power of the exosystem to affect family functioning and children’s development.

The Macrosystem

The outermost level of Bronfenbrenner’s model, the macrosystem, consists of cultural values, laws, customs, and resources. The priority that the macrosystem gives to children’s needs affects the support they receive at inner levels of the environment. For example, in countries that require generous workplace benefits for employed parents and high-quality standards for child care, children are more likely to have favorable experiences in their immediate settings. As you will see in later chapters, such programs are far less available in the United States than in other industrialized nations (Pew Research Center, 2013a).

Look and Listen

Ask a parent to explain his or her most worrisome child-rearing challenge. Describe one source of support at each level of Bronfenbrenner’s model that could ease parental stress and promote child development.

An Ever-Changing System

The environment is not a static force that affects children in a uniform way. Instead, it is ever-changing. Important life events, such as the birth of a sibling, the beginning of school, a move to a new neighborhood, or parents’ divorce, modify existing relationships between children and their environments, producing new conditions that affect development. In addition, the timing of environmental change affects its impact. The arrival of a new sibling has very different consequences for a homebound toddler than for a school-age child with many relationships and activities beyond the family.

Bronfenbrenner called the temporal dimension of his model the chronosystem (the prefix chrono- means “time”). Life changes can be imposed on the child, as in the examples just given. Alternatively, they can arise from within the child because as children get older, they select, modify, and create many of their own settings and experiences. How they do so depends on their physical, intellectual, and personality characteristics and their environmental opportunities. Therefore, in ecological systems theory, development is neither entirely controlled by environmental circumstances nor driven solely by inner dispositions. Rather, children and their environments form a network of interdependent effects. Notice how our discussion of resilient children on pages 9–11 illustrates this idea. You will see many more examples in later chapters.

1.5.6 Development as a Dynamic System

Today, researchers recognize both consistency and variability in children’s development and want to do a better job of explaining variation. Consequently, a new wave of systems theorists focuses on how children, in interacting with their complex contexts, alter their behavior to attain more advanced functioning. According to this dynamic systems perspective, the child’s mind, body, and physical and social worlds form an integrated system that guides mastery of new skills. The system is dynamic, or constantly in motion. A change in any part of it—from brain growth to physical or social surroundings—disrupts the current organism–environment relationship. When this happens, the child actively reorganizes his or her behavior so the various components of the system work together again but in a more complex, effective way (Mascolo & Fischer, 2015; Spencer, Perone, & Buss, 2011; Thelen & Smith, 2006).

Social Issues: HealthFamily Chaos Undermines Children’s Well-Being

All of us can recall days during our childhoods when family routines—regular mealtime, bedtime, homework time, and parent–child reading and playtime—were disrupted, perhaps because of a change in a parent’s job, a family illness, or a busy season of after-school sports. In some families, however, absence of daily structure is nearly constant, yielding a chaotic home life that interferes with healthy development (Fiese & Winter, 2010). An organized family life provides a supportive context for warm, involved parent–child interaction, which is essential to children’s well-being.

Family chaos is linked to economic disadvantage—especially, single mothers with limited incomes struggling to juggle the challenges of transportation, shift jobs, unstable child-care arrangements, and other daily hassles. But chaos is not limited to such families. Across income levels and ethnic groups, mothers and fathers, but especially mothers, report more multitasking while caring for children—for example, preparing dinner while helping with homework, or reading to children while checking emails (Craig & Brown, 2017; Radesky et al., 2016). Parents who frequently multitask experience greater psychological stress.

Parental multitasking disrupts family routines. For example, only about half of U.S. families of school-age children report eating together regularly (Child Trends, 2014b). Frequency of family meals is associated with wide-ranging positive outcomes—in childhood, enhanced language development and academic achievement and fewer behavior problems; and in adolescence, reduced sexual risk taking, alcohol and drug use, and mental health problems. Shared mealtimes also increase the likelihood of a healthy diet and protect against obesity and adolescent eating disorders (Fiese & Schwartz, 2008; Lora et al., 2014). As these findings suggest, regular mealtimes are a general indicator of an organized family life and positive parent involvement.

A chaotic home life interferes with warm, relaxed parent–child interaction and children’s favorable development. Exosystem influences, such as excessive workplace pressures, can trigger disorganized family routines.

(posed by models) © L.Marland/ Wiedel Photolibrary

But family chaos can prevail even when families do engage in joint activities. Disorganized family meals involving harsh or lax parental discipline and hostile, disrespectful communication are associated with children’s adjustment difficulties (Fiese, Foley, & Spagnola, 2006; Nomaguchi & Milkie, 2016). As family time becomes pressured, its orderly structure diminishes, and parental stress escalates while warm parent–child engagement disintegrates.

Diverse circumstances can trigger a pileup of limited parental emotional resources, breeding family chaos. In addition to microsystem and mesosystem influences (parents with mental health problems, parental separation and divorce, single parents with few or no supportive relationships), the exosystem is powerful: When family time is at the mercy of external forces—parents commuting several hours a day to and from work, child-care arrangements often failing, parents experiencing excessive workplace pressures or job loss—family routines are threatened.

Family chaos contributes to children’s behavior problems, above and beyond its negative impact on parenting effectiveness (Fiese & Winter, 2010; Martin, Razza, & Brooks-Gunn, 2012). Chaotic surroundings induce in children a sense of being hassled and feelings of powerlessness, which engender anxiety and low self-esteem.

Exosystem and macrosystem supports—including work settings with favorable family policies and high-quality child care that is affordable and reliable—can help prevent escalating demands on families that give way to chaos. In one community, a child-care center initiated a take-home dinner program. Busy parents could special-order a healthy, reasonably priced family meal, ready to go at day’s end to aid in making the family dinner a routine that enhances children’s development.

Researchers adopting a dynamic systems perspective try to find out just how children attain new levels of organization by studying their behavior while they are in transition (Thelen & Corbetta, 2002). For example, when presented with an attractive toy, how does a 3-month-old baby who engages in many, varied hand and arm movements discover how to reach for it? On hearing a new word, how does a 2-year-old figure out the category of objects or events to which it refers?

Dynamic systems theorists acknowledge that a common human genetic heritage and basic regularities in children’s physical and social worlds yield certain universal, broad outlines of development. But children’s biological makeup, interests and goals, everyday tasks, and the people who support children in mastery of those tasks vary greatly, leading to wide individual differences in specific skills. Even when children master the same skills, such as walking, talking, or adding and subtracting, they often do so in unique ways. And because children build competencies by engaging in real activities in real contexts, different skills vary in maturity within the same child. From this perspective, development cannot be characterized as a single line of change. As Figure 1.5 shows, it is more like a web of fibers branching out in many directions, each representing a different skill area that may undergo both continuous and stagewise transformations (Fischer & Bidell, 2006; Mascolo & Fischer, 2015).

The dynamic systems perspective views the child’s mind, body, and physical and social worlds as a continuously reorganizing, integrated system. In response to the physical and psychological changes of adolescence, this teenager and his mother must develop a new, more mature relationship.

© LAURA DWIGHT PHOTOGRAPHY

The dynamic systems view has been inspired by other scientific disciplines, especially biology and physics. It also draws on information-processing and contextual theories—evolutionary developmental psychology, sociocultural theory, and ecological systems theory. Dynamic systems research is still in its early stages. The perspective has largely been applied to children’s motor and cognitive skills, but investigators are increasingly turning to it to explain emotional and social development as well (Kloep et al., 2016; Kunnen, 2012). Consider the young teenager, whose body and reasoning powers are changing massively and who also is confronting a multiplicity of new academic and social challenges. Researchers following parent–child interaction over time found that the transition to adolescence disrupted family communication. It became unstable and variable for several years—a mix of positive, neutral, and negative exchanges (Granic et al., 2003). Gradually, as parent and adolescent devised new, more mature ways of relating to one another, the system reorganized and stabilized. Once again, interaction became predictable and mostly positive.

As dynamic systems research illustrates, today investigators are tracking and analyzing development in all its complexity. In doing so, they hope to move closer to an all-encompassing approach to understanding change.

Figure 1.5 The dynamic systems view of development. Rather than envisioning a single line of stagewise or continuous change (refer to Figure 1.2 on page 8), development from a dynamic systems view is more like a web of fibers branching out in many directions. Each strand in the web represents a skill within the major domains of development—physical, cognitive, and emotional/social. The differing directions of the strands signify possible variations in paths and outcomes as the child masters skills necessary to participate in diverse contexts. The interconnections of the strands at each row of “hills” portray stagelike changes—periods of major transformation in which various skills work together as a functioning whole. As the web expands, skills become more numerous, complex, and effective. (Based on Fischer & Bidell, 2006.)

Ask Yourself

Connect ■ Explain how each recent theoretical perspective regards children as active contributors to their own development.

Apply ■ Mario wants to find out precisely how children of different ages recall stories. Desiree is interested in how adult–child communication in different cultures influences children’s storytelling. Which theoretical perspective has Mario probably chosen? How about Desiree? Explain.

Reflect ■ To illustrate the chronosystem in ecological systems theory, select an important event from your childhood, such as a move to a new neighborhood, a class with an inspiring teacher, or parental divorce. How did the event affect you? How might its impact have differed had you been five years younger? How about five years older?

1.6 COMPARING CHILD DEVELOPMENT THEORIES

1.6 Identify the stand taken by each major theory on the basic issues of child development.

In the preceding sections, we reviewed major theoretical perspectives in child development research that differ in many respects. First, they focus on different domains of development. Some, such as the psychoanalytic perspective and ethology, emphasize emotional and social development. Others, such as Piaget’s cognitive-developmental theory, information processing, and Vygotsky’s sociocultural theory, stress changes in thinking. The remaining approaches—behaviorism, social learning theory, evolutionary developmental psychology, ecological systems theory, and the dynamic systems perspective—encompass many aspects of children’s functioning. Second, every theory contains a point of view about child development.

As we conclude our review of theoretical perspectives, identify the stand that each theory takes on the basic issues presented at the beginning of this chapter. Then check your analysis of the theories against Table 1.3 on page 31.

1.7 STUDYING THE CHILD

1.7a Describe research methods commonly used to study children.

1.7b Distinguish between correlational and experimental research designs, noting strengths and limitations of each.

1.7c Describe designs for studying development, noting strengths and limitations of each.

In every science, research usually begins with a hypothesis—a prediction drawn directly from a theory. Theories and hypotheses, however, merely initiate the many activities that result in sound evidence on child development. Conducting research according to scientifically accepted procedures involves many steps and choices. Investigators must decide which participants, and how many, to include. Then they must figure out what the participants will be asked to do and when, where, and how many times each will be seen. Finally, they must examine and draw conclusions from their data.

In the following sections, we look at research strategies commonly used to study children. We begin with research methods—the specific activities of participants, such as taking tests, answering questionnaires, responding to interviews, or being observed. Then we turn to research designs—overall plans for research studies that permit the best possible test of the investigator’s hypothesis. Finally, we discuss special ethical issues involved in doing research on children.

Look and Listen

Ask a teacher, counselor, social worker, or nurse to describe a question about development he or she would like researchers to address. After reading the rest of this chapter, recommend research strategies best suited to answering that question, citing their strengths and limitations.

Why learn about research strategies? There are two reasons. First, each of us must be a wise and critical consumer of knowledge. Knowing the strengths and limitations of various research strategies is important in separating dependable information from misleading results. Second, individuals who work directly with children may be in a unique position to build bridges between research and practice by conducting studies, either on their own or in partnership with experienced investigators. Community agencies such as schools, mental health facilities, museums, and parks and recreation programs sometimes collaborate with researchers in designing, implementing, and evaluating interventions aimed at enhancing children’s development (Tseng, Easton, & Supplee, 2017). To broaden these efforts, a basic understanding of the research process is essential.

Table 1.3 Stances of Major Theories on Basic Issues in Child Development

THEORY

CONTINUOUS OR DISCONTINUOUS DEVELOPMENT?

ONE COURSE OF DEVELOPMENT OR MANY?

RELATIVE INFLUENCE OF NATURE AND NURTURE?

Psychoanalytic perspective

Discontinuous: Psychosexual and psychosocial development takes place in stages.

One course: Stages are assumed to be universal.

Both nature and nurture: Innate impulses are channeled and controlled through child-rearing experiences. Early experiences set the course of later development.

Behaviorism and social learning theory

Continuous: Development involves an increase in learned behaviors.

Many possible courses: Behaviors reinforced and modeled may vary from child to child.

Emphasis on nurture: Development results from conditioning and modeling. Both early and later experiences are important.

Piaget’s cognitive-developmental theory

Discontinuous: Cognitive development takes place in stages.

One course: Stages are assumed to be universal.

Both nature and nurture: Development occurs as the brain grows and children exercise their innate drive to discover reality in a generally stimulating environment. Both early and later experiences are important.

Information processing

Continuous: Children gradually improve in perception, attention, memory, and problem-solving skills.

One course: Changes studied characterize most or all children.

Both nature and nurture: Children are active, sense-making beings who modify their thinking as the brain grows and they confront new environmental demands. Both early and later experiences are important.

Ethology and evolutionary developmental psychology

Both continuous and discontinuous: Children gradually develop a wider range of adaptive behaviors. Sensitive periods occur, in which qualitatively distinct capacities emerge fairly suddenly.

One course: Adaptive behaviors and sensitive periods apply to all members of a species.

Both nature and nurture: Heredity combines with experiences and learning to influence the development of adaptive behaviors. In sensitive periods, early experiences set the course of later development.

Vygotsky’s sociocultural theory

Both continuous and discontinuous: Language acquisition and schooling lead to stagewise changes. Dialogues with more expert members of society also lead to continuous changes that vary from culture to culture.

Many possible courses: Socially mediated changes in thought and behavior vary from culture to culture.

Both nature and nurture: Heredity, brain growth, and dialogues with more expert members of society jointly contribute to development. Both early and later experiences are important.

Ecological systems theory

Not specified.

Many possible courses: Children’s characteristics join with environmental forces at multiple levels to mold development in unique ways.

Both nature and nurture: Children’s characteristics and the reactions of others affect each other in a bidirectional fashion. Layers of the environment influence child-rearing experiences. Both early and later experiences are important.

Dynamic systems perspective

Both continuous and discontinuous: Change in the system is always ongoing. Stagelike transformations occur as children reorganize their behavior so components of the system work as a functioning whole.

Many possible courses: Biological makeup, everyday tasks, and social experiences vary, yielding wide individual differences in specific skills.

Both nature and nurture: The child’s mind, body, and physical and social surroundings form an integrated system that guides mastery of new skills. Both early and later experiences are important.

1.7.1 Common Research Methods

How does a researcher choose a basic approach to gathering information about children? Common methods include systematic observation, self-reports (such as questionnaires and interviews), clinical or case studies of a single child, and ethnographies of the life circumstances of a specific group of children. Table 1.4 summarizes the strengths and limitations of these methods.

Table 1.4 Strengths and Limitations of Common Research Methods

METHOD

DESCRIPTION

STRENGTHS

LIMITATIONS

Systematic Observation

Naturalistic observation

Observation of behavior in natural contexts.

Reflects participants’ everyday behaviors.

Cannot control conditions under which participants are observed.

Structured observation

Observation of behavior in a laboratory, where conditions are the same for all participants.

Grants each participant an equal opportunity to display the behavior of interest. Permits study of behaviors rarely seen in everyday life.

May not yield observations typical of participants’ behavior in everyday life.

Self-Reports

Clinical interview

Flexible interviewing procedure in which the investigator obtains a complete account of the participant’s thoughts.

Comes as close as possible to the way participants think in everyday life. Great breadth and depth of information can be obtained in a short time.

May not result in accurate reporting of information. Flexible procedure makes comparing individuals’ responses difficult.

Structured interview, questionnaires, and tests

Self-report instruments in which each participant is asked the same questions in the same way.

Permits comparisons of participants’ responses and efficient data collection. Researchers can specify answer alternatives that participants might not think of in an open-ended interview.

Does not yield the same depth of information as a clinical interview. Responses are still subject to inaccurate reporting.

Clinical, or Case Study, Method

 

A full picture of one individual’s psychological functioning, obtained by combining interviews, observations, and sometimes test scores.

Provides rich, descriptive insights into processes of development.

May be biased by researchers’ theoretical preferences. Findings cannot be applied to individuals other than the participant.

Ethnography

 

Participant observation of a culture or distinct social group. By making extensive field notes, the researcher tries to capture the culture’s unique values and social processes.

Provides a more complete and accurate description than can be derived from a single observational visit, interview, or questionnaire.

May be biased by researchers’ values and theoretical preferences. Findings cannot be applied to individuals and settings other than the ones studied.

Systematic Observation

Observations of the behavior of children, and of adults who are important in their lives, can be made in different ways. One approach is to go into the field, or natural environment, and observe the behavior of interest—a method called naturalistic observation.

A study of preschoolers’ responses to their peers’ distress provides a good example of this technique (Farver & Branstetter, 1994). Observing 3- and 4-year-olds in child-care centers, the researchers recorded each instance of a child crying and the reactions of nearby children—whether they ignored, watched curiously, commented on the child’s unhappiness, scolded or teased, or shared, helped, or expressed sympathy. Caregiver behaviors—explaining why a child was crying, mediating conflict, or offering comfort—were noted to see if adult sensitivity was related to children’s caring responses. A strong relationship emerged. The great strength of naturalistic observation is that investigators can see directly the everyday behaviors they hope to explain.

Naturalistic observation also has a major limitation: Not all children have the same opportunity to display a particular behavior in everyday life. In the study just described, some children might have witnessed a child crying more often than others or been exposed to more cues for positive social responses from caregivers. For this reason, they might have displayed more compassion.

Researchers commonly deal with this difficulty by making structured observations, in which the investigator sets up a laboratory situation that evokes the behavior of interest so that every participant has an equal opportunity to display the response. In one such study, 2-year-olds’ emotional reactions to harm they thought they had caused were observed. Each child was asked to take care of a rag doll that had been modified so its leg would fall off when the child picked it up. Then, to make the child feel at fault when the leg detached, an adult “talked for” the doll by saying, “Ow!” Researchers recorded children’s facial expressions of sadness and concern for the injured doll, efforts to help the doll, and body tension—responses that indicated remorse and a desire to make amends. In addition, mothers were asked to engage in brief conversations about emotions with their children (Garner, 2003). Toddlers whose mothers more often explained the causes and consequences of emotion were more likely to express concern for the injured doll.

In naturalistic observation, the researcher goes into the field and records the behavior of interest. Here, a research assistant observes children at preschool. She may be focusing on their playmate choices, cooperation, helpfulness, or conflicts.

© LAURA DWIGHT PHOTOGRAPHY

Structured observation permits greater control over the research situation than does naturalistic observation. In addition, the method is especially useful for studying behaviors—such as parent–child or friendship interactions—that investigators rarely have an opportunity to see in everyday life. When aggressive and nonaggressive 10-year-old boys were observed playing games with their best friend in a laboratory, the aggressive boys and their friends more often violated game rules, cheated, and encouraged each other to engage in these dishonest acts. In addition, observers rated these boys’ interactions as angrier and less cooperative than the interactions of nonaggressive boys and their friends (Bagwell & Coie, 2004). The researchers concluded that aggressive boys’ close peer ties provide a context in which they practice hostility and other negative behaviors, which may contribute to their antisocial behavior.

In this study, antisocial boys’ laboratory interactions were probably similar to their natural behaviors. The boys acted negatively even though they knew they were being observed. But the great disadvantage of structured observations is that most of the time, we cannot be certain that participants behave in the laboratory as they do in their natural environments.

Systematic observation provides invaluable information on how children and adults behave, but it tells us little about the reasoning behind their responses. For this kind of information, researchers must turn to self-report techniques.

Self-Reports

Self-reports ask research participants to provide information on their perceptions, thoughts, abilities, feelings, attitudes, beliefs, and past experiences. They range from relatively unstructured interviews to highly structured interviews, questionnaires, and tests.

In a clinical interview, a flexible, conversational style is used to probe for the participant’s point of view. In the following example, Piaget questioned a 5-year-old child about his understanding of dreams:

Where does the dream come from?—I think you sleep so well that you dream.—Does it come from us or from outside?—From outside.—When you are in bed and you dream, where is the dream?—In my bed, under the blanket. I don’t really know. If it was in my stomach, the bones would be in the way and I shouldn’t see it.—Is the dream there when you sleep?—Yes, it is in the bed beside me. (Piaget, 1926/1930, pp. 97–98)

Although a researcher conducting clinical interviews with more than one child would typically ask the same first question to establish a common task, individualized prompts are used to provide a fuller picture of each child’s reasoning.

The clinical interview has two major strengths. First, it permits people to display their thoughts in terms that are as close as possible to the way they think in everyday life. Second, the clinical interview can provide a large amount of information in a fairly brief period (Sharp et al., 2013). For example, in an hour-long session, we can obtain a wide range of child-rearing information from a parent—much more than we could capture by observing for the same amount of time.

A major limitation of the clinical interview has to do with the accuracy with which people report their thoughts, feelings, and experiences. Some participants, wishing to please the interviewer, may make up answers. When asked about past events, some may have trouble recalling exactly what happened. And because the clinical interview depends on verbal ability and expressiveness, it may underestimate the capacities of individuals who have difficulty putting their thoughts into words.

The clinical interview has also been criticized because of its flexibility. When questions are phrased differently for each participant, variations in responses may reflect the manner of interviewing rather than real differences in the way people think about a topic. Structured interviews (including tests and questionnaires), in which each participant is asked the same questions in the same way, eliminate this problem. These instruments are also much more efficient. Answers are briefer, and researchers can obtain written responses from an entire group at the same time. Furthermore, by listing answer alternatives, researchers can indicate the specific activities and behaviors of interest—ones that participants might not think of in an open-ended clinical interview. For example, when parents were asked what they considered “the most important thing for children to prepare them for life,” over 60 percent checked “to think for themselves” when this alternative appeared on a list. Yet only 5 percent thought of it during a clinical interview (Schwarz, 2008).

Nevertheless, structured interviews do not yield the same depth of information as a clinical interview. And they can still be affected by inaccurate reporting.

The Clinical, or Case Study, Method

An outgrowth of psychoanalytic theory, the clinical, or case study, method brings together a wide range of information on one child, including interviews, observations, and sometimes test scores. The aim is to obtain as complete a picture as possible of that child’s psychological functioning and the experiences that led up to it.

The clinical method is well-suited to studying the development of certain types of individuals who are few in number but vary widely in characteristics. For example, the method has been used to find out what contributes to the accomplishments of prodigies—extremely gifted children who attain adult competence in a field before age 10.

In one investigation, researchers conducted case studies of eight child prodigies nationally recognized for talents in such areas as art, music, and mathematics (Ruthsatz & Urbach, 2012). One child began playing the violin at 28 months, had won regional competitions as a 5-year-old, and by age 7 had performed as a soloist at New York’s Carnegie Hall and Lincoln Center. Another child started reading as an infant, took college-level classes beginning at age 8, and published a paper in a mathematics journal at 13. Across the eight cases, the researchers noticed interesting patterns, including above-average intelligence and exceptionally high scores on tests of memory and attention to detail. Notably, several prodigies in the study had relatives with autism, a condition that also involves intense attention to detail. The researchers concluded that although child prodigies generally do not display the social and cognitive deficits of individuals with autism, the two groups may share an underlying genetic trait that affects the functioning of certain brain regions, heightening perception and attention.

Using the clinical, or case study, method, this researcher interacts with a 3-year-old during a visit to her preschool. Interviews and observations will contribute to an in-depth picture of this child’s psychological functioning.

© LAURA DWIGHT PHOTOGRAPHY

The clinical method yields richly detailed case narratives that offer valuable insights into the multiplicity of factors affecting development. Nevertheless, like all other methods, it has drawbacks. Because information often is collected unsystematically and subjectively, researchers’ theoretical preferences may bias their observations and interpretations. In addition, investigators cannot assume that their conclusions apply, or generalize, to anyone other than the child or children studied (Simons, 2014). Even when patterns emerge across several cases, as occurred in the study of child prodigies, it is wise to confirm these with other research strategies.

Methods for Studying Culture

To study the impact of culture on child development, researchers adjust the methods just considered or tap procedures specially devised for cross-cultural and multicultural research. Which approach investigators choose depends on their research goals.

Sometimes researchers are interested in characteristics that are believed to be universal but that vary in degree from one culture to the next: Are parents warmer or more directive in some cultures than in others? How strong are gender stereotypes in different nations? In each instance, several cultural groups will be compared, and all participants must be questioned or observed in the same way. Therefore, researchers draw on the observational and self-report procedures we have already considered, adapting them through translation so they can be understood in each cultural context. For example, to study cultural variation in parent–adolescent relationships, the same questionnaire, asking for ratings on such items as “I often start a conversation with my parents about what happens in school” or “My parents can tell when I’m upset about something,” is given to all participants (Qin & Pomerantz, 2013). Still, investigators must be mindful of cultural differences in familiarity with self-report instruments that may bias their findings (van de Vijver, 2011).

At other times, researchers want to uncover the cultural meanings of children’s and adults’ behaviors by becoming as familiar as possible with their way of life. To achieve this goal, researchers rely on a method borrowed from the field of anthropology—ethnography. Like the clinical method, ethnographic research is a descriptive, qualitative technique. But instead of aiming to understand a single individual, it is directed toward understanding a culture or a distinct social group through participant observation. Typically, the researcher spends months and sometimes years in the cultural community, participating in its daily life. Extensive field notes are gathered, consisting of a mix of observations, self-reports from members of the culture, and careful interpretations by the investigator (Case, Todd, & Kral, 2014). Later, these notes are put together into a description of the community that tries to capture its unique values and social processes.

A Western researcher working with Zinacantec Mayan children in Chiapas, Mexico, uses the ethnographic method to gather information about how they learn through everyday activities.

© KEITH DANNEMILLER/ALAMY STOCK PHOTO

The ethnographic method assumes that by entering into close contact with a social group, researchers can understand the beliefs and behaviors of its members in a way not possible with an observational visit, interview, or questionnaire. Some ethnographies take in many aspects of children’s experience, as one researcher did in describing what it is like to grow up in an isolated mountain village in Peru. Others focus on one or a few settings and issues—for example, youth resilience in an economically disadvantaged Alaska-Native community (Bolin, 2006; Rasmus, Allen, & Ford, 2014). Researchers may supplement traditional self-report and observational methods with ethnography if they suspect that unique meanings underlie cultural differences, as the Cultural Influences box on page 36 reveals.

Ethnographers strive to minimize their influence on the culture they are studying by becoming part of it. Nevertheless, as with clinical research, investigators’ cultural values and theoretical commitments sometimes lead them to observe selectively or misinterpret what they see. Finally, the findings of ethnographic studies cannot be assumed to generalize beyond the people and settings in which the research was conducted.

Cultural InfluencesImmigrant Youths: Adapting to a New Land

Over the past several decades, increasing numbers of immigrants have come to the United States, fleeing war and persecution in their homelands or seeking better life chances. Today, one-fourth of U.S. children and adolescents have foreign-born parents, mostly originating from Latin American, the Caribbean, Asia, and Africa. Although some move with their parents, nearly 90 percent of young people from immigrant families are U.S.-born citizens (Migration Policy Institute, 2015).

How well are these youths—now the fastest growing sector of the U.S. youth population—adapting to their families’ new country? To find out, researchers use multiple research methods: academic testing, questionnaires assessing psychological adjustment, and in-depth ethnographies.

Academic Achievement and Adjustment

Although educators and laypeople often assume that the transition to a new country has a negative impact on psychological well-being, many children of immigrant parents adapt amazingly well. Students who are first generation (foreign-born) or second generation (American-born, with immigrant parents) often achieve in school as well as or better than students of native-born parents (Hao & Woo, 2012; Hernandez, Denton, & Blanchard, 2011). And compared with their agemates, adolescents from immigrant families are less likely to commit delinquent and violent acts, use drugs and alcohol, have early sex, miss school because of illness, or suffer from obesity (Saucier et al., 2002; Supple & Small, 2006).

These outcomes are strongest for Chinese, Filipino, Japanese, Korean, and East Indian youths (Fuligni, 2004; Louie, 2001; Portes & Rumbaut, 2005). Variation in adjustment is greater among Mexican, Central American, and Southeast Asian (Hmong, Cambodian, Laotian, Thai, and Vietnamese) young people, who show elevated rates of school failure and dropout, delinquency, teenage parenthood, and drug use (Gurrola, Ayón, & Moya Salas, 2016; Pong & Landale, 2012). Disparities in parental economic resources, education, English-language proficiency, and support of children contribute to these trends.

Still, many first- and second-generation youths whose parents face considerable financial hardship and who speak little English are successful (Suárez-Orozco, Abo-Zena, & Marks, 2015). Factors other than income are responsible—notably, family values and strong ethnic-community ties.

These children prepare to take part in the Parade of Nations that is part of the annual DC Latino Festival in the U.S. capital. Cultural values that engender allegiance to family and community promote high achievement and protect many immigrant youths from involvement in risky behaviors.

© ANDREW LICHTENSTEIN/GETTY IMAGES

Family and Ethnic-Community Influences

Ethnographies reveal that immigrant parents view education as the surest way to improve life chances (Feliciano & Lanuza, 2015). Aware of the challenges their children face, they typically emphasize trying hard. They remind their children that, because educational opportunities were not available in their native countries, they themselves are often limited to menial jobs.

Adolescents from these families internalize their parents’ valuing of academic achievement, endorsing it more strongly than agemates with native-born parents. Recall from the chapter introduction, for example, how Reiko amused herself playing “school” and “library” while confined in an internment camp. Because minority ethnicities usually stress allegiance to family and community over individual goals, first- and second-generation young people often feel a strong sense of obligation to their parents. They view school success as both their own and their parents’ success and as an important way of repaying their parents for the hardships they have endured (van Geel & Vedder, 2011; Burgos, Al-Adeimi, & Brown, 2017). Both family relationships and school achievement protect these youths from risky behaviors.

Immigrant parents of successful youths typically develop close ties to an ethnic community, which exerts additional control through a high consensus on values and constant monitoring of young people’s activities. The following comments capture the power of these family and community forces:

A 16-year-old girl from Central America describes the supportive adults in her neighborhood: They ask me if I need anything for school. If we go to a store and I see a notebook, they ask me if I want it. They give me advice, tell me that I should be careful of the friends I choose. They also tell me to stay in school to get prepared. They tell me I am smart. They give me encouragement. (Suárez-Orozco, Pimental, & Martin, 2009, p. 733).

A teenage boy from Mexico discusses the importance of family in his culture: A really big part of the Hispanic population [is] being close to family, and the family being a priority all the time. I hate people who say, “Why do you want to go to a party where your family’s at? Don’t you want to get away from them?” You know, I don’t really get tired of them. I’ve always been really close to them. That connection to my parents, that trust that you can talk to them, that makes me Mexican. (Bacallao & Smokowski, 2007, p. 62)

The experiences of well-adjusted immigrant youths are not problem-free. Many encounter racial and ethnic prejudices and experience tensions between family values and the new culture. In the long term, however, family and community cohesion, supervision, and high expectations promote favorable outcomes.

Ask Yourself

Connect ■ What strengths and limitations do the clinical, or case study, method and ethnography have in common?

Apply ■ A researcher wants to study the thoughts and feelings of children who have a parent on active duty in the military. Which method should she use? Why?

1.7.2 General Research Designs

In deciding on a research design, investigators choose a way of setting up a study that permits them to test their hypotheses with the greatest degree of certainty possible. Two main designs are used in all research on human behavior: correlational and experimental.

Correlational Design

In a correlational design, researchers gather information on individuals, generally in natural life circumstances without altering their experiences. Then they look at relationships between participants’ characteristics and their behavior or development. Suppose we want to answer the following questions: Do parents’ styles of interacting with their children have any bearing on children’s intelligence? How do child abuse and neglect affect children’s feelings about themselves and their relationships with peers? In these and many other instances, the conditions of interest are difficult or impossible to arrange and control and must be studied as they currently exist.

Correlational studies have one major limitation: We cannot infer cause and effect. For example, if we were to find that parental interaction is related to children’s intelligence, we would not know whether parents’ behavior actually causes intellectual differences among children. In fact, the opposite is possible. The behaviors of highly intelligent children may be so attractive that they cause parents to interact more favorably. Or a third variable that we did not even consider, such as the amount of noise and distraction in the home, may cause changes in both parental interaction and children’s intelligence.

In correlational studies, and in other types of research designs, investigators often examine relationships by using a correlation coefficient—a number that describes how two measures, or variables, are associated with each other. We will encounter the correlation coefficient in discussing research findings throughout this book, so let’s look at what it is and how it is interpreted: A correlation coefficient can range in value from +1.00 to –1.00. The magnitude, or size, of the number shows the strength of the relationship. A zero correlation indicates no relationship; the closer the value is to either +1.00 or –1.00, the stronger the relationship (see Figure 1.6). For instance, a correlation of –.78 is high, –.52 is moderate, and –.18 is low. Note, however that correlations of +.52 and –.52 are equally strong. The sign of the number refers to the direction of the relationship. A positive sign (+) means that as one variable increases, the other also increases. A negative sign (–) indicates that as one variable increases, the other decreases.

Let’s look at some examples of how a correlation coefficient works. One researcher reported a +.57 correlation between the variety of words mothers used when conversing with their children at age 2½ and the size of the children’s vocabularies a year later, at age 3½ (Rowe, 2012). This is a moderate correlation, which indicates that mothers whose conversations contained a greater diversity of words had preschoolers who were more advanced in language development. In two other studies, child-rearing practices were related to toddlers’ compliance in consistent ways. First, maternal warmth and sensitivity during play correlated positively with 2-year-olds’ willingness to comply with their mother’s directive to clean up toys, at +.34 (Feldman & Klein, 2003). Second, the extent to which mothers spoke harshly, interrupted, and controlled their 4-year-olds’ play correlated negatively with children’s compliance, at –.31 for boys and –.42 for girls (Smith et al., 2004).

All these investigations found a relationship between parenting and young children’s behavior. Are you tempted to conclude that parenting influenced children’s responses? Although the researchers in these studies suspected this was so, they could not be sure of cause and effect. Can you think of other possible explanations? Finding a relationship in a correlational study suggests that tracking down its cause—using a more powerful experimental strategy, if possible—would be worthwhile.

Figure 1.6 The meaning of correlation coefficients. The magnitude of the number indicates the strength of the relationship. The sign of the number (+ or –) indicates the direction of the relationship.

Experimental Design

An experimental design permits inferences about cause and effect because researchers use an evenhanded procedure to assign people to two or more treatment conditions. In an experiment, the events and behaviors of interest are divided into two types: independent and dependent variables. The independent variable is the one the investigator expects to cause changes in another variable. The dependent variable is the one the investigator expects to be influenced by the independent variable. Cause-and-effect relationships can be detected because the researcher directly controls or manipulates changes in the independent variable by exposing participants to the treatment conditions. Then the researcher compares their performance on measures of the dependent variable.

In one laboratory experiment, researchers explored the impact of teaching families to engage in healthy, respectful communication (independent variable) on parents’ efforts at conflict resolution and teenage children’s adjustment (dependent variables) (Miller-Graff, Cummings, & Bergman, 2016). Family triads, composed of two parents and their adolescent child, were randomly assigned to one of three groups: (1) parents-only communication training, consisting of four weekly sessions in which parents, guided by specially trained research assistants, discussed and practiced techniques aimed at improving family communication, (2) parents plus adolescent communication training, also four sessions, in which adolescent children participated with their parents, and (3) self-study control, in which parents were given a syllabus to guide them through four weeks of readings on effective family relationships.

As Figure 1.7 shows, at the conclusion of the sessions, parents in both training groups showed greater gains than controls in observed constructive conflict resolution. Furthermore, at a six-month follow-up, parents who had improved in conflict resolution as the result of training viewed their teenagers as having fewer emotional and behavior problems. The experiment revealed that even a brief family program emphasizing interactive learning can improve family relationships.

In experimental studies, investigators must take special precautions to control for participants’ characteristics that could reduce the accuracy of their findings. For example, in the study just described, if more children from homes high in parental conflict ended up in the self-study control group, we would not be able to tell what produced the results—the independent variable or the children’s home experiences. Level of parental conflict would be a confounding variable—so closely associated with the independent variable that the researcher cannot tell which one is actually responsible for changes in the dependent variable. To protect against this problem, researchers engage in random assignment of participants to treatment conditions. By using an unbiased procedure, such as drawing numbers out of a hat or flipping a coin, investigators increase the chances that participants’ characteristics will be equally distributed across treatment groups.

Figure 1.7 Impact of training in effective family communication on parents’ constructive conflict resolution. A laboratory experiment revealed that training aimed at improving family interaction, either with parents-only or with parents plus their adolescent child, led to greater gains in parents’ constructive conflict resolution than did a self-study control condition, in which parents merely read about effective family relationships. (Based on Miller-Graff, Cummings, & Bergman, 2016.)

Sometimes researchers combine random assignment with another technique called matching. In this procedure, participants are measured before the experiment on the factor in question—in our example, exposure to parental conflict. Then children high and low on that factor are assigned in equal numbers to each treatment condition. In this way, the experimental groups are deliberately matched, or made equivalent, on characteristics that are likely to distort the results.

Modified Experimental Designs: Field and Natural Experiments

Most experiments are conducted in laboratories, where researchers can achieve the maximum possible control over treatment conditions. But as we have already indicated, findings obtained in laboratories may not apply to natural situations. In field experiments, investigators assign participants randomly to treatment conditions in natural settings. In the experiment just described, we can conclude that inducing effective family communication in the laboratory yields improved parent-rated child adjustment. But do findings like these carry over to everyday life?

Another study sheds light on this question. Ethnically diverse, poverty-stricken families with a 2-year-old child were scheduled for a home visit, during which researchers assessed family functioning and child problem behaviors by asking parents to respond to questionnaires and videotaping parent–child interaction. Then the families were randomly assigned to either an intervention condition, called the Family Check-Up, or a no-intervention control group. The intervention consisted of three home-based sessions in which a consultant gave parents feedback about their child-rearing practices and their child’s adjustment, explored parents’ willingness to improve, identified community services appropriate to each family’s needs, and offered follow-up sessions on parenting practices and other concerns (Brennan et al., 2013; Dishion et al., 2008; Shaw et al., 2016). Findings showed that families assigned to the Family Check-Up (but not controls) gained in positive parenting, which predicted a reduction in child problem behaviors and higher academic achievement when the children reached school age. Lessening of aggression was greatest for children living in neighborhoods with the deepest poverty.

Often researchers cannot randomly assign participants and manipulate conditions in the real world, as these investigators were able to do. Sometimes they can compromise by conducting natural, or quasi-, experiments. Treatments that already exist, such as different family environments, child-care centers, or schools, are compared. These studies differ from correlational research only in that groups of participants are carefully chosen to ensure that their characteristics are as much alike as possible. In this way, investigators do their best to rule out alternative explanations for their treatment effects. But despite these efforts, natural experiments cannot achieve the precision and rigor of true experimental research.

To help you compare correlational and experimental designs, Table 1.5 on page 40 summarizes their strengths and limitations. It also includes an overview of designs for studying development, to which we turn next.

1.7.3 Designs for Studying Development

Scientists interested in child development require information about the way research participants change over time. To answer questions about development, they must extend correlational and experimental approaches to include measurements at different ages using longitudinal and cross-sectional designs.

The Longitudinal Design

In a longitudinal design, participants are studied repeatedly, and changes are noted as they get older. The time spanned may be relatively short (a few months to several years) or very long (a decade or even a lifetime).

The longitudinal approach has two major strengths. First, because it tracks the performance of each person over time, researchers can identify common patterns as well as individual differences in development. Second, longitudinal studies permit investigators to examine relationships between early and later events and behaviors. Let’s illustrate these ideas.

Table 1.5 Strengths and Limitations of Research Designs

DESIGN

DESCRIPTION

STRENGTHS

LIMITATIONS

General

Correlational

The investigator obtains information on participants without altering their experiences.

Permits study of relationships between variables.

Does not permit inferences about cause-and-effect relationships.

Experimental

Through random assignment of participants to treatment conditions, the investigator manipulates an independent variable and examines its effect on a dependent variable. Can be conducted in the laboratory or in the natural environment.

Permits inferences about cause-and-effect relationships.

When conducted in the laboratory, findings may not generalize to the real world. In field experiments, control over the treatment is usually weaker than in the laboratory. In natural, or quasi-, experiments, lack of random assignment substantially reduces the precision of research.

Developmental

Longitudinal

The investigator studies the same group of participants repeatedly at different ages.

Permits study of common patterns and individual differences in development and relationships between early and later events and behaviors.

Age-related changes may be distorted because of biased sampling, selective attrition, practice effects, and cohort effects.

Cross-sectional

The investigator studies groups of participants differing in age at the same point in time.

More efficient than the longitudinal design. Not plagued by such problems as participant dropout and practice effects.

Does not permit study of individual developmental trends. Age differences may be distorted because of cohort effects.

Sequential

The investigator conducts several similar cross-sectional or longitudinal studies (called sequences). These might study participants over the same ages but in different years, or they might study participants over different ages but during the same years.

When the design includes longitudinal sequences, permits both longitudinal and cross-sectional comparisons. Also reveals cohort effects. Permits tracking of age-related changes more efficiently than the longitudinal design.

May have the same problems as longitudinal and cross-sectional strategies, but the design itself helps identify difficulties.

Microgenetic

The investigator presents children with a novel task and follows their mastery over a series of closely spaced sessions.

Offers insights into how change occurs.

Requires intensive study of participants’ moment-by-moment behaviors. The time required for participants to change is difficult to anticipate. Practice effects may distort developmental trends.

A group of researchers wondered whether children who display extreme personality styles—either angry and explosive or shy and withdrawn—retain the same dispositions when they become adults. In addition, the researchers wanted to know what kinds of experiences promote stability or plasticity in personality and what consequences explosiveness and shyness have for long-term adjustment. To answer these questions, the researchers delved into the archives of the Guidance Study, a well-known longitudinal investigation initiated in 1928 at the University of California, Berkeley, that continued for several decades (Caspi, Elder, & Bem, 1987, 1988).

Results revealed that the two personality styles were moderately stable. Between ages 8 and 30, a good number of individuals remained the same, whereas others changed substantially. When stability did occur, it appeared to be due to a “snowballing effect,” in which children evoked responses from adults and peers that acted to maintain their dispositions. Explosive youngsters were likely to be treated with anger, whereas shy children were apt to be ignored. As a result, the two types of children came to view their social worlds differently. Explosive children tended to view others as hostile; shy children regarded them as unfriendly (Caspi & Roberts, 2001). Together, these factors led explosive children to sustain or increase their unruliness and shy children to continue to withdraw.

Persistence of extreme personality styles affected many areas of adult adjustment. For men, the results of early explosiveness were most apparent in their work lives, in the form of conflicts with supervisors, frequent job changes, and unemployment. Since few women in this sample of an earlier generation worked after marriage, their family lives were most affected. Explosive girls grew up to be hotheaded wives and mothers who were especially prone to divorce. Sex differences in the long-term consequences of shyness were even greater. Men who had been withdrawn in childhood were delayed in marrying, becoming fathers, and developing stable careers. However, because a withdrawn, unassertive style was socially acceptable for females in the mid-twentieth century, women with shy personalities showed no special adjustment problems.

Problems in Conducting Longitudinal Research

Despite their strengths, longitudinal investigations pose a number of problems. For example, biased sampling—the failure to enlist participants who adequately represent the population of interest—is a common problem. People who willingly participate in research that requires them to be observed and tested over many years are likely to have distinctive characteristics—perhaps a special appreciation for the scientific value of research, or a unique need or desire for medical, mental health, or educational services provided by the investigators. Furthermore, longitudinal samples generally become more biased as the investigation proceeds because of selective attrition. Participants may move away or drop out of the study for other reasons, and the ones who remain may differ in important ways from the ones who do not continue. Also, from repeated study, participants may become “test-wise.” Their performance may improve as a result of practice effects—better test-taking skills and increased familiarity with the test—not because of factors commonly associated with development.

The most widely discussed threat to the accuracy of longitudinal findings is cultural–historical change, commonly called cohort effects. Longitudinal studies examine the development of cohorts—children born at the same time, who are influenced by particular cultural and historical conditions. Results based on one cohort may not apply to children developing at other times. For example, look back at the findings on female shyness described in the preceding section, which were gathered in the 1950s. Today’s shy adolescent girls and young women tend to be poorly adjusted—a difference that may be due to changes in gender roles in Western societies. Persistently shy individuals, whether male or female, feel more anxious, depressed, have fewer social supports, and do less well in educational and career attainment than their agemates (Karevold et al., 2012; Poole, Van Lieshout, & Schmidt, 2017; Schmidt et al., 2017). Similarly, a longitudinal study of social development carried out in the second decade of the twenty-first century would probably have resulted in quite different findings had it been conducted around the time of World War II or during the Great Depression of the 1930s.

These refugees being helped ashore in Greece are among millions of Syrians who have been displaced by or have fled their country’s civil war. Their lives have been dramatically altered by their wartime and migration experiences—a cohort effect deemed the largest humanitarian crisis of contemporary times.

© SPENCER PLATT/GETTY IMAGES

Cohort effects don’t just operate broadly on an entire generation. They also occur when specific experiences influence some children but not others in the same generation, as Reiko’s internment as a Japanese-American during World War II illustrates. Children who witnessed the terrorist attacks of September 11, 2001—either because they were near Ground Zero or because they saw injury and death on TV—provide another example. They were far more likely than other children to display persistent emotional problems, including intense fear, anxiety, and depression (Mullett-Hume et al., 2008; Rosen & Cohen, 2010).

Finally, longitudinal research, especially when conducted over multiple years, requires large investments of time, effort, and resources. To maximize the benefits of these costly endeavors, investigators are increasingly carrying out massive longitudinal projects that gather information from large, representative samples on many aspects of development. Then they create multipurpose longitudinal data banks, which any researcher can access.

For example, the Early Childhood Longitudinal Study (ECLS), sponsored by the U.S. Department of Education in collaboration with other federal agencies, includes several nationally representative samples with thousands of participants, some followed from birth to kindergarten and others from kindergarten through eighth grade. The ECLS data bank has been used to study a wide variety of topics, including predictors of childhood obesity, effects of maternal stress during pregnancy on early development, the impact of family and preschool experiences on kindergarten readiness, and the influence of elementary school teaching practices on later academic performance. Investigations like the ECLS are enabling much more research to capitalize on the unique strengths of the longitudinal design.

The Cross-Sectional Design

The length of time it takes for many behaviors to change, even in limited longitudinal studies, has led researchers to turn to a more efficient strategy for studying development. In the cross-sectional design, groups of people differing in age are studied at the same point in time. Because participants are measured only once, researchers need not be concerned about such difficulties as participant dropout or practice effects.

An investigation in which students in grades 3, 6, 9, and 12 filled out a questionnaire about their sibling relationships provides a good illustration (Buhrmester & Furman, 1990). Findings revealed that sibling interaction was characterized by greater equality and less power assertion with age. Also, feelings of sibling companionship declined during adolescence. Several factors likely contributed to these age differences. As later-born children become more competent and independent, they no longer need, and are probably less willing to accept, direction from older siblings. And as adolescents move from psychological dependence on the family to greater involvement with peers, they may have less time and emotional need to invest in siblings (Hindle & Sherwin-White, 2014). As you will see in Chapter 13, subsequent research has confirmed these intriguing ideas about the development of sibling relationships.

Problems in Conducting Cross-Sectional Research

Despite its convenience, cross-sectional research does not provide evidence about change at the level at which it actually occurs: the individual. For example, in the cross-sectional study of sibling relationships just discussed, comparisons are limited to age-group averages. We cannot tell if important individual differences exist. Indeed, longitudinal findings reveal that adolescents vary considerably in the changing quality of their sibling relationships. Although many become more distant, others become more supportive and intimate, still others more rivalrous and antagonistic (Dirks et al., 2015; Dunn, 2014).

Cross-sectional studies—especially those that cover a wide age span—have another problem. Like longitudinal research, they can be threatened by cohort effects. For example, comparisons of 5-year-old cohorts and 15-year-old cohorts—groups born and reared in different years—may not really represent age-related changes. Instead, they may reflect unique experiences associated with the time period in which the age groups were growing up.

1.7.4 Improving Developmental Designs

Researchers have devised ways of building on the strengths and minimizing the weaknesses of longitudinal and cross-sectional approaches. Several modified developmental designs have resulted.

Sequential Designs

To overcome some of the limitations of traditional developmental designs, investigators sometimes use sequential designs, in which they conduct several similar cross-sectional or longitudinal studies (called sequences). The sequences might study participants over the same ages but in different years, or they might study participants over different ages but during the same years. As the illustration in Figure 1.8 reveals, some sequential designs combine longitudinal and cross-sectional strategies, an approach that has three advantages:

We can find out whether cohort effects are operating by comparing participants of the same age who were born in different years. In Figure 1.8, for example, we can compare the longitudinal samples at ages 12, 13, and 14. If they do not differ, we can rule out cohort effects.

We can make both longitudinal and cross-sectional comparisons. If outcomes are similar, we can be especially confident about the findings.

The design is efficient. In our example, we can find out about change over a five-year period by following each cohort for three years.

Figure 1.8 Example of a sequential design. Three cohorts, born in 2005 (blue), 2006 (orange), and 2007 (pink), respectively, are followed longitudinally for three years. Testing the cohorts at overlapping ages enables researchers to check for cohort effects by comparing participants born in different years when they reach the same age (see diagonals). In a study using this design, same-age adolescents who were members of different cohorts scored similarly on a questionnaire assessing family harmony, indicating no cohort effects. By following each cohort for just three years, the investigator could infer a developmental trend across five years, from ages 11 to 15.

In a study that used a design similar to the one depicted in Figure 1.8, researchers wanted to find out if family harmony changed as young people experienced the dramatic physical and psychological changes of adolescence (Baer, 2002). A questionnaire assessing emotional bonding among family members was given to three adolescent cohorts, each born a year apart. In longitudinal follow-ups, each cohort again responded to the questionnaire during the following two years. Findings for the three cohorts converged: All reported (1) a slight decline in family harmony with age and (2) similar levels of family harmony as they reached the same age, confirming that there were no cohort effects. Therefore, the researcher concluded that family closeness diminishes steadily from sixth to tenth grade, noting, however, that the change is mild—not enough to threaten supportive family ties.

When sequential designs do uncover cohort effects, they help explain diversity in development. Yet to date, only a small number of sequential studies have been conducted.

The Microgenetic Design

In the examples of developmental research we have discussed, observations of children are fairly widely spaced. When we observe once a year or every few years, we can describe development, but we cannot easily capture the processes that produce it.

The microgenetic design, an adaptation of the longitudinal approach, presents children with a novel task and tracks their mastery over a series of closely spaced sessions. Within this “microcosm” of development, researchers observe how change occurs (Flynn & Siegler, 2007; Kuhn, 1995). The microgenetic design has been used to trace infants’ mastery of motor skills, such as crawling and walking; the strategies children use to acquire new knowledge in reading, math, or science; and gains in children’s social competence (Adolph et al., 2012; Booker & Dunsmore, 2017; Laski & Siegler, 2014). Investigators try to conduct microgenetic research on participants who are in transition—ready to master the particular skill being studied. Because of their interest in studying developmental change as it takes place, dynamic systems researchers often choose the microgenetic design.

How do these kindergarteners make use of manipulatives to master arithmetic? A microgenetic design, which permits researchers to follow children’s mastery of a challenging task, is uniquely suited to answering this question.

© LAURA DWIGHT PHOTOGRAPHY

Microgenetic studies are difficult to carry out. Researchers must pore over hours of recorded information, analyzing each participant’s behavior many times. Also, the time required for children to change is hard to anticipate. It depends on a careful match between the child’s capabilities and the demands of the task. Finally, as in other longitudinal research, practice effects can distort microgenetic findings. When researchers overcome these challenges, they reap the benefits of seeing development as it takes place.

Combining Experimental and Developmental Designs

Perhaps you noticed that all the examples of longitudinal and cross-sectional research we have considered permit only correlational, not causal, inferences. Sometimes researchers can explore the causal link between experiences and development by experimentally manipulating the experiences. If, as a result, development improves, then we have strong evidence for a causal association. Today, research that combines an experimental strategy with either a longitudinal or a cross-sectional approach, with the aim of enhancing development, is becoming increasingly common.

1.8 ETHICS IN RESEARCH ON CHILDREN

1.8 Discuss special ethical concerns that arise in doing research on children.

Research into human behavior creates ethical issues because, unfortunately, the quest for scientific knowledge can sometimes exploit people. When children take part in research, the ethical concerns are especially complex. Children are more vulnerable than adults to physical and psychological harm. In addition, immaturity makes it difficult or impossible for children to evaluate for themselves what participation in research will mean. For these reasons, special ethical guidelines for research on children have been developed by the federal government, by funding agencies, and by research-oriented associations such as the American Psychological Association (2017) and the Society for Research in Child Development (2007).

Table 1.6 presents a summary of children’s basic research rights drawn from these guidelines. After examining them, read about the following research situations, each of which poses a serious ethical dilemma. What precautions do you think should be taken in each instance? Is either so threatening to children’s well-being that it should not be carried out?

In a study of moral development, an investigator wants to assess children’s ability to resist temptation by videotaping their behavior without their knowledge. She promises 7-year-olds an attractive prize for solving difficult puzzles but tells them not to look at a classmate’s correct solutions, which are deliberately placed at the back of the room. Informing children ahead of time that cheating is being studied or that their behavior is being monitored will defeat the purpose of the study.

A researcher is interviewing fifth graders about their experiences with bullying. One child describes frequent name-calling and derogatory comments by her older sister. Although the child is unhappy, she wants to handle the problem on her own. If the researcher alerts the child’s parents to provide protection and help, he will violate his promise to keep participants’ responses private.

Table 1.6 Children’s Research Rights

RESEARCH RIGHT

DESCRIPTION

Protection from harm

Children have the right to be protected from physical or psychological harm in research. If in doubt about the harmful effects of research, investigators should seek the opinion of others. When harm seems possible, investigators should find other means for obtaining the desired information or abandon the research.

Informed consent/assent

All participants, including children, have the right to have explained to them, in language appropriate to their level of understanding, all aspects of the research that may affect their willingness to participate. When children are participants, informed consent of parents as well as others who act on the child’s behalf (such as school officials) should be obtained, preferably in writing, along with the child’s written or verbal assent (agreement) for participation. Children, and the adults responsible for them, have the right to discontinue participation in the research at any time.

Privacy

Children have the right to concealment of their identity on all information collected in the course of research. They also have this right with respect to written reports and any informal discussions about the research.

Knowledge of results

Children and the adults responsible for them have the right to be informed of the results of research in language that is appropriate to their level of understanding.

Beneficial treatments

If experimental treatments believed to be beneficial are under investigation, children in control groups have the right to alternative beneficial treatments (if available) or to the same treatment (if found to be effective) once the research is complete.

Sources: American Psychological Association, 2017; Society for Research in Child Development, 2007.

Virtually every organization that has devised ethical principles for research has concluded that conflicts arising in research situations do not have simple right or wrong answers. The ultimate responsibility for the ethical integrity of research lies with the investigator. But researchers are advised—and often required—to seek advice from others. Committees for this purpose, called institutional review boards (IRBs), exist in colleges, universities, and other institutions, which follow U.S. federal guidelines for the protection of human subjects. If any risks to the safety and welfare of participants outweigh the worth of the research for advancing knowledge and improving life conditions, then preference is always given to the participants’ interests.

The ethical principle of informed consent requires special interpretation when participants cannot fully appreciate the research goals and activities. Parental consent is meant to protect the safety of children. In addition, researchers should obtain the agreement of other individuals who act on children’s behalf, such as institutional officials when research is conducted in schools, child-care centers, or hospitals. This is especially important when research includes special groups, such as abused children, whose parents may not always represent their best interests.

As soon as they are old enough to appreciate the purpose of the research, and certainly by age 7, children’s own informed assent, or agreement, should be obtained in addition to parental consent. Around age 7, changes in children’s thinking permit them to better understand basic scientific principles and the needs of others. Researchers should respect and enhance these capacities by giving school-age children a full explanation of research activities in language they can understand (Birbeck & Drummond, 2015).

Extra steps must be taken to protect children’s research rights. Although this 8-year-old responds to the interviewer’s questions, she may not know that she has the right to withdraw from the study at any time without negative consequences.

JOHN BIRDSALL SOCIAL ISSUES PHOTO LIBRARY/Science Source

Extra care must be taken when telling children that the information they provide will be kept confidential and that they can end their participation at any time. Even adolescents may not understand, and sometimes do not believe, these promises (Bruzzese & Fisher, 2003). In certain ethnic minority communities, where deference to authority, maintaining pleasant relationships, and meeting the needs of a guest (the researcher) are highly valued, children and parents may be particularly likely to consent or assent when they would rather not do so (Fisher et al., 2002).

Careful attention to informed consent and assent helps resolve dilemmas about revealing children’s responses to parents, teachers, or other authorities when those responses suggest that the child’s welfare is at risk. Children can be told in advance that if they report that someone is harming them, the researcher will tell an appropriate adult to take action to ensure the child’s safety (Jennifer & Cowie, 2009).

Finally, all ethical guidelines advise that special precautions be taken in the use of deception and concealment, as occurs when researchers observe children from behind one-way mirrors, give them false feedback about their performance, or misrepresent the real purpose of the research. When these procedures are used with adults, debriefing, in which the researcher provides a full account and justification of the activities, occurs after the research session is over. Debriefing should also be done with children, and it sometimes works well. But young children often lack the cognitive skills to understand the reasons for deceptive procedures and, despite explanations, even older children may leave the research situation questioning the honesty of adults. Ethical standards permit deception if investigators satisfy IRBs that such practices are necessary. Nevertheless, because deception may have serious emotional consequences for some children, many experts in research ethics believe that investigators should use it only if the risk of harm is minimal.

Ask Yourself

Connect ■ Review the study of the Family Check-Up, described on page 39. Why is it ethically important for researchers to offer the intervention to the no-intervention control group after completion of the study? (Hint: Refer to Table 1.6 on page 45.)

Apply ■ A researcher compares children who attended summer leadership camps with children who attended athletic camps. She finds that those who attended leadership camps are friendlier. Should the investigator tell parents that sending children to leadership camps will make them more sociable? Why or why not?

Reflect ■ Suppose a researcher asks you to enroll your baby in a 10-year longitudinal study. What factors would lead you to agree and stay involved? Do your answers shed light on why longitudinal studies often have biased samples? Explain.

Summary

1.1 The Field of Child Development (p. 4)

1.1a Describe the field of child development, along with factors that stimulated its expansion.

Child development is a field of study devoted to understanding constancy and change from conception through adolescence. It is part of a larger interdisciplinary field known as developmental science, which includes all changes we experience throughout the lifespan. Both scientific curiosity and social pressures to better children’s lives have stimulated research on child development.

1.1b Explain how child development is typically divided into domains and periods.

Development is often divided into physical, cognitive, and emotional and social domains. These domains combine in an integrated, holistic fashion.

Researchers generally divide child development into the following age periods: (1) prenatal (conception to birth), (2) infancy and toddlerhood (birth to 2 years), (3) early childhood (2 to 6 years), (4) middle childhood (6 to 11 years), and (5) adolescence (11 to 18 years).

1.2 Basic Issues (p. 7)

1.2 Identify three basic issues on which theories of child development take a stand.

Each theory of child development takes a stand on three fundamental issues: (1) development as a continuous process or a series of discontinuous stages; (2) one course of development characterizing all children, or many possible courses due to mutually influential relations between children and their contexts; (3) development influenced more by genetic or environmental factors (the nature–nurture controversy), and stable or characterized by substantial plasticity?

Recent theories have shifted toward a balanced stand on these issues. Contemporary investigators realize that answers may vary across domains of development and even, as research on resilience indicates, across individuals. More researchers are endorsing a developmental systems perspective, which views development as shaped by a complex network of genetic/biological, psychological, and social influences.

1.3 Historical Foundations (p. 11)

1.3 Describe major historical influences on theories of child development.

At least since medieval times, childhood has been regarded as a separate phase of life. In the sixteenth and seventeenth centuries, the Puritan conception of original sin led to a harsh philosophy of child rearing.

The seventeenth-century Enlightenment brought a new emphasis on human dignity and respect that led to more humane views of childhood. Locke’s notion of the child as a tabula rasa (“blank slate”) foreshadowed twentieth-century behaviorism, while Rousseau’s view of children as noble savages foreshadowed the concepts of stage and maturation.

Darwin’s theory of evolution influenced important developmental theories and inspired the beginning of scientific child study in the late nineteenth and early twentieth centuries. Hall and Gesell introduced the normative approach, which measured behaviors of large groups to yield descriptions of typical development.

Binet and Simon constructed the first successful intelligence test, which sparked interest in individual differences and made measures of intelligence central to the nature–nurture controversy.

1.4 Mid-Twentieth-Century Theories (p. 14)

1.4 Describe theories that influenced child development research in the mid-twentieth century.

In the 1930s and 1940s, psychiatrists and social workers turned to the psychoanalytic perspective for help in treating children’s psychological problems. In Freud’s psychosexual theory children move through five stages, during which three portions of the personality—id, ego, and superego—become integrated.

Erikson’s psychosocial theory builds on Freud’s theory, emphasizing the development of culturally relevant attitudes and skills and the lifespan nature of development.

Behaviorism focuses on directly observable events (stimuli and responses). Pavlov’s studies of animal learning led to the discovery of classical conditioning. Skinner’s work led operant conditioning to become a broadly applied learning principle.

A related approach, Albert Bandura’s social learning theory, views modeling as a major means of acquiring new responses. Its most recent revision takes a social-cognitive approach, stressing the role of cognition, or thinking, in children’s imitation and learning.

Behaviorism and social learning theory gave rise to applied behavior analysis, in which procedures of conditioning and modeling are used to eliminate undesirable behaviors and increase desirable responses.

According to Piaget’s cognitive-developmental theory children actively construct knowledge as they progress through four stages, beginning with the baby’s sensorimotor action patterns and ending with the abstract, systematic reasoning system of the adolescent and adult. Piaget’s work has stimulated a wealth of research on children’s thinking and has encouraged educational programs that emphasize children’s discovery learning.

1.5 Recent Theoretical Perspectives (p. 21)

1.5 Describe recent theoretical perspectives on child development.

According to the Information processing perspective, the mind is a complex symbol-manipulating system through which information flows. Because it has provided precise accounts of how children and adults tackle many cognitive tasks—including “executive” processes used to manage thoughts, emotions, and actions—information processing has important implications for education.

Researchers in developmental cognitive neuroscience study the relationship between changes in the brain and the developing child’s cognitive processing and behavior patterns. Investigators in developmental social neuroscience examine relationships between changes in the brain and social development. Findings on the types of experiences that support or undermine brain development are leading to effective interventions for enhancing cognitive and social functioning.

Four contemporary perspectives emphasize contexts for development. Ethology, which focuses on the adaptive value and evolutionary history of behavior, inspired the sensitive period concept. In evolutionary developmental psychology, which extends this emphasis, researchers seek to understand the adaptive value of species-wide competencies as they change with age.

Vygotsky’s sociocultural theory, which focuses on how culture is transmitted from one generation to the next through social interaction, views cognitive development as a socially mediated process. Through cooperative dialogues with more expert members of society, children come to use language to guide their own thoughts and actions and acquire culturally relevant knowledge and skills.

Ecological systems theory views the child as developing within a complex system of relationships affected by multiple, nested layers of the surrounding environment—microsystem, mesosystem, exosystem, and macrosystem. The chronosystem represents the dynamic, ever-changing nature of children and their experiences.

According to the dynamic systems perspective, the child’s mind, body, and physical and social worlds form an integrated system that guides mastery of new skills. A change in any part of the system prompts the child to reorganize his or her behavior so the various components work together again but in a more complex, effective way. The dynamic systems perspective aims to better understand variability in children’s development.

1.6 Comparing Child Development Theories (p. 30)

1.6 Identify the stand taken by each major theory on the basic issues of child development.

Major theories vary in their focus on different domains of development, in their view of how development occurs, and in their strengths and weaknesses. (For a full summary, see Table 1.3 on page 31.)

1.7 Studying the Child (p. 30)

1.7a Describe research methods commonly used to study children.

Naturalistic observations, gathered in everyday environments, permit researchers to see directly the everyday behaviors they hope to explain. Structured observations, in contrast, take place in laboratories, where every participant has an equal opportunity to display the behaviors of interest.

Self-report methods can be flexible and open-ended like the clinical interview. Alternatively, in structured interviews—including tests and questionnaires—each participant is asked the same questions in the same way.

Investigators use the clinical, or case study, method to obtain an in-depth understanding of a single child.

Researchers have adapted observational and self-report methods to permit direct comparisons of cultures. To understand the unique values and social processes of a culture or distinct social group, researchers rely on ethnography, engaging in participant observation.

1.7b Distinguish between correlational and experimental research designs, noting strengths and limitations of each.

The correlational design examines relationships between variables, generally as they occur in natural life circumstances, without altering participants’ experiences. A correlation coefficient is often used to measure the association between variables. Correlational studies do not permit inferences about cause and effect, but they can be helpful in identifying relationships that are worth exploring with a more powerful experimental strategy.

An experimental design permits inferences about cause and effect. Researchers manipulate an independent variable by exposing participants to two or more treatment conditions. Then they determine what effect this variable has on a dependent variable. Random assignment and matching reduce the chances that characteristics of participants and treatment conditions do not operate as confounding variables, reducing the accuracy of experimental findings.

In field experiments, researchers randomly assign participants to treatment conditions in the real world. Natural, or quasi-, experiments, which compare treatments that already exist in natural environments, are less rigorous than true experimental research.

1.7c Describe designs for studying development, noting strengths and limitations of each.

The longitudinal design permits researchers to identify common patterns as well as individual differences in development and to examine the relationship between early and later events and behaviors. Problems for longitudinal research include biased sampling, selective attrition, practice effects, and cohort effects—difficulty generalizing to children developing under different historical conditions. Longitudinal research also requires large investments of time and resources.

The cross-sectional design is more efficient than the longitudinal design, but it is limited to comparisons of age-group averages and vulnerable to cohort effects.

Sequential designs can determine whether cohort effects are operating by comparing participants of the same age who were born in different years. When sequential designs combine longitudinal and cross-sectional strategies, researchers can see if outcomes are similar, for added confidence in their findings.

In the microgenetic design, researchers present children with a novel task and track their mastery over a series of closely spaced sessions, seeking to capture processes of development. However, the time required for children to change is hard to anticipate, and practice effects can bias findings.

Combining experimental and developmental designs can help identify causal influences on development.

1.8 Ethics in Research on Children (p. 44)

1.8 Discuss special ethical concerns that arise in doing research on children.

Because of their immaturity, children are especially vulnerable to harm and often cannot evaluate the risks and benefits of research participation. Ethical guidelines and institutional review boards that weigh the risks and benefits of research help ensure that children’s research rights are protected.

Besides obtaining consent from parents and others who act on children’s behalf, researchers should seek the informed assent of children 7 years and older. The use of deception in research with children is especially risky because it may undermine their basic faith in the honesty of adults.

IMPORTANT TERMS AND CONCEPTS

applied behavior analysis (p. 18)

behaviorism (p. 16)

child development (p. 4)

chronosystem (p. 27)

clinical interview (p. 33)

clinical, or case study, method (p. 34)

cognitive-developmental theory (p. 18)

cohort effects (p. 41)

confounding variable (p. 38)

contexts (p. 8)

continuous development (p. 7)

correlational design (p. 37)

correlation coefficient (p. 37)

cross-sectional design (p. 42)

dependent variable (p. 38)

developmental cognitive neuroscience (p. 22)

developmental social neuroscience (p. 22)

developmental science (p. 4)

discontinuous development (p. 8)

dynamic systems perspective (p. 27)

ecological systems theory (p. 25)

ethnography (p. 35)

ethology (p. 23)

evolutionary developmental psychology (p. 24)

exosystem (p. 27)

experimental design (p. 38)

independent variable (p. 38)

information processing (p. 21)

longitudinal design (p. 39)

macrosystem (p. 27)

maturation (p. 13)

mesosystem (p. 26)

microgenetic design (p. 44)

microsystem (p. 25)

naturalistic observation (p. 32)

nature–nurture controversy (p. 9)

neurobiological methods (p. 00)

normative approach (p. 13)

plasticity (p. 9)

psychoanalytic perspective (p. 14)

psychosexual theory (p. 14)

psychosocial theory (p. 16)

random assignment (p. 38)

resilience (p. 10)

sensitive period (p. 23)

sequential design (p. 42)

social learning theory (p. 17)

sociocultural theory (p. 24)

stage (p. 8)

structured interview (p. 34)

structured observation (p. 33)

theory (p. 7)

Throughout this course, you will be creating a series of parent handouts focused on the various ages and stages of development. Since the first week of class discusses developmental theories, this will also be the focus of your Week 1 parent handout. For this assignment, you will use the attached PowerPoint template. You will only need to complete the slides for Week 1.

To prepare,

· Review Chapter 1: History, Theory, and Research Strategies

· Read  Needing to KnowLinks to an external site.

· Read  On Listening to What the Children SayLinks to an external site.

· You are required to use the  Parent Handout  Download Parent Handout template for this assignment.

 

Using the template, complete the following:

Handout:

· Define theory in terms families could understand.

· Explain two developmental theories that will drive your work with young children.

· Discuss the connection between your chosen theories and using developmentally appropriate practice to support your work with young children.

· Explain three resources for families to help them understand your chosen theories.Be sure to include a link to each resource.

· One resource should be a quick read for families on the go.

· One resource should be more detailed for families who want to learn more.

· One resource should be user-friendly for diverse families (e.g., ELL, single parents, grandparents raising grandchildren, etc.).

Reflection:

· Discuss why it is important for you to help families understand developmental theory.

· Explain why it is important to research and theorize about childhood.

· Describe how your stance on theory will evolve over the next five years.

 

The Theory Parent Handout paper

· Must be three pages in length and formatted according to template.

· Must utilize academic voice. See the  Academic Voice  Links to an external site. resource for additional guidance.

· Must use at least two scholarly sources in addition to the course text. These scholarly resources should be different than the resources provided for families. Must follow  APA Style  Links to an external site. as outlined in the Writing Center.

· The  Scholarly, Peer-Reviewed, and Other Credible Sources  Links to an external site. table offers additional guidance on appropriate source types. If you have questions about whether a specific source is appropriate for this assignment, please contact your instructor. Your instructor has the final say about the appropriateness of a specific source for a particular assignment.

· To assist you in completing the research required for this assignment, view the  Quick and Easy Library Research  Links to an external site. tutorial, which introduces the University of Arizona Global Campus Library and the research process, and provides some library search tips.