Advances in Child Development and Behavior Volume 11

ADVANCES IN CHILD DEVELOPMENT AND BEHAVIOR

VOLUME 11

Contributors to This Volume Paul B. Baltes

Jacob L. Gewirtz

Gladys B. Baxley

Aletha Huston-Stein

Harry Beilin

Judith M. LeBlanc

Elizabeth F. Boyd

W. Stuart Millar

Orville G. Brim, Jr.

Leo Montada

Michael J. Chandler

Stephen W. Porges

Nancy W. Denney

Hayne W. Reese

Sigrun-Heide Filipp

John C. Wright

ADVANCES IN CHILD DEVELOPMEN-T AND BEHAVIOR edited by Hayne W. Reese Department of’Psycho1og.v West Virginia Universit,v Morgantown, West Virginia

VOLUME 11

ACADEMIC PRESS

*

New York

- San Francisco

A Subsidiary of Harcourt Brace Jovanovich, Publishers

London

C O P Y R I G H T 0 1976, BY A C A D L M I C PRESS, INC. A1 1. RlGHl S RESERVED. h O PkR7 OF 1111s PUBLICATION MAY B E REPRODUCED OR TRANSMITTED I N ANY F O R M O R BY ANY MEANS. EI FCTRONIC OR MECHANICAL, INCLUDING PHOTOCOPY, RECORDING, OR ANY INFORMATION STORAGE AWD R r T R l E V A L SYSTEM, W I T H O U T PLRbllSSlON IN WRITING F R O M T H F PUB1 ISHER.

ACADEMIC PRESS, INC.

1 1 1 Fifth Avenue, New York, New York 10003

United Kingdom Edition published b y ACADEMIC PRESS, INC. (LONDON) LTD. 2 4 / 2 8 Oval Road. London N W l

LIBRARY OF CONGRESS CAIALOG CARD N U M B E R63-23237 : ISBN 0-12-009711-7 PRINTED IN T H E UNITED STATES OF AMERICA

Contents

..................................................

ix

............................................................

xi

List of Contributors Preface

The Hyperactive Child: Characteristics, Treatment, and Evaluation of Research Design I. 11. 111. IV. V. VI.

GLADYS B. BAXLEY AND JUDITH M. LEBLANC Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Characteristics and Diagnosis of Hyperactivity ......................... Etiology of Hyperactivity . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Evaluation and Assessment of Pharniacotherapeutic Effects . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Analysis of Drug Research with Ilvperactive Children . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Summary and Conclusions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

2 3 11 14 20 28 29

Peripheral and Neurochemical Parallels of Psychopathology: A Psychophysiological Model Relating Autonomic Imbalance to Hyperactivity, Psychopathy, and Autism STEPHEN W. PORGES 1. Overview ..................................... 11. Hyperactivity . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

111. IV. V. VI. VII. VIII.

Psychopathy . . . . . . . . . . . .... Relationship between Central and Peripheral Autonomic Activity . . . . . . . . . . Statistical Model of Autonomic Balance . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Autonomic Responses and Attention .......................... Autism . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Summary and Conclusions ................................... .... ... References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

40 43

60 62

Constructing Cognitive Operations Linguistically HARRY BEILlN I. Language as Representation ....................................... 11. The Mechanisms of Conservation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

68 69 V

vi

Contents

.

111 IV . V. VI .

Methodological Issues in Piagetian Training Research .................... The General Training Model: Methodological Issues ..................... Linguistic Training . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Summary of Results and Theoretical Considerations .................... References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

71 75 82 96 102

Operant Acquisition of Social Behaviors in Infancy: Basic Problems and Constraints I. I1. I11. IV .

W . STUART MILLAR Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Social Responses Reinforced by Social Feedback ....................... Mixed Social and Nonsocial Contingencies: the Case for Constraints . . . . . . . . Conclusions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

108 109 125 135 136

Mother-Infant Interaction and Its Study I. I1 . I11. IV . V. VI .

VII .

JACOB L. GEWIRTZ AND ELIZABETH F. BOYD Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Direction of Influence in Child Socialization .......................... Mechanistic and Organismic Models of Development and Interaction . . . . . . . . Study of Interactions between Mother and Infant in Natural Settings . . . . . . . Learning Analysis of “Simultaneous” Behaviors ........................ An Experimental Analysis of Mother-Infant Interaction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Summary and Conclusion . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

142 142 146 149 152 153 159 160

Symposium on Implications of L ife-Span Developmental Psychology for Child Development

Introductory Remarks PAUL B. BALTES. CHAIRMAN Text . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

167

Theory and Method in L i fe-Span Developrnental Psychology: Implications for Child Development ALETHA HUSTON-STEIN AND PAUL B. BALTES 169 1. Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . I1. Prototypical Issues in Life-Span Developmental Theory . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 171 I11. Prototypical Issues in Life-Span Developmental Methodology . . . . . . . . . . . . . 179

1V. Summary References

..................................................... ....................................................

183 183

The Development of Memory: Life-Span Perspectives I. I1 . Ill IV V. VI .

. .

HAYNE W . REESE Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Memory Development in Childhood ................................. Memory Development in Addthood and Old Age ...................... Comparison between Childhood and Old Age .......................... Implications for Childhood Memory . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Summary and Conclusions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

190 190 195 200 202 207 209

Cognitive Changes during the Adult Years: Implications for Developmental Theory and Research NANCY W. DENNEY AND JOllN C. WRIGHT Research on Adult Cognition . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11. Implications for Developmental rheory .............................. 111. Implications for Research Procedures with Children ..................... IV Summary . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

I

.

.

213 215 220 222 222

Social Cognition and Li fe-Span Approaches to the Study of Child Development

.

MICHAEL J CHANDLER I . Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . I1. Pluralistic versus Monistic Views of Adulthood . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . I11. Social Cognition and Multilincar Development . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . IV . Social versus Impersonal Cognition . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . V . Conclusion . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

225 226 229 233 237 238

Life-Span Development of the Theory of Oneself: Implications for Child Development ORVILLE G . BRIM. JR . I . The Sense of Self Viewed as Theory about Oneself . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . I1. Culture and Socialization . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . I11. The Child's Developing Theory of Self ............................. IV . Two Illustrations of Possible Systematic Changes in Theories of Onesclf through the Life-Span . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

242 244 245 247

viii

Cot2rents

V . Setting the Research Agenda . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Refcrenccs . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

250 251

Implications of LifeSpan Developmental Psychology for Childhood Education LEO MONTADA AND SIGRUN-HEIDE FILIPP 1. Introduction

...................................................

I1 . Contributions of Developmental Psychology to the Establishment of Educational Goals ............................................... 111. Design of Intervention Programs .................................... 11’. Problems in Transforming Empirical Knowledge into Intervention Programs . . V . Toward Research in Childhood Intervention from Life-Span Perspectives . . . . VI . Concluding Comments ........................................... References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

254 255 257 258 262 263 264

Author Index

.......................................................

267

Sub~ectIndex

.......................................................

277

...........................................

280

Contents of Previous Volumes

List of Contributors Numbers in parentheses indicate the pages on which the authors’ contributions begin.

PAUL B. BALTES College of Human Development, The Pennsylvania State University, University Park, Pennsylvania (167, 169) GLADYS B. BAXLEY Department o f Psychology, University o f Illinois, Champaign, Illinois ( 1 )

HARRY BEILIN City University of New York, Graduate School and University Center, New York, New York (67) ELIZABETH F. BOYD Laboratory of Developmental Psychology, National Institute of Mental Health, Bethesda, Maryland (141) ORVILLE G. BRIM, JR. Foundation for Child Development, New York, New York (241) MICHAEL J. CHANDLER Department of Psychology, University of Rochester, Rochester, New York (225) NANCY W. DENNEY Department of Psychology, Universit-vo f Kansas, Lawrence, Kansas (213) SIGRUN-HEIDE FILIPP Department of Psychology, University o f Trier, Trier, West Germany (253) JACOB L. GEWIRTZ Laboratory of Developmental Ps-vchology,National Institute of Mental Health, Bethesda, Maryland (141 ) ALETHA HUSTON-STEIN College of Human Development, The Pennsylvania State University, University Park, Pennsylvania (169) JUDITH M. LEBLANC Department of Human Development, University of Kansas, Lawrence, Kansas ( I ) ix

X

List of Contributors

W. STUART MILLAR' Department of Psychology, University of Strathclyde, Glasgow, Scotland (107)

LEO MONTADA Department of Psychology, University of Trier, Trier, West Germany (253) STEPHEN W. PORGES Department of Psychology, University of Illinois, Champaign,Illinois (35) HAYNE W. REESE Department of Psychology, West Virginia University, Morgantown, West Virginia (189) JOHN C. WRIGHT Department of Human Development, University of Kansas, Lawrence, Kansas (213)

' Present address: Department of Psychology, University College London, Cower Street, London, W.C.l., United Kingdom.

Preface The amount of research and theoretical discussion in the field of child development and behavior is so vast that researchers, instructors, and students are confronted with a formidable task in keeping abreast of new developments within their areas of specialization through the use of primary sources, as well as being knowledgeable in areas peripheral to their primary focus of interest. Moreover, there is often simply not enough journal space to permit publication of more speculative kinds of analyses which might spark expanded interest in a problem area or stimulate new modes of attack on the problem, The serial publication Advances in Child Development and Behavior is intended to ease the burden by providing scholarly technical articles serving as reference material and by providing a place for publication of scholarly speculation. In these documented critical reviews, recent advances in the field are summarized and integrated, complexities are exposed, and fresh viewpoints are offered. They should be useful not only to the expert in the area but also to the general reader. No attempt is made to organize each volume around a particular theme or topic, nor is the series intended to reflect the development of new fads. Manuscripts are solicited from investigators conducting programmatic work on problems of current and significant interest. The editor often encourages the preparation of critical syntheses dealing intensively with topics of relatively narrow scope but of considerable potential interest to the scientific community. Contributors are encouraged to criticize, integrate, and stimulate, but always within a framework of high scholarship. Although appearance in the volumes is ordinarily by invitation, unsolicited manuscripts will be accepted for review if submitted first in outline form to the editor. All papers-whether invited or submitted-receive careful editorial scrutiny. Invited papers are automatically accepted for publication in principle, but may require revision before fmal acceptance. Submitted papers receive the same treatment except that they are not automatically accepted for publication even in principle, and may be rejected. I wish to acknowledge with gratitude the aid of my home institution, West Virginia University, which generously provided time and facilities for the preparation of this volume. I also wish to thank Drs. Norman Cavior, Hiram E. Fitzgerald, John H. Flavell, Norah M. Gutrecht, David Klahr, Lewis P. Lipsitt, Willis F. Overton, and Marcia S. Scott for their editorial assistance. Hayne W. Reese xi

This Page Intentionally Left Blank

THE HYPERACTIVE CHILD: CHARACTERISTICS, TREATMENT, AND EVALUATION OF RESEARCH DESIGN'

Gludys B. Baxley U N l V E K S I T Y OF I L L I N O I S Ulld

drrditli M . LeBlanc UNIV1:KSITY O F KANSAS

I. INTRODUCTION . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11. CHARACTERISTICS AND DIAGNOSIS OF HYPERACTIVITY . . A. DESCRIPTIVE CHARACTERISTICS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . B. METHODS O F DIAGNOSIS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 111. ETIOLOGY O F HYPERACT!VITY . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . A. ORGANIC FACTORS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . B. NONORGANIC FACTORS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . C. SUMMARY . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

IV. EVALUATION AND ASSESSMENT OF PHARMACOTHERAPEUTIC EFFE,C'TS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . A. SYMPTOM RATINGS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . B. PSYCHOLOGICAL M1:ASURES . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . C. OBJECTIVE LABORATORY TASK PERFORMANCE . . . . . .

2 3 3 5 11

11 13 13

14

14 15 16

' T h e preparation of this manuscript was supported in part by Public Health Service training grant HD 00183, by CORIl Grant HD 02528 from the National Institute of Child Health and Human Development t o thc Kansas Center for Research in Mental Retardation and Human Development, by Grant 40-32-66-301 from the University of Illinois Research Board to the first author, and by Grant HD 05951 from the National Institute of Chld Health and Development to the University of Illinois Institute for Child Behavior and Development. We wish especially lo thank Drs. Stephen W . Porges, Donald M. Baer, Nancy K . Squires, and William H. Redd for their critical evaluation of previous drafts of this paper. 1

2

Gladys B. Baxley and Judith M.LeBlunc

D. BEHAVIORAL MEASURES . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . E. PHYSIOLOGICAL MEASURES . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . F. ACADEMIC PERFORMANCE . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

17 18 19

V. ANALYSIS OF DRUG RESEARCH WITH HYPERACTIVE CHILDREN . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . A. INTRODUCTION . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . B. LIMITATIONS OF GROUP-STATISTICAL DESIGNS . . . . . . . C. ADVANTAGES OF INDIVIDUAL ANALYSES . . . . . . . . . . . .

20 20 21 25

VI. SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

28

REFERENCES . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

29

I. Introduction A hyperactive, or hyperkinetic, c h l d is characterized by short attention span, restlessness, distractability, and overactivity (American Psychiatric Association, 1968). It is apparent that the syndrome is defined essentially in terms of its behavioral manifestations. In addition, hyperactive children often display learning deficits presumably related to their lack of concentration and focus of attention. Bradley (1937) is generally credited as being the first to study the effects of psychoactive drugs with hyperactive children. He demonstrated that Benzedrine@, a central nervous system stimulant, produced spectacular calming effects on the behavior of hyperactive children. Although Molitch and Eccles (1937) published a similar report in the same year, it was Bradley’s research that was instrumental in the establishment of pediatric psychopharmacology as a formal discipline emphasizing the investigation of drug effects in children. Since Bradley’s demonstration, psychoactive drugs have been prescribed increasingly to control the behavior of school children, especially those diagnosed as hyperactive (Bazell, 1971; Krager & Safer, 1974). This increased use of drugs to control behavior has had a profound effect on pharmacology, in that it has generated a great deal of research with children, so much so that there presently exists an extensive body of research in pediatric psychopharmacology. However, a major problem is encountered in much of this research because of the manner in which the results are analyzed and interpreted. Possibly because of a tacit assumption that group data accurately reflect the performance of individuals who compose a group, pediatric drug researchers

The Hyperactive Child

3

consistently adopt group experimental designs and statistical analyses of the group data for interpretation of drug effects. The increased use of drugs to treat hyperactive children stems in part from the experimentally demonstrated beneficial effects of drugs for such children. Thus, inferences about the potential effects of drugs on individuals are derived from effects interpreted from group averages, with little attention paid to the effects on the individuals within the group. The sole use of group designs, however, may not necessarily be appropriate for psychopharmacology research. The purposes of this paper are to examine existing pharmacological research in terms of its implications for treatment and diagnosis and t o propose individual analysis procedures as a functional research addition for assessing the effects of drugs on hyperactive children.

11. Characteristics and Diagnosis of Hyperactivity A. DESCRIPTIVE CHARACTERISTICS

1. Diversity of Labels Confusion surrounding the hyperactive disorder is reflected in the variety of labels given to it. For example, the disorder has been referred to as the “hyperkinetic syndrome,” “hyperkinetic impulse disorder,” and “hyperactive child syndrome” (American Psychiatric Association, 1968; Burks, 1960; Comly, 1962; Knobel, 1962; Laufer & Denhoff, 1957; Laufer, Denhoff, & Solomons, 1957; Millichap, 1968; Sainz, 1966; Stewart, 1967; Warren, Karduck, Bussaratid, Stewart, & Sly, 1971; Werry, 1968a; Werry, Weiss, & Douglas, 1964; Werry, Weiss, Douglas, & Martin, 1966). Other labels that have been used are based on theories of underlying neuropathology : “minimal brain dysfunction syndrome,” “organic deviation,” and “organic learning and behavior disorder” (Bradley, 1957; Clements, 1966; Clements & Peters, 1962; Conners, 1967; Millichap & Fowler, 1967; Solomons, 1965; Wender, 1971; Weiss, Werry, Minde, Douglas, & Sykes, 1968; Werry, 1 9 6 8 ~ ) In . the final analysis, however, the label of “hyperactivity” may be more appropriate, because it is the children’s overt behavior that distinguishes them from other children (even emotionally disturbed or learning-disabled children).

2. Behavioral Descriptions In spite of the diversity of labels, behavioral descriptions of the symptoms of the hyperactive disorder are remarkably constant among investigators. One of the most outstanding features of the disorder, and one for which children are typically referred for treatment, is excessive motor activity (Burks, 1960; Chess, 1960; Laufer & Denhoff, 1957; Millichap, 1968; Patterson, Jones, Whittier, & Wright, 1965; Sainz, 1966; Werry, 1968a; Werry & Sprague, 1970). Chess (1960), for example, defined the hyperactive child simply as one who carries out

4

Gladys B. Baxley and Judith M. LeBlanc

activities at a higher rate than the average child, as one who is constantly in motion, or both. Werry (1968c), in contrast, defined hyperactivity as a total daily motor activity (movement of the body or any portion of it) that is significantly greater than the norm. Laufer and Denhoff (1957) defined the disorder in terms of a standard level of activity: hyperactivity is involuntary and constant overactivity that greatly surpasses the normal. In addition, most investigators include in the hyperactivity syndrome other more loosely specified accompanying characteristics such as short span of attention and concentration, impulsivity, distractability, low frustration tolerance, poor emotional control and emotional lability, hyperexcitability, aggressiveness, and specific cognitive defects (Burks, 1960; Comly, 1962; Eveloff, 1970; Millichap, 1968; Sainz, 1966; U.S. Department of Health, Education, and Welfare, 1971; Werry, 1968a; Werry et al., 1966). When these characterizations are combined, the hyperactive child is defined as one who chronically exhibits sustained above-normal levels of gross motor activity that is generally accompanied by secondary behaviors (e.g., short attention span) as well as specific cognitive deficiencies (such as memory impairments). Hutt, Hutt, and Ounsted (1963) suggested a technique to distinguish braininjured from other hyperactive children. Whereas brain-injured children are said to exhibit abrupt changes of activity accompanied by abrupt synchronous changes of visual fixation, other hyperactive children do not show this same synchronous change of fixation. Instead, the latter continue one activity while visually attending to another activity, often for extended periods of time. In addition to these general characteristics, there are other features somewhat correlated with hyperactivity. For example, although some hyperactive children are mentally retarded, most are generally of average or above-average intelligence (Millichap, 1968; U.S. Department of Health, Education and Welfare, 1971). Hyperactive children are more frequently male than female, and, as Stewart (1967) reported, they represent approximately 4% of the grade-school population in the United States. Unfortunately, there is no clear evidence of the relationship between the incidence of hyperactivity and the socioeconomic status of the children so labeled. Although hyperactivity has been shown to result from lead poisoning (Silbergeld & Goldberg, 1974), which is frequently a problem among children from low-income groups, at the present time there are no exact data available to support an argument of a higher incidence of hyperactivity in this group as compared to other socioeconomic groups. Stevens, Sachdev, and Milstein (1968), however, have estimated that roughly 40% of all school children referred to mental health clinics because of behavioral disturbances are diagnosed as hyperactive.

3. Social Concomitants Parents of hyperactive children complain that their children are seldom quiet, are always on the go, have boundless energy, and require much less sleep than

The ffyperactive Child

5

their peers or siblings (Laufer & Denhoff, 1957; Werry, 1968a). Such children present a picture of perpetual m(jtlon. Comly (1962) reported that hyperactive children, as toddlers, are difficult to handle, tend to wake up from naps early, and frequently climb out of cribs, playpens, yards, etc. Thus, these children are not only a constant nuisance but are frequently in danger of physical harm (Werry, 196%). Parents and teachers seldom complain about the general activity level of hyperactive children but rathei about their overactive behavior in specific situational contexts. A teacher, for example, does not complain about overactive behavior on the playground during recess but has difficulty tolerating it during the spelling period. Therefore, hypcractive children are judged deviant or maladjusted at least as much by the social inappropriateness of their behavior as by any generalized quantitative exccss (Werry, 1968a). Thus, according to Zentall (1975), “the best definition o f hypeiactivity remains a social judgment of the frequency and intensity of specified behaviors displayed at ‘inappropriate’ times” (p. 549).

4. Academic Concomitants Hyperactive children are viewed by school personnel as distinctly different from their classmates. They are described as highly distractable, restless, and disruptive, and they are typically below average in academic performance. The poor academic performance is considered to result from poor concentration, impairment of motor, memory, and speech functions, and other cognitive deficits such as reading problems, reversals in reading and writing, and difficulties in arithmetic (Laufer & Denhoff, 1957; Millichap, 1968; Werry, 1968a; Werry et al., 1966). Hyperactive children can also be an academic paradox by their erratic academic behavior. Sometimes they compl-te work assignments correctly and neatly; other times, the same children either do not complete assignments at all or the work is messy and disorganized. On standardized intelligence tests these children frequently score higher than would be predicted from their academic performance and typically score higher on verbal than on performance measures of intelligence (Paine, 1968). B. METHODS OF DIAGNOSIS

The diagnosis of hyperactivity is shrouded in confusion because different authorities have used different criteria for diagnosis. A hyperactive child is quite likely t o have more than one diagnosis, particularly if the child has been seen in more than one clinic. The diagnosis is often derived from rather arbitrary criteria. Knobel (1962), for example, differentiated hyperactivity stemming from an organic etiology from that with a psychogenic cause. He labeled as “organic” those children who, in addition to exhibiting the behavioral character-

6

Gladys B. Baxley arid Judith M. LeBlanc

istics of hyperactivity, also yielded positive findings on at least two o f three clinical measures: the neurological examination; electroencephalographic recordings; and psychological tests which are purported to show signs of “organicity.” Hyperactive behavior with an organic basis is said t o be erratic, without direction, situationally nonspecific, and accompanied by impulsivity and aggression that show neither intentionality nor direction. The child whose hyperactivity is more psychologically based, however, is said t o show impulsive and aggressive behaviors that are intentional in nature and have apparent direction. Laufer and Denhoff (1957) proposed that the behavioral manifestations of hyperactivity are characteristic enough t o be diagnostic in and of themselves. However, other investigators have reasoned that the overt behaviors associated with hyperactivity could also be indicative of emotional disturbance. From this latter viewpoint some investigators believe that a diagnosis of hyperactivity must be supported by evidence of brain dysfunction (Menkes, Rose, & Menkes, 1967). Werry ( 1 9 6 8 ~ )however, pointed out that the function of the diagnosis is not simply t o label a child but is also t o identify the appropriate population, t o facilitate treatment, and, if possible, to provide a basis for estimating prognosis. In other words, the diagnostic procedure should distinguish hyperactive children from children with other disturbances (e.g., brain damage) of which hyperactivity may be only a small part. With such a selection procedure, a treatment strategy could be based on characteristics common to the populatid5as a whole, and the prognosis thus could be determined from treatment results with other already identified hyperactive children. Several procedures are currently used to diagnose hyperactivity; these may be grouped into three major categories: (1) diagnostic procedures based on physiological and/or neurological factors: (2) procedures based on psychological factors; and (3) procedures based on behavioral factors. I . Diagnostic Procedures Based on Physiological andlor Neurological Factors The electroencephalogram (EEG) has contributed much t o the understanding of central nervous system function (Bradley, 1957). Although its initial value was primarily in the study of convulsive states, it is now commonly used in diagnosing hyperactivity. One reason is that EEG tracings are frequently abnormal in children who exhibit hyperactivity (Paine, 1968). Burks (1960), for example, noted that hyperactivity associated with abnormal EEG is one of the most widely accepted criteria for a diagnosis of organic brain pathology. He proposed that organic pathology of the cortex (or surface) of the brain often distorts or changes the nature of brain activity in typical ways that can be recorded by the EEG. Thus, the EEG is thought to provide positive evidence of hyperactivity through characteristically distorted brain-wave patterns. However, EEG recordings in children are often unstable, and anxiety or tension can disrupt their

The Hyperactive Child

I

pattern (Werry et al., 1964). Therefore, reliance only on the EEG could lead to an erroneous diagnosis of hyperactivity. In a study of 97 children referred for evaluation of severe behavior disorders, Stevens et al. (1968) found that a generally abnormal EEG did not correlate with specific disorders. However, there was a correlation between specific regional and wave-form abnormalities and behavior disorders. Solomons (1 965) stated that EEG does not correlate directly with specific behavior patterns, intelligence, or the presence or absence of known cerebral trauma. Paine (1968) further acknowledged that abnormalities evidenced in the EEG are usually minor and probably do not contribute substantially to the diagnosis of hyperactivity. Thus, it is not surprising that Werry et al. (1964) viewed the EEG as a rather “crude” instrument. Because hyperactivity is sometimes equated with abnormal brain structure or abnormal function (Clements, 1966), neurological tests have been used for diagnostic purposes. However, conventional neurological examinations usually reveal no abnormalities of major or “hard” signs, such as in cranial nerves and reflexes (Paine, 1968), but only of minor or “soft” neurological signs (e.g., impaired muscle coordination, poor visual motor function, or difficulties in performing skilled acts) in a large proportion of hyperactive children (Werry, 1 9 6 8 ~ ) .For example, of the children studied by Hertzig, Bortner, and Birch (1969), 95% showed some abnormality on clinical examination, with the overwhelming majority having two or more “soft” signs of neurological disturbance. Thus, minor neurological deviations are sometimes taken as positive evidence for the existence of cerebral impairment i n the diagnosis of hyperactivity. Millichap (1968) also included in this list other findings such as motor impersistence or the inability to maintain gaze or posture, motor incoordination, impaired alternating movements of the forearms, gait ataxia, inability to hop, Babinski responses, and many others. By considering hyperactivity in terms of its associated neurological deviations, experts have been able to achieve consensus as to its diagnosis. However, as Werry ( 1 9 6 8 ~ )has pointed out, in the neurological sense there is as yet no evidence that any of these central nervous system deviations are in fact valid or reliable indices of cerebral dysfunction. Previous investigations have shown that specific kinds of deviations appeared on only those measures which were specifically designed to measure them (Paine, Werry, & Quay, 1968; Rodin, Lucas, & Simson, 1963; Schulman, Kaspar, & Throne, 1965). In other words, neurological, medical, and psychological measures reflected different and independent dysfunctions rather than a single dysfunction. Thus, neurological evaluations may have little relevance for a diagnosis of hyperactivity unless this information is combined with other kinds of information (Wender, 1971). The medical and developmental histories of the child do play major roles in the diagnosis of hyperactivity (Bradley, 1957; Burks, 1960; Comly, 1962). This

8

Gladys B. Baxley and Judith M. LeBlanc

style of diagnosis of hyperactivity requires a detailed behavioral history (Wender, 1971). Information gained from specific inquiry into the child’s level of functioning at various stages in development may have more predictive value for an accurate diagnosis than any other kind of information. Bradley (1957) maintained that history is especially helpful when there are indications of illness or injury. However, he conceded that such positive indications are not always available, and specific inquiry into the health of the mother during pregnancy, conditions during the birth itself, and the child’s health during infancy may also yield “significant” information. Denhoff and Novack (1967) also suggested that information concerning family history may contribute substantially t o a diagnosis of hyperactivity. This is especially true in families that exhibit a high incidence of neurological disability, presumably because such facts may indicate hereditary influences (given the presupposition that such ilifluences are relevant). Burks (1 960) constructed a questionnaire to obtain information regarding the developmental histories o f a group of fourth-grade students. From the questionnaires completed and returned by 204 parents, one particularly interesting finding was that unusual circumstances surrounding the birth process were more frequently reported in the histories of hyperactive children than in those of a group of normal children or a group of retarded readers showing n o evidence of the hyperactive disorder. Circumstances noted in births of hyperactive children were unusually long or short labor, anoxia, breech or unusual presentation, cord about neck, misshapen head, etc. Additionally, more than five times as many premature births were reported for hyperactive children as for normals. Severe infectious disease and blows to the head were also more common among the hyperactive group.

2. Diagnostic Procedures Based on Psychological Factors A psychological examination is typically included in the diagnosis of hyperactivity. These examinations are considered t o be most valuable if they are conducted by experienced clinical psychologists (Bradley, 1957), presumably because in addition t o test performance the child’s general behavior in the testing situation provides valuable diagnostic clues (Comly, 1962). Experienced clinical psychologists supposedly can identify such behaviors as short span of attention and concentration, as well as low frustration tolerance in the testing situation. Measures of general intelligence are sometimes employed for diagnostic purposes. Tests such as the Wechsler Intelligence Scale for Chi!dren (WISC) and the Stanford-Binet often reveal high verbal ability but low motor performance in hyperactive children (Comly, 1962; Denhoff & Novack, 1967). C o d y (1962) indicated that performance quality varies in hyperactive children, as denionstrated in frequent shifts from “insightful” approaches t o test items t o nonattentive trial-and-error performance, particularly on nonverbal tasks.

The Hyperactive Child

9

The Bender Visual-Motor-Gestalt Test and the Goodenough Harris Draw-aPerson Test often show discrepancies between the responses of hyperactive children who have some degree of neurological impairment and hyperactive children who d o not (Comly, 1962; Denhoff & Novack, 1967). Those in the former category often do not appreciate the relationship of parts of figures to each other and have difficulty with tasks involving spatial relationships (Comly, 1962). Immediate visual recall (from the Bender test) is also frequently shown to be impaired in such children, as is short-term auditory memory (from the Digit Span subtest of the WISC). The Rorschach Inkblot Test, the Children’s Apperception Test, and the Goodenough Harris Draw-a-Person Test are sometimes used to identify children suspected of being borderline psychotic (Wender, 1971). These tests are also considered to be useful for identifying hyperactive children, who often exhibit symptoms similar t o borderline psychotic children. Despite widespread use, the value of psychological tests for diagnosing hyperactivity is questionable because no satisfactory correlation has been established between performance on sucli measrires and the behavioral or neurological attributes of hyperactivity (Wenc!er, 1971). In other words, performance on psychological tests, be it normal or abnormal, may tell very little about the behavioral or neurological status of the child. Thus any predictive and prescriptive value of psychological tests, especially for therapy, has yet t o be established.

3. Diagnostic Procedures Based o t i Behavioral Factors The major identifying characteristic of hyperactive children is the behavioral manifestation of their disorder (e.g., excessive motor activity, restlessness, distractability, short attention span). Consequently, diagnosis is frequently based on observations of those overt behaviors. Diagnostic procedures that emphasize the behavioral components 01‘ hyperactivity are generally used t o assess the seriousness of the behavioral disturbance i n terms of the number of settings in which the hyperactive behavior causes problems. These diagnostic procedures sometimes involve questionnaires or rating scales, direct observation, and direct measurement of physical movcnient. The questionnaire or rating scale approach is very common (Peterson, 1961 ; Werry, 196%; Werry & Sprague, 1970; Werry et al., 1966). It requires that adults (e.g., parents, teachers, ward attendants) or peers rate the target child on items that pertain to the child’s motor behaviors (Werry & Sprague, 1970). The rater is generally someone who is with the child for a long period of time, on a regular basis. This diagnostic technique, however, has one major disadvantage for which it has received considerable criticism. The raters are individuals with whom the hyperactive child frequently interacts, and it is these same individuals with whom the hyperactive child typically comes into conflict. Therefore, these individuals are likely t o have biased opinions of the child’s behavior. Werry and

10

Gladys B. Baxley and Judith M. LeBIanc

Sprague (1970), however, proposed some advantages offered by the rating method as a diagnostic technique. They noted that the method is simple and inexpensive to use, and they also pointed out that questions about the chld’s behavior are at least “operationalized” and presented on a quantitative basis. Therefore, it is possible to assess their characteristic interrater reliability (Werry & Sprague, 1970; Werry et al., 1966). Yet, despite the fact that a number of published rating scales exist (Burks, 1960; Werry et al., 1966), no adequate tests have been made of their validity, their reliability, or their practicality. Direct behavioral observation, another diagnostic tool, requires that an observer watch and record the occurrence of specific motor movements at particular times and places. Such observations have been made in the child’s natural environment, such as the classroom (Becker, Madsen, Arnold, &Thomas, 1967; Patterson et al., 1965; Werry & Quay, 1969), or in a laboratory setting (Doubros & Daniels, 1966; Hutt et al., 1963). The structure of this technique is “freefield,” in that it can allow the children being observed to behave as they ordinarily would in usual situations. The major strength of this diagnostic technique lies in its objectivity and in its capacity to yield “real-life’’ data (Werry & Sprague, 1970). The observers do not interact with the child, thus minimizing problems of observer bias. In addition, relatively unskilled persons can quickly be trained to record these observations. The major weaknesses of this technique, however, are related to problems of inadequate sampling of the behaviors in question and the high costs involved in employing (and training) observers. The implementation of this technique also presents problems. It is difficult to have observers record the behavior of a child in many of the settings where the child is likely to be. However, as indicated by Werry and Sprague (1970), this technique is advantageous if at least a portion of clinical diagnostic time is devoted to it. Directly measuring the physical movement of children is now used increasingly for diagnosis. Such techniques rely on mechanical devices to measure activity as it naturally occurs. However, these devices measure only physical movement and no other behavioral manifestations of the problem. Some of these mechanical devices are self-winding wristwatches (Bell, 1968; Schulman & Reisman, 1959), photoelectric counters (Ellis & Pryer, 1959), ballistographic or stabilimetric chairs (Sprague & Toppe, 1966; Werry & Sprague, 1970), ultrasonic devices (McFarland, Peacock, & Watson, 1966), movies (Lee & Hutt, 1964), and telemetric devices (Werry & Sprague, 1970). With the possible exception of the self-winding watches, the majority of these devices are cumbersome, expensive, and have little relevance for routine clinical work (Werry, 1 9 6 8 ~ ) The . wristwatches, however, although relatively accurate, are difficult to calibrate, do not produce a permanent record, and record only movement of the limb to which they are attached. Nevertheless, with further refinement, this instrument may prove to have considerable diagnostic utility.

The Hvperactive Child

11

4. Summary There appears to be little agreement concerning appropriate and relevant means for diagnosing hyperactivity in children, and the most commonly used diagnostic procedures (i.e., those based on pliysiological/neurological, psychological, and behavioral factors) have not provided an adequate solution to this dilemma. A major difficulty is that the diagnostic procedures currently in use do not provide consistent diagnoses when different diagnostic criteria are used. Some authorities rely primarily on physiological and/or neurological test findings, and others base the diagnosis on performance on various psychological tasks; still others diagnose hyperactivity from the outward (behavioral) manifestations of the disorder, and often use expensive and cumbersonle mechanical devices to measure the behavior. Thus, it is not surprising that at present there is little agreement and much uncertainty about a diagnosis of hyperactivity.

111. Etiology of Hyperactivity The exact determination of the etiology of hyperactivity is still unknown, and of course there are almost as many theories concerning its etiology as there are individuals who propose them. Theories range from organic t o psychogenic causes and from disordered metabolism to inborn temperament (Satterfield, Cantwell, Lesser, & Podosin, 1972). A. ORGANIC kACTORS

In a significant number of cases, tlie etiology of hyperactivity is thought to be direct insult t o or dysfunction within the brain or within the central nervous system as a whole (Boelsche, 1965; Clements, 1966; Eveloff, 1970; Menkes e l al., 1967; Millichap, 1968; Minde & Webb, 1968; Nichamin & Barahal, 1968). Pasamanick, Rogers, and Lilienfeld ( 1 956) and Millichap (1968) have proposed that hyperactivity results from brain damage sustained prenatally or at birth, or from encephalitis in infancy or early childhood. Support for this view is found mainly in prenatal and perinatal histories provided by parents of hyperactive children. Other investigators have proposed that hyperactivity develops through an imbalance between cortical and subcortical areas of the brain (Eveloff, 1970; Knobel & Lytton, 1961), with specific dysfunction in the diencephalon (Denhoff, 1961; Laufer & Denhoff, 1957; Solonions, 1965). The component of the reticular activating system that passes through the diencephalon acts as a sorting and routing mechanism for incoming sensory impulses prior to their transmission t o higher levels of the brain (cT. Grinspoon Sr. Singer, 1973). When functioning properly the primary function of the diencephalon is to inhibit flooding of tlie

12

Gladys B. Baxley and Judith M. LeBIanc

cortex with irrelevant stimuli. Thus, dysfunction within the diencephalon may cause the cortex t o be bombarded with stimuli it cannot deal with efficiently. Such dysfunction would cause incoming stimulus inipulses t o spread out of the usual pathways into large, not yet mature cortical areas, causing a sensory “overload” and typical hyperactive behavior. However, Lytton and Knobel (1959) and Knobel and Lytton (1961) suggested that the diencephalon theory is untenable because, in their view, lesions in this region should produce a more complicated symptomatology . They proposed instead that the structural development of the cortex, slower than that of the diencephalon, makes the cortex more susceptible to damage. Thus, they suggested that consideration should be given to disorders of the cortex or of the subcortical pathways in the etiology of hyperactivity. Another theory that has considerable empirical support, one that is closely related to a theory of brain dysfunction, is that which attributes the etiology of hyperactivity to underarousal of the central nervous system (Satterfield, Cantwell, & Satterfield, 1974; Zentall, 1975). The abnormally high levels of motor activity, short attention span, and distractability of hyperactive children and the effectiveness of stimulant drug treatment have been interpreted as evidence that such children have an underaroused central nervous system and hence lack the capacity for selective inhibition of motor responses to environmental stimuli. Satterfield et al. (1974), for example, have suggested that hyperactive children who show a favorable clinical response to stimulants are those who have abnormally low levels of autonomic arousal as evidenced by lower skin conductance levels, higher mean EEG amplitudes, and larger evoked cortical-response amplitudes when compared to those who show a poor response to stimulants. These and other physiological measures, such as heart rate, are typically equated with autonomic activation and responsivity. Thus, the authors concluded that changes in these physiological measures following the administration of stimulants were consistent with an underarousal theory. The apparently heavy emphasis on brain damage or dysfunction as a possible cause of hyperactivity may be related to the belief that children with various behavior disorders share important common fcatures with the brain-damaged child (Conners, Eisenberg, & Sharpe, 1964). Yet Birch (1964) suggested that the term “brain damage,” as it is applied to hyperactive children, is an unfortunate label because it implies the existence of etiologic knowledge where none exists. In an effort to resolve this complex issue, he proposed that brain damage not be regarded as a neurological designation, but rather as a behavior pattern. In this view, any cerebral damage might cause similar patterns of deviant behavior, but the presence of hyperactivity is not a reliable variable for inferring brain damage (Becker, Englemann, & Thomas, 1971). Werry and Sprague (1970) theorized that brain damage is not necessarily a cause of hyperactivity. They, with others, usually attribute the problem to factors such as the following: genetic variation, “constitutional” determinants,

The Hyperactive Child

13

or chromosome abnormalities (Bakwin & Bakwin, 1966; Chess, Thomas, Rutter, & Birch, 1963; Stewart, Pitts, Craig, & Dieruf, 1966; Warren et al., 1971); metabolic disturbance (Burks, 1960; Comly, 1962; Lindsley & Henry, 1942; Martin, 1967); emotional disturbance (Eisenberg, 1957; Schulman et al., 1965; Solomorfs, 1965; Werry et al., 1966); or central nervous system dysfunction (Satterfield et al., 1972, 1974). Hyperactivity is especially likely to be attributed to these factors when there is no evidence of existing neurological defect (Solomons, 1965). €3.

NONORGANlC FACTORS

In recent years there has been a renewed interest in a theory relating the incidence of hyperactivity in childrcn to the ingestion of foods containing food coloring and other additives (Feingold, 1974). The first report linking hyperactivity to food additives appeared more than 50 years ago: Shannon (1922) reported an improvement in the behavior of seven hyperactive children when one or more foods containing ccrtain additives were eliminated from their diet. Furthermore, when the foods were reintroduced, the hyperactive symptoms returned. More recently, Crook ( 1 974) reported the case of a 4-year-old child whose hyperactivity was treated by an elimination diet. Over a period of several weeks specific foods were eliminated fro111 the child’s diet until the hyperactive symptoms disappeared. However, when the foods were reintroduced, one at a time, the hyperactivity sometimes reappeared, but only after the child ate those foods containing sugar. The author concluded that this child’s hyperactivity was caused by an allergic reaction to cane sugar; in order to control the symptoms, no foods containing cane sugar should be eaten by the child more than once or twice a week. According to Crook (1974), the foods that have a special potential to produce an adverse reaction are foods containing milk, chocolate, cola, cane and beet sugar, cereal grains, eggs, and citrus (foods containing food coloring and other additives should also be avoided). Along with interest in the food-additives theory of hyperactivity, there has also been a great deal of controversy about it. For example, Brown (1974) criticized work in this area as being either incomplete or “so poorly designed as to be worthless, even harmful.” (p. 6 2 ) . However, because so much remains unknown about the causes of hyperactivity, especially any nonorganic causes, virtually no theory can be rejected until disproved. However, every hypothesis should also be developed into a rigorous program of objective research. ,

161

Brazelton, T. B., Koslowski, B., & Main, M. The origins of reciprocity: The early motherinfant interaction. In M. Lewis & L. A. Kosenblum (Eds.), The effects o f t h e infant on its caregiver. New York: Wiley, 1974. Pp. 49-76. Conncrly, R. J. A comparison of personality characteristics of parents of brain-injured and normal children. Dissertation Ahstracts, 1968, 28, 1291-1292. Etzel, B. C., & Gewirtz, J. L. Experimental modification of caretaker-maintained high rate operant crying in a 6- and a 20-week old infant (Infans tyrannotearus): Extinction of crying with reinforcement o f eye contact and smiling. Journal ofExperimenta1 Child PS.Vchology, 1967, 5, 303-317. Ferguson, C. A. Baby talk in six languages. In J. Gumperz & D. Hymes (Eds.), The ethnography of communication. Amvican Anthropologist, 1964, 66, Part 2, 103-114. Gewirtz, H. B., & Gewirtz, J. 1.. caretaker settings, background events, and behavior differences in four Israeli child-rearing environments: Some preliminary trends. In B. M. Foss (Ed.), Determinants of inJant behaiiour I V . London: Methuen, 1969. Pp. 229-252. Cswirtz, J. L. A learning analysis o f the effects of normal stimulation, privation, and deprivation o n the acquisition of social motivation and attachment. In B. M. Foss (Ed.), Determinants of infant behaviorrr. London: Methucn (New York: Wiley), 1961. Pp. 21 3-299. Gewirtz, J. L. Mechanisms of social Icnrning: Some roles of stimulation and behavior in early human development. I n D. A . Goslin (F,d.), Handbook of socialization theory and research. Chicago: Rand McNally, 1969. Pp. 57-212. Gewirtz, J. L. Attachment, dependency, and a distinction in terms of stimulus control. In J. L. Gewirtz (Ed.), Attachment and tlependencj’. Washington, D.C.: Winston, 1972. Pp. 139-177. Gewirtz, J. L. Maternal respondinp and the conditioning of infant crying: Directions of influence within the attachment-acquisition process. In B. C. Etzel, J. M. LeBlanc, & D. M. Baer (Eds.), New developments in behavioral research: Theories, methods, and applications. In honor of Sidnry W .Bijoii. Hillsdalc, N.J.: Erlbaum Associates, in press. (a) Gewirtz, J. L. The attachment acquisition process as evidenced in the maternal conditioning of cued infant responding (particularly crying). Human Development, in press. (b) Gewirtz, J. L., & Boyd, E. 1:. Experimcnts o n mother-infant interaction underlying mutual attachment acquisition: The inl‘ant conditions the mothcr. In T. Alloway, L. Krames, & P. Pliner (Eds.), Attachment bchai,ior. Advances in the stud]>of communication and a j j k t . Vol. 3. New York and London: Plcnum, in press. (a) Gewirtz, J. L., & Boyd, E. 1‘. Infant vocalizations condition maternal verbalizations. Child Development, in press. (b) Gewirtz, J. L., & Gewirtz, H. B. Stimulus conditions, infant behaviors, and social learning in four Israeli child-rearing environments: A preliminary report illustrating differences in environment and behavior betwccn the ‘only’ and the ‘youngest’ child. In B. M. Foss (Ed.), Determinants o.f infant hehaviour III. London: Methuen (New York: Wiley), 1965. Pp. 161-184. Halverson, C. F., & Waldrop, M. I:. M;iternal behavior toward own and other preschool children: The problem of “ownness”. Child Deidopment, 1 9 7 0 , 4 1 , 839-845. Harper, L. V. The young as a source of stimuli controlling caretaker behavior. DevelopmentalPsychology, 1971,4, 73-88. Hartup, W. W., & Lempers, J. A problem in life-span development: The interactional analysis of family attachments. I n P. B . Baltes & K. W. Schaie (Eds.), Life-span

162

Jacob L. Gewirtz and Elizabeth F. Boyd

developmental psychology: Personality and socialization. New York: Academic Press, 1973. Pp. 235-252. Haugan, G. M., & McIntire, R. W. Comparisons of vocal imitation, tactile stimulation, and food as reinforcers for infant vocalizations. Developmental Psychology, 1972, 6, 201-209. Kessen, W. Research in psychological development of infants: An overview. Merrill-Palmer Quarterly, 1963,9, 83-94. Klebanoff, L. B. Parents of schizophrenic children: Parental attitudes of mothers of schizophrenic, brain-injured and retarded, and normal children. American Journal of Orthopsychiatry, 1959, 29,445-454. Korner, A. F. Mother-child interaction: One- or two-way street? Social Work, 1965, 10, 47-5 1 . Lewis, M. State as an infant-environment interaction: An analysis of mother-infant interaction as a function of sex. Merrill-Palmer Quarterly, 1972, 18,95-121. Lewis, M., & Lee-Painter, S . An interactional approach to the mother-infant dyad. In M. Lewis & L. A. Rosenblum (Eds.), The effect of the infant on its caregiver. New York: Wiley, 1974. Pp. 21-48. McKenzie, B., & Day, R. H. Operant learning of visual pattern discrimination in young infants. Journal of Experimental Child Psychology, 1971, 1 1 , 4 5 4 3 . Moss, H. A. Sex, age, and state as determinants of mother-infant interaction. Merrill-Palmer Quarterly, 1967, 13, 19-36. Osofsky, J. D., & Danzger, B. Relationships between neonatal characteristics and motherinfant interaction. Developmental Psychology, 1974, 10, 124-1 30. Osofsky, J. D., & O’Connell, E. J. Parent-child interaction: Daughters’ effects upon mothers’ and fathers’ behaviors. Developmental Psychology, 1972, 7, 157-168. Overton, W. F. The active organism in structuralism. Human Development, in press. Overton, W. F. On the assumptive basis of the nature-nurture controversy: Additive versus interactive components. Human Development, 1973, 16, 74-89. Overton, W. F., & Reese, H. W. Models of development: Methodological implications. In J. R. Nesselroade & H. W. Reese (Eds.), Life-span developmental psychology: Merhodological issues. New York: Academic Press, 1973. Pp. 65-86. Prechtl, H. F. R. The mother-child interaction in babies with minimal brain damage. In B. M. Foss (Ed.), Determinants of infant behaviour 11. London: Methuen (New York: Wiley), 1963. Pp. 53-59. Ramey, C. T., & Ourth, L. L. Delayed reinforcement and vocalization rates of infants. Child Development, 1971,42,291-297. Reese, H. W., & Overton, W. F. Models of development and theories of development. In L. R. Goulet & P. B. Baltes (Eds.), Life-span developmental psychology: Research and theory. New York: Academic Press, 1970. Pp. 115-145. Rheingold, H. L., Gewirtz, J. L., & Ross, H. W. Social conditioning of vocalizations in the infant. Journal of Comparative and Physiological Psychology, 1959,52,68-73. Richards, M. P. M. Social interaction in the first weeks of human life. Psychiatria, Neurologia, Neurochirurgia, 1971, 1 4 , 3 5 4 2 . Robson, K. S., & Moss, H. A. Patterns and determinants of maternal attachment. Journal of Pediatrics, 1970, 77,976-985. Rosenthal, R., & Jacobsen, L. Teachers’ expectancies: Determiners of pupils’ I.Q. gains. Psychological Reports, 1966, 19, 115-1 18. Routh, D. K. Conditioning of vocal response differentiation in infants. Developmental PsychologjJ, 1969, 1,219-226.

Mother-Iirfant Interaction and Its Study

163

Sears, R. R. A theoretical framework for personality and social behavior. American Psychologist, 1951,6,476-483. Sears, R. R., Maccoby, E. E., & Levin, H. Patterns of child rearing. Evanston, Ill.: Row, Peterson, 1957. Siegel, G. M. Adult verbal behavior with retarded children labeled as “high” or “low” in verbal ability. American Journal of Mental Deficiency, 1963,68,417424. Snow, C. Mothers’ speech to children learning language. Child Developmenf, 1972, 43, 549565. Stern, D. N. Mother and infant at play : The dyadic interaction involving facial, vocal, and gaze behaviors. In M. Lewis & L. A. Rosenblum (Eds.), The effect of the infant on its caregiver. New York: Wiley, 1974.Pp. 187-213. Thoman, E. B., Leiderman, P. H., & Olson, J. P. Neonate-mother interaction during breast-feeding. Developmental Psychology, 1972,6,1 l(tl18. Vuorenkoski, V., Wasz-Hockert, O., Koivisto, E., & Lind, J. The effect of cry stimulus on temperature of the lactating breast of primipara: A thermographic study. Experientia,

1969,25,1286-1287. Weisberg, P. Social and nonsocial conditioning of infant vocalizations. Child Development,

1963,34,377-388. Wenar, C., & Wenar, S . C. The short-term prospective model, the illusion of time, and the tabula rasa child. Child Development, 1963,34,697-708. Wolff, P. The natural history of crying and other vocalizations in early infancy. In B. M. Foss (Ed.), Determinants of infant behaviour IV. London: Methuen, 1969.Pp. 81-109. Yarrow, L. J . Dimensions of maternal care. Merrill-Palmer Quarterly, 1963,9,101-1 14. Yarrow, M. R., Waxler, C. Z., & Scott, P. M. Child effects on adult behavior. Developmental Psychology, 1971,5,300-311.

This Page Intentionally Left Blank

SYMPOSIUM ON IMPLICATIONS OF LIFE-SPAN DEVELOPMENTAL PSYCHOLOGY FOR CHILD DEVELOPMENT

Introductory Remarks Paul B. Baltes, Chairrnan . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

167

Theory and Method in Life-Span Developmental Psychology: Implications for Child Development Aletha Huston-Stein and Paul B. Baltes ......................

169

The Development of Memory: Life-Span Perspectives Hayne W. Reese . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

189

Cognitive Changes during the Adult Years: Implications for Developmental Theory and Research Nancy W. Denney and John C. Wright . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2 13 Social Cognition and Life-Span Approaches to the Study of Child Development Michael J. Chandler . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

225

Life-Span Development of the Theory of Oneself: Implications for Child Development Orville G. Brim. Jr. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

241

Implications of Life-Span Developmental Psychology for Childhood Education Leo Montada and Sigrun-Heide Filipp . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

253

165

INTRODUCTORY REMARKS

Paul B. Baltm, Chairman

The last decade has generated a growing interest in viewing the development of behavior within the framework of the life span. A new field of specialization with the label “life-span developmental psychology” has emerged. While life-span developmental psychology is in the process of defining its scope and its conceptual and methodological base, i t has also contributed t o the formulation of issues and methodologies which have direct ramifications for other developmental specialties such as the field of child development. In the following six chapters the questions examined are why and how a life-span approach alters and supplements current child development research in theory, methodology, and a variety of substantive areas. These papers were originally delivered in preliminary form as contributions t o a symposium (organized by Paul B. Baltes) presented as part of the 1975 Biennial Meeting of the Society for Research in Child Development. The symposium papers have been edited and revised for the present publication. Discussants of the various symposium contributions were Klaus F. Riegel and Willis F. Overton. Their implicit or explicit contributions t o the final version of this symposium are gratefully acknowledged. In the opening paper of the collection, Aletha Huston-Stein and Paul B. Baltes derive implications of theory and method in life-span developmental psychology for the field of child development. Ln two subsequent articles, Hayne W. Reese, and then Nancy W. Denney and John C. Wright, analyze the areas of memory and cognition with a view toward specifying conceptual and methodological recommendations for researchers primarily interested in the period of childhood. Michael Chandler and Orville G. Brim investigate in their respective contributions how child development theory and research in personality, social cognition, and social development can profit from being open to a life-span perspective on developmental change. Finally, Leo Montada and Sigrun-Heide Filipp apply the life-span developmental perspective t o intervention in the area of childhood education. Each of the contributions exemplifies, in one form or another, how application of a life-span developmental approach has an impact on child development 167

168

Paul B. B a l m

and leads to either changes in substantive emphases, different accentuations and requirements in methodology, or novel theoretical conceptualizations. The contributions also point to ways in which the fragile connections between agespecific developmental specialties can be extended and solidified into a conceptual network encompassing the entire human life-span. Such explicit linkages between subspecialties cannot but advance the scope and precision of the field of developmental psychology. To this end it is important that proponents of various age-specific developmental specialties maintain or increase their awareness of their own age-centric vantage points. Age-centrism in the field of developmental psychology can lead easily t o restricted and shortsighted conceptions.

THEORY AND METHOD IN LIFE-SPAN DEVELOPMLNTAL PSYCHOLOGY: IMPLICATIONS FOR CHILD DEVELOPMENT

Aletha Huston-Stein and Paul B. Baltes THE PENNSYLVANIA S T A T E UNIVERSITY

I. INTRODUCTION . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11. PROTOTYPICAL ISSUES IN LIFE-SPAN DEVELOPMENTAL THEORY . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . A. DIALECTICS OF ONTOGENETIC AND HISTORICAL-EVOLIJTIONARY SOURCES O F CHANGE . . . B. AGE IRRELEVANCE O F DEVELOPMENTAL CHANGE . . . . C. DESCRIPTIVE AND EXPLANATORY CONTINUITY VERSUS DISCONTINUIT'Y . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 111. PROTOTYPICAL ISSUES I N LIFE-SPAN DEVELOPMENTAL METHODOLOGY . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . A. DEVELOPMENTAL CIIANGE VERSUS DEVELOPMENTAL DIFFERENCES . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . B. TIME-LAG AND DISTAL-CAUSE EFFECTS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . IV. SUMMARY . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . REFERENCES . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

169

171 173 176 177

179

180 18 1 183 183

I. Introduction The discussion of a life-span developmental approach t o the study of behavior is sometimes perceived to be new in the field of human development. This 169

170

Aletlza Huston-Stein and Paul B. Baltes

perception is a matter of something getting “lost on the way to the forum.” Historical reviews (Charles, 1970; Groffmann, 1970; Hofstatter, 1938) document that the consideration of development at all levels of the life-span was very much in the center of early work in the developmental field. In fact, one of the earliest comprehensive books on human development was written by a life-span developmentalist, A. Quetelet, a Belgian scientist who displayed competence as a mathematician, sociologist, and psychologist. In this work, Quetelet (1835 in French, 1838 in German) presented a large body of data on behavior encompassing the entire life-span, particularly in the area of mental abilities. Quetelet’s early contributions, little known in the United States, can be taken as an historical marker for developmental research in general. While in Central Europe a life-span developmental approach continued to flourish (Biihler, 1959; Thomae, 1959, 1968), or at least to hold its own, contributions in the Anglo-American literature with few exceptions (e.g., Bayley, 1968; Bloom, 1964; Brim, 1966; Erikson, 1959; Havighurst, 1948; Neugarten, 1968) have remained sparse, disjointed, and fainthearted. Proponents of the usefulness of a life-span approach were to be found primarily in two occasionally interrelated groups: sociologists or social psychologists interested in socialization or agecohort stratification (e.g., Brim, 1966; Keniston, 1971; Riley ef d ,1972), and developmental psychologists interested in adult development and aging (e.g., Biihler & Massarik, 1968; Neugarten, 1968; Pressey & Kuhlen, 1957; Schaie & Gribbin, 1975). In our view, as these two interest groups of sociologically oriented psychologists and life-span gerontologists did not particularly focus on the merits of an experimental, manipulative approach to the study of development, their important theoretical contributions did not find significant resonance among mainstream developmentalists. American developmental psychology in the 1950s and 1960s was dominated by psychological theories that lent themselves to experimental, manipulative research methods and, therefore, was inclined to reject creative and conceptually compelling ideas that could not readily be studied in that framework. The correlational, naturalistic research which characterized most life-span developmentalists at that time was not conducive to bringing a life-span approach into the center of attention. Although we should be careful in our evaluation of recent trends in developmental psychology (e.g., Looft, 1972), we believe it is fair to conclude that in the last 5 years American developmentalists have been attracted to a life-span developmental approach in considerable numbers. On the one hand, a number of review volumes were generated in conjunction with the West Virginia Conferences on Life-Span Developmental Psychology (e.g., Baltes & Schaie, 1973a; Goulet & Baltes, 1970; Nesselroade & Reese, 1973), to which a large number of researchers with diverse viewpoints and theoretical commitments (including core experimentalists) contributed. On the other hand, empirical research of the life-span kind is expanding rapidly and there has been a surge of life-span

Life-Spar! ~ n ~ c l o p t ~ z c ~Psycliologv tital

171

developmental textbooks (e.g., Kaluger & Kaluger, 1974; Lug0 & Hershey, 1974; Newman & Newman, 1975). All this activity is testimony to the fact that the thrust toward consideration of the entire spectrum of life in developmental work is gaining strength. For those of us involved in a life-span developmental endeavor, this growing belief in the usefulness of a life-span approach t o the study of behavioral development is a logical and satisfying trend. At the same time, however, it has become obvious t o the careful observer that “it appears easier to start a revolution than it is to carry it to impressive heights or even victory” (Baltes & Schaie, 1973b, p. 395). In order f o r a life-span developmental approach to survive and t o contribute vigorously, it is necessary to go beyond suggestive persuasion and t o articulate its conceptual and empirical usefulness. The purpose of the present symposium is to clarify theoretical and methodological implications of a life-span developmental approach for research and theory in child development. A counterpart effort has been made recently, dealing with the implications of a life-span developmental approach for the study of aging (Baltes, 1973). Our basic argument is that a life-span conceptualization is not qualitatively different in theory and method f r o m age-specific approaches such as infant or child development (e.g., Baltes & Schaie? 1973b; Bromley, 1970). However, a life-span developmental orientation has led t o a dramatic accentuation of a number of basic issues in developmental theory and method. These basic issues, although present and touched upon in the child development literature. have never attracted the level of discourse by child developmentalists that they deserve. The purpose of this paper is to identify some of these issues and t o illustrate how a life-span developmcntal approach makes them apparent and critical t o such a degree that denial o r indirect cover-up (e.g., by relegating them t o the level of error or meta-assumptions) is n o longer possible. The following prototypical issues and key conclusions are derived from a review of the theoretical and empirical literature on life-span human development (Baltes & Schaie, 1973a; Goulet & Baltes, 1970; Nesselroade & Reese, 1973); the set of issues delineated is not comprehensive but selective. For a more detailed empirical and theoretical account of the rationale for these conclusions, the reader is referred t o Baltes and Schaie (1973b), Riegel (1972, 1976a,b), or Baltes and Willis (1976).

11. Prototypical Issues in Life-Span Developmental Theory Life-span developmental psychology is defined as dealing with the description, explanation, and modification of behavioral change from conception to death (e.g., Baltes, 1973; Baltes & Goulet, 1970;). Comparisons of widely differing age

112

Aletha Huston-Stein and Paul B. Baltes

groups provide one means of formulating hypotheses and extending theoretical constructs across the life-span, but it is important to realize that a life-span developmental approach does not necessarily lead to a comparative analysis of organisms of all ages or developmental levels. Similarly, the comparison of multiple age levels does not necessarily qualify a study to be life-span developmental. The center of attention needs to be a behavior-change process which has intrinsic life-span perspectives. The study of organisms across many developmental levels typically can provide some initial leads concerning the processes that may be examined. A comparison of cognitive style changes in children and elderly individuals (Denney & Wright, in this symposium) is an example of the first step within a life-span framework. Another is Goulet’s (1973) attempt to design explanatory research in the area of developmental memory, making use of subject populations from the entire spectrum of the life-span. However, the life-span view suggests going beyond these age comparisons to an examination of the processes involved in the observed changes and to examination of interindividual differences in change. The primary function of the initial age comparisons is to elucidate, stretch, and clarify one’s constructs and to suggest which explanatory principles accounting for developmental change may be most fruitfully pursued in further research. In this vein, it is possible to conduct meaningful life-span research within a restricted age range (such as childhood) if the target behavior process under investigation is related to a life-span conception. The use of developmental simulation (Baltes & Goulet, 1971) is a case in point. In a developmental simulation study, for example, it is possible to create within a given age group (e.g., college students) conditions which demonstrate ontogenetic changes representing segments of the entire life-span. In fact, Sjostrom and Pollack (1971) have done exactly this in a life-span study on visual illusions. Since it is occasionally argued that life-span developmental research is extraordinarily tedious, it is important to keep in mind that empirical life-span work does not necessarily include persons from the full spectrum of the life-span, nor is it necessarily longitudinal. The key focus is on the analysis of a behavior-change process which has been derived within a life-span framework. While expanding the notion of development across a broader age range, the life-span perspective in no way suggests ontogenetic change as the only or even the primary basis of development at any point in time. By contrast, historicalevolutionary sources of change are given more emphasis than is usually the case in developmental theories. The life-span view also contradicts the notion that childhood is a preparation for a static point of final maturity reached at the age of 18 or 21 years. Until recently, the final stage in most child development theories was defined at adolescence. With a life-span perspective, it is not realistic to expect childhood socialization to carry the burden for adequate functioning throughout adulthood. It is also not theoretically possible to predict adult behavior fully from childhood characteristics, because neither evolution-

Life-Span Developmerital Psychology

173

ary-cultural-historical changes nor outcomes of ontogenetic change can be predicted with a high degree of accuracy. One must expect continuing change and continuing need for intervention, education, and new forms of socialization throughout life (see also Montada & Filipp, in this symposium). Three related theoretical issues have been selected to illustrate the contributions of life-span work for theory in child development in greater detail: (a) dialectics of ontogenetic and historical-evolutionary sources of change; (b) age-irrelevance of developmental change; and (c) descriptive and explanatory continuity versus discontinuity. A. DIALECTICS OF ONTOGENETIC AND HISTORICAL-EVOLUTIONARY SOURCES OF CHANGE

One theoretical issue which has been sharpened by life-span developmental research and theory is that of the relationship between ontogenetic and historical-evolutionary sources for behavioral change. Traditionally, child development research has been conducted in a fairly invariant ecology within a given cultural setting and for an invariant biological species. Comparative developmental psychology (Baltes & Goulet, 1970), be it of the comparative-behavior, comparative-culture, comparative-species, or comparative-generation type, first attracted major attention to intergroup differences in developmental phenomena. The focus of many comparative developmental approaches, however, is largely a static one in its examination of differences in developmental change rather than of the dynamics involved in the genesis of development. Life-span research and theory have illustrated an interactive and dynamic conception of the relationship between ontogenetic and historical-evolutionary sources of change. Two specific examples may be cited in support of this conclusion. On an empirical level, there is the fact of pervasive cohort differences in personality and cognitive functioning (Goulet, Hay, & Barclay, 1974; Nesselroade & Baltes, 1974; Schaie, 1970). On a theoretical level, there are efforts to develop conceptions embracing the conjoint effects of ontogenetic and historical-evolutionary determinants (Buss, 1974; Riegel, 1972, 1976a) in the generation of life-span change. The formulation of dialectic models of development by Klaus F. Riegel and colleagues (Riegel, 1973, 1976a) is perhaps the most explicit statement of an interactive position asserting that ontogenetic and historical-evolutionary sources are intrinsically and dynamically related during ontogeny (see also Baltes & Willis, 1976). Historically, of course, a similar view has been promoted by sociologically oriented developmentalists (see Bengtson & Black, 1973; Brim, 1966; Elder, 1975; Neugarten & Datan, 1973) interested in formulating conceptions dealing with both cultural change and ontogenetic development. In practice, one implication of this position is that child development research-

114

Alcrliu Ifustoil-Stein arid P a d U Ralres

ers should be more attentive to sociocultural influences on children, particularly those which change over time. For example, most of the available research on children’s social development is focused on individual experiences with other people, primarily the parents. A few of the studies on schools and mass media as socializing agents are moving in the direction of recognizing the impact of the larger society on the child, but virtually none of this research takes into account changes in these institutions over time. In the case of television research, for example, little attention has been given to the changes in television content over time (e.g., regular increases and decreases in the levels of violence portrayed). In a few early studies (Schramm, Lyle, & Parker, 1961), an assessment of the impact of the introduction of television into children’s lives was attempted. Current research efforts could benefit from comparisons of cohorts for whom childhood television differed in specifiable ways [e.g., before and after the introduction of “Sesame Street” (Bogatz & Ball, 1971; see also Reese, in this symposium)]. Another area in which such an emphasis appears particularly appropriate is sex role development. Kohlberg (1966) called attention to the conimon elements in children’s sex role concepts and related behavior that override wide individual differences in parental behavior. While he emphasized the ontogenetic basis for commonality in development, some of the developmental changes that he discussed could be influenced by social and cultural variations. For example, he posited the development of cognitive gender identity, or the conception of oneself as male or female, as a critical element in sex role learning. Yet, it seems likely that the relative emphasis on sex differentiation in a given culture would influence the timing and salience of gender identity concepts. With the current interest among some groups in socialization toward androgyny, research concerning sex role differentiation and gender identity concepts among children in cultural milieus where sex differences are minimized would be of particular interest. A second process proposed by Kohlberg as inherent in the child is that of valuing those characteristics associated with oneself-in this instance, maleness or femaleness (see also Brim, in this symposium). Differences in the cultural value associated with sex roles could, however, be at least as influential as this supposedly inherent process. Kohlberg’s own data (Kohlberg & Zigler, 1967) indicate that females do not follow his proposed developmental sequence, perhaps because increasingly they recognize the relatively low status of the feminine role in current American society (Sherman, 197 1). Changing cultural values might also alter the pattern of sex role adoption over time. The focus on the interaction of ontogenetic and biocultural sources of developmental change is exemplified in some research on children, primarily comparative studies of children with different individual experiences within the same cultural milieu. For example, Money and Ehrhardt (1972) have demonstrated behavioral differences between females exposed to high levels of androgen

prenatally and females with normal prenatal chemical environments. Comparative research on other species indicates that the period in ontogenetic development during which the androgen exposure occurs is crucial in determining what long-range behavioral changes will result (Money & Ehrhardt, 1972). Attempts to specify critical pcriods for attachment formation in infancy and consequences for later social relationships (e.g., Bronfenbrenner, 1968; Caldwell, 1962) are other examples of the interaction conceptualization. Research on father absence (e.g., Hetherington, 1966) also indicates that the later behavioral outcomes of separation from the father depend on the age of the child at the time of separation. Similar attempts to investigate interactive relationships between ontogenetic processes and broad cultural inflncnces could be quite useful. One example of such an effort is a 10-year longitudinal study of the relation of television violence to aggressive behavior (Letkowitz, Eron, Walder, & Huesmann, 1972). Television viewing pattcrns and peer ratings of aggression were assessed at age 8 and again at 18. For boys only, preference for televised violence at age 8 was correlated with aggression at 18. Aggression at age 1 8 was not related to the males’ concurrent television preferences. Using time-lag methods t o be discussed later in this paper, the authors inferred that early exposure t o and preference for television violence was (causally related t o later aggression. It would be interesting to extend this study to other cohorts t o determine whether different patterns of development would result from the interaction of different modal television environments with ontogenetic development. The focus o n cultural and historical change in the life-span perspective highlights the danger of drawing conclusions from a study in one time period. Child developmentalists are usually cautious about generalizing findings across cultures or across social classes, but we often do not recognize similar limitations in generalizing findings over historical time. Yet, changes in observed patterns of relationship may OCCUJ if the nican levels of a given environmental variable change over time. For example, Bronfenbrenner ( 1958) presented a convincing case for the notion that middle-class parents as a group became more permissive from the period before World War I1 to the postwar period. Thus, researchers at these two periods were probably sampling different portions of the total possible distribution of permissiveness. If the relation of permissiveness t o independence, for instance, were not linear throughout the entire range of these variables, one would find different correlations in different segments of the distribution. Other data suggest that, indeed, many such socialization relationships are not linear (Baumrind, 1971 ; Bronfenbrenner, 196l ) , and it seems probable that cohort changes in mean levels would yield different patterns of findings. Life-span research and theory, thereforc, at a minimum has shown why any child development theory in which ecological invariance is assumed has shortcomings in precision and scope. Moreover, it has opened a powerful avenue

116

Aletha Huston-Stein and Paul B. Baltes

toward novel conceptualizations of ontogenetic change phenomena in a changing biological, physical. and cultural world. B. AGE IRRELEVANCE OF DEVELOPMENTAL CHANGE

It has been argued by some developinentalists (e.g., Baer, 1970) that it is theoretically shortsighted t o consider chronological age as the primary organizing variable in developmental psychology. Life-span developmental theory provides for novel and supplemental arguments on this issue. First, life-span research shows a systematic increase in interindividual differences with age during adulthood (e.g., Baltes & Willis, 1976; Maas & Kuypers, 1974). Changes in the magnitude of interindividual differences in childhood are more difficult t o document but may exist. One strategy for detecting increased (or decreased) individual differences as well as for deriving some of the principles for explaining developmental change is exemplified by Gewirtz’s (1 965) comparison of the course of the smiling response during the first year of life in four child-rearing environments in Israel. While all groups developed social smiling a t approximately the same age and at approximately the same initial frequency, home-reared babies manifested increased frequencies over time while institutionally reared babies manifested decreased frequencies. The net result was larger intergroup differences at 1 year of age than a t 3 months. In principle, of course, interindividual differences might decrease over time if common cultural forces impinged on a behavior that was under more idiosyncratic control in an earlier period of development. Some theorists (e.g., Douvan & Adelson, 1966) have proposed, for instance, a relatively sudden increase in pressures on girls t o be feminine at adolescence that might reduce the variability in sex role adoption characteristic of early and middle childhood. In either case, the point is that developmental changes in intergroup or interindividual differences may provide more interesting information than simple age changes in means. Marked cohort differences in personality and intelligence (Nesselroade & Baltes, 1974; Schaie, 1970; Schaie & Cribbin, 1975) are another demonstration of the lack of primacy of age-related change patterns. For example, in a recent study of cooperation in preschool children (Barnes, 1971). there were lower frequencies of cooperative and associative social play than in an earlier study by Parten (1932). Barnes suggested a number of possible reasons for these cohort differences, including effects of mass media, smaller families, and different types of toys. Although these interpretations obviously require further investigation, they exemplify a direction in which one might go using a life-span view t o formulate hypotheses. The search for life-span changes is less guided by agegraded patterns than by a taxonomy of life events (e.g., school entry, marriage, widowhood, retirement) which are related t o chronological age only in theoretically irrelevant ways.

A second argument of life-span developmental theory is that systematic behavior change not only exists at all levels of ontogeny, including infancy and old age, but also that such change patterns are both multidirectional and/or partial or truncated (see also Chandler, in this symposium). The discrepant developmental life-span functions for crystallized and fluid intelligence (Horn, 1970) are an example for such multidirectional change functions within a closely related set of behaviors, i.e., intellectual performance. The apparent absence of age changes in moral behavior corresponding t o those demonstrated for moral judgment in childhood (Grinder, 1964) is another example. Multidirectionality of behavior change requires a theoretical analysis which goes beyond the operation of a single-agent or unitary variable such as chronological age and beyond the formulation of invariant arid sequentially fixed chains of developmental processes. The assumption of multidirectional and multiply determined change patterns also leads to interindividual and intergroup differences in the patterns of change (as opposed to the timing of change discussed earlier). For example, some theorists (e.g., White, 1973) have proposed a reversed order of Erik Erikson’s stages of identity and intimacy for females in our culture, primarily because of the differing emphases on prepaimtion for a career versus marriage and family in adolescence for the t w o sexes. Different developmental patterns also appear for males and females in longitudinal research (Bayley, 1968; Crandall & Battle, 1970; Kagan & Moss, 1962). Identification of different developmental patterns for groups divided on subject variables is, however, only a first step, because these variables provide little explanatory power. The next step should be examination of process variables with theoretical meaning. For example, one might look at developmental patterns for subjects with differing patterns of sex role identification 01- differing role models. Life-span developmental theory, then, probably will further refine the criticism of the chronological age variable on a conceptual level (Baltes & Willis, 1976). Ontogenetically based developmental change is b u t a subset of the class of developmental processes, and the widespread focus on age-developmental theory is often accidental and related to the heavy emphasis placed on growth models during the formative pel-iods of child development. The all-inclusive concern of developmental psychology is with systematic long-term behaviorchange processes, only some of which are usefully related to chronological age. C. DESCRIPTIVE AND EXPLANATORY CONTINUITY VERSUS DISCONTINUITY

A third theoretical issue elucidated b y life-span theorists is that of developmental continuity versus discontinuity. Kagan’s (1969) and Neugarten’s (1969) contributions are most salient in this regard from a historical perspective. In child development theory and research, the issue of continuity versus

178

Aletha Huston-Stein and Paul B. Baltes

discontinuity has been largely treated either as one of methodology (e.g., Beilin, 1971; Wohlwill, 1973), nietatheory (Reese & Overton, 1970), or adequate description of quantitative versus qualitative change. Descriptive discontinuity occurs when the behaviors or constructs in a later stage of development are emergent or qualitatively different from those in an earlier stage; they cannot be described simply as combinations or quantitative increases of elements present in an earlier stage (Overton & Reese, 1973). Many child development theorists and researchers have been sensitive to the issue of descriptive continuity. Theories that postulate stage-related qualitative changes, such as that of Jean Piaget, involve descriptive discontinuity. At the empirical level, Enirnerich (1964) and Maccoby and Feldinan (1972) have examined longitudinal data to determine whether phenotypically different behaviors at different ages are sufficiently related t o imply that they represent the same underlying dimensions or whether qualitatively new dimensions are emerging. When proceeding to the phase of “developmental explanation” (Baltes & Schaie, 1973b), explanatory discontinuity occurs when behavioral antecedents or mediating processes at one period in development differ from those a t another period. In this respect, Piaget’s theory is largely continuous, in that it maintains a set of invariant mechanisms (e.g., assimilation and accommodation) to operate at all levels of ontogeny (see also Riegel, 1973). With regard t o organismic theory (inclusive of Piaget’s theory), Reese and Overton (1970) have correctly pointed out that the continuity-discontinuity issue applies potentially both to the descriptive representation of the phenomenon and t o its developmental explanation. Life-span theory and research further illuminate the issue of descriptive and explanatory continuity versus discontinuity and demonstrate that the issue has substantive and empirical value beyond questions of methodology and metatheory. Life-span research has shown that chronological age becomes less powerful and interindividual differences increase with development. In addition, multidirectional and truncated change sequcnces emerge with greater frequency. Furthermore, both historical-evolutionary and ontogenetic influences conjointly define the course of behavioral development. These facts and arguments lead to the conclusion that the descriptive course and explanatory determinants of development may exhibit both continuous and discontinuous relationships (Baltes & Schaie, 1973b). For example. explanatory discontinuity would exist if one proposed that intellectual performance in children is regulated primarily by maturational components while intellectual perforinance in adulthood is largely a function of environmental influence. Such a discontinuity is represented by the conclusion (Baltes & Schaie, 1973b; Flavell, 1970) that organismic models of development may be most appropriate for childhood intelligence while mechanistic models describe adult intelligence best (see also Reese, in this symposium). Another example of explanatory discontinuity appears in a recent departure by Kohlberg

(1973) from strict adherence to ontogenetic explanatory processes in moral development across the life-span. Ile suggested that ontogenetic-maturational change is the major underlying principle in early moral development, whereas experience is an iniportant principle in later development. Research conducted from a social learning perspective may also be interpreted as illustrating explanatory discontinuity. For example, the initial appearance of attachment behaviors such as smiling may be primarily a function of maturation, but the subsequent course of the behavior may be influenced primarily by environmental stimulation and reinforcement (Gewirtz, 1965; Schaffer & Emerson, 1964). Both discontinuous and continuous explanatory principles were suggested by Parke (1974) as possible interpretations of age differences in the types of rationales that led t o resistance to deviation. In the first interpretation, age differences were attributed tu qualitative developmental changes in moral reasoning; i.e., he hypothesized t h a t different cognitive processes might affect moral behavior at different points in development. In the second interpretation, changes were attributed to cuniulative experience over time in receiving d b stract rationales from socialization agents. I n this instance, behavioral changes would result from age-correlated quantitative changes in learning, but the underlying processes would be continuous. Due to its focus on long-terni chain sequences and the changing conditions of ecological settings, life-span thcoi-y acccntuates the usefulness of both descriptive and explanatory continuity versus discontinuity. Its major contribution is t o provide conceptual clarification and methodological tools for determining which assumption is most appropriate in ;i given instance. It is widely held, therefore. by life-span theorists that life-span developmental change is not easily conceptualized by a monistic modcl of development, nor is it controlled only by age-graded influence systems. Life-span theory emphasizes the usefulness of determining whether change o c c ~ ~ not r s only for the behavioral phenomenon identified as developmental, but also for the form of explanation most useful at different points in the change sequence. It is also for this reason that a multivariate vantage point (e.g.. Ualtes CL Nesselroade, 1973) is easily embraced by life-span researchers.

111. Pro to typical Issues in Life-Span Devclopmen tal Methodology Two problem areas are choseti here t o exetnplify implications of life-span developniental research for methodology in the field of child development: (a) developmental change versus dcveloprnental differences; and (b) time-lag and distal-cause designs. The areas selected parallel i n many ways the theoretical issues presented in Section 11. Again, the design questions raised are not necessarily novel to child

180

Aletha Hustnn-Stein and Paul B. Baltes

development research. However, their apparent clarity in a life-span perspective demonstrates the need for consideration and application in work on child development as well. A. DEVELOPMENTAL CHANGE VERSUS DEVELOPMENTAL DIFFERENCES

Life-span research has established that only under rare and specific conditions can differences between developmental criterion groups (e.g., cross-sectional age differences or longitudinal age differences) be equated with true ontogenetic age changes (e.g., Baltes, 1968; Schaie, 1965, 1973). Cross-sectional age comparisons may reflect cohort differences as well as ontogenetic differences, and they may represent a pattern that is characteristic of the particular sociocultural conditions existing at the time of testing. Conversely, similarities among different age groups may be a function of current sociocultural conditions or strong situational influences that may mask ontogenetic patterns. For example, experimental studies (Bandura & McDonald, 1963; Cowen, Langer, Heavenrich, & Nathanson, 1969) have demonstrated that exposure t o modeling and reinforcement can alter moral judgment dramatically in a way that overrides age differences that occur under more normative socialization conditions. If a study of moral judgment were conducted at a time when many children were exposed to a peer culture or favorite television programs promoting a particular form of moral judgment, ontogenetic patterns might be difficult t o detect. Longitudinal assessments of one cohort may reflect cultural-social changes or invariances as well as ontogenetic patterns, not t o mention problems of retest effects and selective dropouts. They may also be affected by the interaction of ontogenetic development with historical events particular t o that cohort. A direct and valid assessment of the prime target of developmental work, i.e., of intraindividual change and interindividual differences in change, therefore is probably the rare exception and, at the same time, requires much more refined design methodology than is required for the bulk of child developmental work. Both for reasons of internal and external validity, the cross-sectional as well as the simple longitudinal method have been shown to be woefully inadequate for the study of developmental change. Perhaps the best-known empirical example supporting this conclusion is the demonstration that much of the "decline" in intellectual functioning in later life (inferred from cross-sectional studies) is in fact due to cohort differences (e.g., Schaie, 1970). Sequential longitudinal and/or sequential cross-sectional methods (Baltes, 1968; Buss, 1973; Schaie, 1965, 1970; Schaie & Baltes, 1976) are necessary in order to separate the effects of age, cohort, and time of measurement. Crosssectional sequences, for instance, would be especially useful in examining developmental phenomena thought t o be influenced by sociocultural variables. For

example, inferences from cross-sectional studies of sex typing (Rabban, 1950; Smith, 1939) could be made with considerably more sophistication if such studies were repeated (with different subjects) at several points in time. A combination of cross-sectional and longitudinal sequences (e.g., Kohlberg & Zigler, 1967) also can provide many more useful comparisons than simpler methods. The usefulness of age/cohort-sequential designs was persuasively demonstrated in a recent sequential-longitudinal study of adolescent personality development by Nesselroade and Baltes (1974), who studied 12- to 17-year-old adolescents in 1970, 1971, and 1972. On most of the personality dimensions evaluated. the year of measurement (1970 versus 1971 versus 1972) accounted for moi-e variance than chronological age. For instance, all adolescents (largely independent of their age or cohort) showed decrements in superego strength. socialemotional anxiety, and achievement from 1970 to 1971 and/or from 1970 to 1972 as well as an increase in independence during the same time intervals. Such historical time differences again draw attention t o the importance of culturalhistorical change for many of the behaviors with which child developnientalists are concerned; they also raise serious questions about the inferences drawn from most of the developmental studies of children currently in the literature. The methodological work of life-span researchers has easily impressed developmentalists interested in adult development and aging. Child developmenlalists, however, for the most part continue to rely primarily on cross-sectional or simple longitudinal designs, despite the fact that initial exploration of the significance of cohort effects in child development data (e.g., Baltes & Reinert, 1969; Coulet, 1975; Goulet et al., 1974; Schaie, 1972) has led to clear evidence for their importance, especially in light of additional methodological coniplications such as age-related selective sainpling effects (Labouvie, Bartscli, Nesselroade, & Baltes, 1974). It appears justified, therefore, t o conclude that much of the available work in child development is based on “malignant” data which are neither tested for cohort effects nor properly examined for a host of additional design errors. The conceptual distinction and methodological separation of developmental change and developmental differences are ill understood. In this vein, life-span research and the design issues stated by sorne of i t s proponents present a challenge but also serve as a guide for future methodological work in the field of child development. B. TIME-LAG A N D DISTAL-CAUSE EFFECTS

Since life-span research deals most explicitly with the analysis of long-teIm phenomena and chains, it has been forced to attend to the problem of structuring time-lagged relationships and performing distal-cause analyses. The methodological requirements and strategies for long-term causal analyses

182

Aletha Huston-Stein and Paul B. Baltes

are only emerging at this time (Wohlwill, 1973). However, it becomes clear that most of the traditional experimental design methods in the psychological sciences are ill suited to the assessment of long-term chains and distal causes. Therefore, life-span researchers have pointed t o the general usefulness of quasiexperimental designs, including various forms of time-series analysis (e.g., Campbell, 1969; Glass, Wilson, & Gottnian, 1972) and path analysis (e.g., Labouvie, 1974; Werts & Linn, 1970). One ingenious use of distal-cause analyses was the 10-year longitudinal investigation of television violence and aggressive behavior (Lefkowitz et aL, 1972) discussed earlier (Section 11, A). Cross-lagged correlations (i.e., TV at age 8 with aggression at age 18 versus TV at age 18 with aggression at age 8) were used to show that childhood television preferences predicted later aggression, whereas childhood aggression did not predict later television interests. Therefore, the authors concluded that there was a causal relationship between early television viewing and later aggression. Path analysis of the data led t o the same conclusion (Neale, 1972). A similar approach might be usefully employed in teasing apart the contributions o f constitutioiial differences aniong infants and parental behavior in the generation of later patterns of parent-child relationships [see also Labouvie (1974) for additional examples] . With more powerful methods o f inferring causal relationships from correlational, naturalistic data, child developmentalists may be lured away from their heavy reliance on laboratory experiments. The external validity of such studies is severely limited by the fact that conditions can be arranged so that a small situational manipulation will generate a large effect (see Bowers, 1973), but such effects may have little generality over time, across situations, or even to related forms of behavior. For example, the literature is now replete with experimental studies demonstrating that models induce increases in donations t o charity and also with other studies showing cross-sectional age differences in donation behavior (Bryan, 1976). Yet, we know little about the relative importance of modeling in the socialization of altruism or about the developmental course of such behavior. There is little evidence that donation behavior generalizes to other behaviors that could be classed as altruism. The use of time-lag and distal-cause methods could generate important information about the role of socialization practices. exposure to models, and other variables, as well as permitting a more complex and multivariate definition of altruism. Such alternative modes of design and data analysis, then, are equally important for child development research, though the actual use of historical-developmental rather than concurrent paradigms (Baltes & Scliaie, 1973b) may be less conspicuous in the study of short-term childhood events than in the study of life-span phenomena. The use of simple cross-time correlation coefficients, for example, when linking time-ordered observations of the longitudinal kind is an ingenious strategy of change analysis. Moreover, much of the available “non-

Life-Spati L)c.i,clopnzc’tztal Psychology

183

developmental” design methodology is not conducive to a powerful and consistent test of hypotheses derived froni developmental theory. In this sense, life-span research methodology and paradigms, because of their conspicuous emphasis o n historical-distal relationships, have helped to spell out the rationale for needed design improvements so that theory and method in developmental psychology can proceed in a concerted and matched fashion.

1V. Summary The purpose of the present paper was to elucidate implications of life-span developmental psychology for theory and method in the field of child development. Emphasis was given to three tlieoretical issues: historical-evolutionary versus ontogenetic components of change; the role of chronological age; and continuity versus discontinuity in the description and explanation of behavioral development. Two methodological issues were discussed: The conceptual and methodological distinction between developmental change and developmental differences; and the problem of examining historical-distal relationships among variables. It was argued that none of the theoretical and methodological issues raised is completely novel in developmental psychology. However, life-span research and theory, because of their concern with the extremes of a developmental approach, have led t o propositions and arguments that accentuate, clarify. and articulate important developmental issues with a new level of persuasiveness and urgency. The conclusion is that child development researchers need t o recognize the issues raised. Such recognition will lead not only t o a heightened understanding of the unique aspects of a developmental approach to the study of behavior but also t o novel questions, interpretations, conceptualizations, and methods of study. REFE RENC E S Baer, D. M. An age-irrelevant concept ot developrncnt. Merrill-Palmer Quarterly, 1970, 16, 230-245. Baltes, P. B. Longitudinal and cross-scctional scquences for thc study of agc and generation effects. Human Development, 1968, 11, 145-171. Baltes, P. B. (Ed.) Life-span models of psychological aging: A white elcphant? Geroiitolo@St, 1973, 13,457-512. Baltes, P. B., & Goulet, L. R. Status and issues 0 1 a life-span developmental psychology. In L. R. Goulet & P. B. Baltes (Eds.), I,iliz-spari dcvelopmcntal psycholog]’. Researcli a t ~ d theory. New York: Academic Press, 1970. Baltes, P. B., & Goulet, L. R. Exploration of debelopmental variables by manipulation and simulation of age differences in behavior. Ilumatz Developmetzt, 1971, 14, 149-170. Baltes, P. B., & Nesselroade, J . R. Thc dcvclopmental analysis of individual differenccs on

184

Alctha Huston-Stein and Paul B. Baltes

multiple measures. In J. R. Nesselroade & H. W. Reese (Eds.), Life-span developmerital psyclzology: Methodological issues. New York: Academic Press, 1973. Baltes, P. B., & Reinert, C. Cohort effects in cognitive development of children as revealed by cross-sectional sequences. Developmental Psychology, 1969, 1, 169-177. Personality and Baltes, P. B., & Schaie, K . W. (Eds.) Life-span developmental ps)’cholog~~: socialization, New York: Academic Press, 1973. (a) Baltcs, P. B., & Schaie, K . W. On life-span developmental research paradigms: Retrospects and prospects. In P. B . Baltes & K . W. Schaie (Eds.), Life-span developmental psychology: Personality and socialization. Ncw York: Academic Press, 1973. (b) Baltes, P. B., & Willis, S. L. Toward psychological theories of aging and development. In J. E. Birren & K. W. Schaie (Eds.), Handbook of the psychology of aging. New York: Reinhold-Van Nostrand, 1976. Bandura, A., & McDonald, F. J . Influence of social reinforcement and the behavior of models in shaping children’s moral judgments. Journal of Abnormal and Social Psychology, 1963.67, 274-281. Barnes, K . E. Preschool play norms: A replication. Developmental Psychologv, 1971, 5, 99-103. Baumrind, D. Current patterns of parental authority. Devclopmental Psvchology Monographs, 1 9 7 1 , 4 , N o . 1 , P a r t 2. Baylcy, N. Behavioral correlates of mental growth: Birth to thirty-six years. American Psychologist, 1968, 23, 1-17. Bcilin, H. Developmental stages and developmental processcs. In D. K. Green, M. P. Ford, & G. P. Flamer (Eds.), Measurement and Plagct. New York: McGraw-Hill, 1971. Bengtson, V. L., & Black, K . D. lntergenerational relations and continuities in socialization. In P. B. Baltcs & K . W. Schaie (Eds.), Life-span deoelopmental psycholog,v: Personality and socialization. New York: Academic Press, 1973. Bloom, M. Life-span analysis: A theoretical framework for behavioral science research. Human Relations, 1964, 12,538-554. Rogatz, G., & Ball, S. The second year of Sesame Street: A continuing evaluation. Princeton, N.J.: Educational Testing Service, 1971. Bowers, K . S. Situationism in psychology: An analysis and a critique. Ps.vchologica1 Review, 1973,80,307-336. Brim, 0 . G. Socialimtion through the life cycle. In 0. G. Brim & S. Wheeler (Eds.), Socialization after childhood: Two essa-vs. New York: Wiley, 1966. Bromley, D. B. An approach t o theory construction in the psychology of development and aging. I n L. R. Goulet & P. B. Baltcs (Eds.). Life-span developmental psychology: Research and theory. New York: Academic Press, 1970. Bronfenbrenner, U. Socialization and social class through time and space. In E. E. Maccoby, T. M. Ncwcomb, & E. L. Hartley (Eds.), Readings in social psychology. (3rd ed.) New York: Holt, 1958. Bronfenbrenncr, U. Some familial antecedents of responsibility and leadership in adolescents. In L. Petrullo & B . M. Bass (Eds.), Leadership and interpersonal behavior. New York: Holt, 1961. Bronfenbrenncr, U. l k l y deprivation in mammals and man: A cross-species analysis. In G. Newton & S. Levine (Eds.), Early experience and behavior. Springfield, Ill.: Thomas, 1968. Bryan, J. H. Children’s cooperation and helping behavior. In E. M. Hetherington, J. Hagen, R. Kron, & A. H . Stein (Eds.), Review of child development research. Vol. 5. Chicago: University of’ Chicago Press, 1976. Buhler, C. Der menschliche Lebenslauf als psychologischcs Problem. (2nd ed.) Gottingen: Hogrefe, 1959. (Originally published, 1933).

Buhler, C., & Massarik, F. (Eds.) Thc coursc o f human life. New York: Springcr Publ., 1968. Buss, A. R. An cxtcnsion of develolmental models that separate ontogenctic changes and cohort differences. Psychological Bulletin. 1973, 80,466-479. Buss, A. R. Generational analysis: llcscription. explanation, and theory. Journal of Social Issues, 1974, 3 0 , 5 5 7 1 . Caldwell, B. M. The usefulness of the critical period hypothesis in the study of filiativc behavior. Merrill-Palmer Quarter!,), 1962, 8 , 229-242. Campbell, D. T. Reforms as experiments. American Psychologisr, 1969, 2 4 , 4 0 9 4 2 9 . Charles, D. C. Historical antecedents of lifc-span developmental psychology. In L. R. Goulet & P. B. Baltes (Eds.), Life-span dei3clopn~c~t?tal psychology: Research ar7d theory. New York: Academic Press, 1970. Cowen, P. A., Langer, J., Heavenrich. J . , & Nathanson, M. Social learning and Piagct's cognitive theory of moral developmcnt. Journal of Personality and Social psycho log^^, 1969, 11,261-274. Crandall, V. C., & Battle, E. S. Thc antcccdcnts and adult correlates of' academic and intellectual achievement effort. In J . P. Hill (F,d,),Minnesota sJ'rnposia O I Z child psychology. Vol. 4. Minneapolis: University ot Minnwota Press, 1970. Douvan, E.. & Adclson, J . The adolesccwt experience. New York: Wiley, 1966. Elder, G. Agedifferentiation in a life cuurse perspective. Annual Review oj'Sociology, 1975, 1,165-190. Emmerich, W. Continuity and stability i n early social development. Child De~doprtleiit, 1964, 35,311-332. Erikson, E. H. Identity and the life cycle. Psyhological Issues, 1959, l(Who1e No. 1). Flavell, J. H. Cognitive changes in adulthood. In L. R. Goulet & P. B. Baltes (Eds.), Life-span developmental pycholog),: Research and theory. New York: Academic Press, 1970. Gewirtz, J. L. The course of infant smiling in four child-rearing environments in Israel. In B. M. Foss (Ed.), Detertninaizts ofitifatit hehavior. Vol. 3. London: Mcthucn, 1965. Glass, G. V., Wilson, V. C., & Gottnian, J . M. Designs and analysis of time-series cxperimerits. Boulder: University of C o l o r d o , Laboratory of Educational Research, 1972. Goulet, L. R. The interfaces of acquisition: Models and methods for studying the active, developing organism. In J . R. Nesselroadc & 13. W. Recse (Eds.), Life-span developmental psychology: Methodological issues. New York: Academic Press, 1973. Goulet, L. R. Longitudinal and time-lag designs in educational research: An alternative sampling model. Review of Educatiotial Research, 1975,45, 505-523. Goulet, L. R., & Baltes, P. B. (Eds.) Life-span developrneiztal psychologJl: Research and theory. New York: Academic Prcss, 1970. Goulet, L. R., Hay, C. M., & Barclay, C. I.: Researcli and theory. New York: Academic Press, 1970. Riegel, K. F. Time and change in the developnient of the individual and society. In t i . W. Reese (Ed.), Advances in child dei~elopmcntand behavior. Vol. 7 . New York: Academic Press, 1972. Riegel, K. F. Dialectic operations: 'The final pcriod of cognitive development, Human Development, 1973, 16, 346-370. Riegel, K. F. From traits and equilibrium toward developmental dialectics. In W. Arnold (Ed.), Nebraska symposium on motivation. Lincoln: University of Nebraska Press, 1976.

(a) Riegel, K. F. Toward a dialectic model of development and aging. Unpublished manuscript, Department of Psychology, University of Michigan, 1976. (b) Rdey, M. W., Johnson, W., & Foner, A. (Eds.) Aging and sociery. Vol. 3. A sociology o f age stratification. New York: Russell Sage Foundation, 1972. Schaffer, H. R., & Emerson, P. E. The development of social attachments in infancy. Monographs of the Society for Rescsarch in Child Development, 1964, 29, No. 3. Schaie, K. W. A general model for the ytudy uf developmental problems. Psyclzological Bulletin, 1965,64,92-107. Schaie, K. W. A reinterpretation of age-related changes in cognitive structure and functioning. In L. R. Goulet & P. B. Baltes (Ed:s. New Yoi k ' Academic Press, 1973. Risley, T. R., & Wolf, M. M. Strategies f o r analyzing behavior change over time. In J . R. Nesselroade & H. W. Reese (Eds.), /,ijc,-spatr developmental psychology: Methodological issues. New York: Academic Press. 1973. Robins, L. M. Deviarit children groivrr f l p Ilaltiniore. Williams & Wilkins, 1966. Schaie, K. W. Intervention toward ;in :igelcss society? Geroritologist, 1973, 13, 31-38. Schneewind, K. A. Auswirkungen v o i i I'rzirhungsstilen. h e r b l i c k iibcr den Stand der I-'orscliung. In H. Luckesch (ed. .Ausrvirkungen i'on Erziehurzgsstilen. Giittingen: Hogrefe, 1974. Studer, R. G. The dynamics of behavior-contingelit physical systems. In H.M. Proshansky et al. (Eds.), Envirorrrnental psvc'lrolo,yr Mar? and his physical setting. New York: Holt, 1970. Wohlwill, J. F. The age variable in psychological research. Psychological Review, 1970, 77, 49-64. Wohlwill, J. F. The study o f behavioral ~li.i.clol~r}r"izf. New York: Academic Press, 1973. Wortman, P. Evl. Evaluation research: A psychological perspective. Ainericarr Psychologist, 1975, 30,562-575. Zigler, E. Metatheoretical issues in dcvelopniental psychology. I n M. Marx (Ed.), Theories in contemporary psychology. New York: Macmillan, 1963. )?

)3

This Page Intentionally Left Blank

AUTHOR INDEX Numbers in italics refer to the pages on which the complete references are listed. A Abrahamson, D., 133,136 Acito, M., 218,223 Ackerman, P. R., 37,63 Adcock, C., 84,103 Adelson, J., 176,185 Aebli, H., 95,102 Ahrens, R., 114,137 Aldridge, V. J., 57,65 Alexandris, A., 14, 16, 19,29 Allen, T. W., 81,103 Ambrose, J. A., 114,137 Anders, T. R., 200,209 Anisman, H., 37,38, 39,62 Anton, A. H., 17,19,29 Apostel, L., 72,102 Arenberg, D., 195,197, 198,209, 221,222 Arnold, C. R., 10,30 Attewell, P., 214,224 Axelrod, R., 58,64 Axelrod, S., 199,210 Aymat, F., 24,32

B Baer,D. M., 176,137, 205,209 Bakwin, H., 13,29 Bakwin, R. M., 13,29 Balfour, G., 93,103 Ball, S., 174,184, 205,209 Baltes, M. M., 146, 154,160 Baltes,P. B., 170, 171, 172, 73, 76, 177, 178,179,180,181,182,183, 185,186, 187, 204,205,206,209, 211, 214, 218, 222,223, 225,228,238, 254,259,260, 261,264 Bandura, A., 180,184

Banikotes, F. G., 123,137 Barahal, G. D., 11,32 Barcai, A., 14, 19,30 Barclay, C. R., 173, 181,185 Barker, R. G., 261,264 Barnes, K. E., 176,184 Barnes, K. R., 15, 16, 1 9 , 3 3 Bartsch, T. W., 181,186 Basowitz, H., 200,211 Battle, E. S., 177,185 Baumrind, D., 175,184 Baxley, G. G., 16,25,29 Bayley, N., 118,137, 170, 177,184, 259, 264 Bazell, R. J., 2,29 Bearison, D. J., 231, 234,238 Becker, W. C., 1 0 , 1 2 , 2 9 , 3 0 Beckwith, L., 145,160 Beebe, J. S., 247,251 Beilin, H.,69, 71, 72,13,74,15,76,78, 79,82,83, 85,86,90,92,93,95,96, 99,102, 178,184, 217,222 Bell, R. Q., 10,30, 144, 145,160 Belmont, J. M., 191,196,203,209 Bengtson, V. L., 173,184 Berberich, L. P., 145,160 Bergeron, J., 214,224 Berlyne, D. E., 49,62 Bernal, M. E., 57,62 Bernard, C., 61,62 Bever, T. G., 81,104 Bhagavan, H. N., 59,62 Bielby, D. D., 214,222 Bijou, S. W., 137, 205,209 Binet, A., 69,102 Birch, H. G., 7, 12, 13,30, 31 Birren, J. F., 257,264 Bisler, I., 15, 34 267

268

Author Index

Bjork, R. A., 191,209 Black, K. D., 173,184 Blalock, H. M., 261,264 Block, J., 229,238 Bloom,K., 115,116, 119,121,124, 136, 137 Bloom, L., 76,96, 103 Bloom, M., 170,184 Blum, A. H., 84, 103 Boelsche, A., 1 1 , 3 0 Bogatz, G. A., 174,184, 205,209 Boldrey, E. E., 25,32 Bolles, R. C., 134, I 3 7 Boren, J. J., 28,30 Bortner, M., 7 , 3 1 Botwinick, J., 199, 209 Boullin, D. J., 5 8 , 5 9 , 6 2 Bovet, M.,72, 74, 1 0 4 , 8 2 , 8 6 , 8 7 , 9 1 , 9 5 , 96,101,104 Bowers, K. S., 182,184 Bowers, M., 5 9 , 6 3 Bowlby, J., 143, 144, 160 Box, G. E. P., 4 4 , 6 2 Boyd,E. F., 154, 155, 156,160, 161 Brackbill,Y., 109, 111, 112, 113, 123, 124, 125, 126, 132, 133, 135, 136,136, 137, 139, 143,154,160 Bradley, C., 2, 3 , 6 , 7 , 8 , 3 0 Brainard, C. J., 217,222 Braine, M. D. S., 79,103 Brainerd, C. J., 75.81, 82, I 0 3 Brandsfidter, J., 255,264 Brazelton, T. B., 151, 152,161 Brim,O. G., 170, 173,184, 226,238, 242, 247,248,250,251, 257,264 Bromley, D. B., 171,184 Bronfenbrenner, U., 175,184 Brooks, J., 245,251 Brossard, L. M., 109, 122,137 Broverman, D. M., 37, 3 9 , 4 3 . 6 2 Brown,A. L., 190, 191, 192, 193, 194, 196, 199, 205,209 Brown, G. W., 1 3 , 3 0 Bruner, J. S . , 8 0 , 9 5 , 9 8 , 1 0 3 Bryan, J. H., 182,184 Bryant, P., 8 1 , 1 0 3 Biihler, C., 170, 184 Burks, H. F., 3 , 4 , 6 , 7 , 8, 1 3 , 3 0 Buss,A. R., 173, 180,185, 204,209, 258, 264

Bussaratid, S., 3, 13,34 Butterfield, E. C., 191, 193, 196, 203,209

C Calaresu, F. R., 44, 6 3 Caldwell, B. M., 175,185 Campbell, D. T., 182,185, 260,264, 265 Campbell, IT., 128, 138 Canestrari, R. E., Jr., 198, 199,209 Cannon, W. B., 61, 6 3 Cantwel1,D. P., 1 1 , 1 2 , 1 3 , 1 5 , 1 8 , 2 4 , 2 6 , 27.33 Carlson, J. S., 83, 1 0 3 Carlton, P. L., 4 1 , 6 5 Carpenter, Y., 133, 136 Chandler, M. J., 229,238 Charles, D. C., 170, 185, 214, 224 Charlesworth, W. R., 217,223 CIESS,G. r:., 4 4 , 6 3 Chess, S., 3, 13,30 Cheung, M. N., 50,63 Clarizio, H. F., 254, 265 Clausen, J. A., 226,238 Cleckley, H., 38, 6 3 Clements, S. D., 3, 7, 11,22,28,30, 37,63 Clifton, R. K., 6 3 Clynes, M., 4 4 , 6 3 Cohen, D. J., 5 9 , 6 3 Cohen, N. J., 1 7 , 3 0 Cole, J. O., 15,31 Cole, M., 216,223 Coleman, H. S., 261,265 Coleman, M., 5 8 , 5 9 , 6 2 Conialli, P. E. Jr., 214,223 Conily, H. H., 3 , 4 , 5 , 7 , 8 , 9, 1 3 , 3 0 Connerly, R. J., 145, I 6 1 Conners,C. K., 3, 12, 14, 15, 16, 18, 19, 20,22, 24,30, 31 Cooper, R., 5 7 , 6 5 Coppinger, N., 214,223 Corbit, J . D., 4 0 , 6 5 Cornelius, S. W., 214,223 Cowcn, E. L., 254,265 Cowen, P. A., 180, 185 Craig, A , , 13, 3 4 Craik, F. I . M., 196,200,209 Crandall, V. C., 177,185 Creager, R. D., 17,31

A u tlior hidex

Crook, W. G., 1 3 , 3 1 Cruickshank, W. M. (Ed.), 28,31

D Daniels, G. J., 10,31 Danzger, B., 145,162 Datan, N., 173,186 Davis, J . C., 246,251 Davis, J. M., 4 2 , 6 0 , 6 3 Davis, K., 2 0 , 3 3 Dawson, M. E., 33, 3 7 , 6 5 Day, R. H., 143,162 Decarie,T. G., 109, 122,137 DeGeest, H., 4 4 , 5 0 , 6 3 DeLucia, C. A . , 131,139 Denhoff, E., 3, 4 , 5 , 6 , 8 , 9 , 11, 19.31, 32, 37,63 Denney, D. R., 214,217, 219,223 Denney, N. W . , 2 1 4 , 2 l 6 , 2 l 7 , 2 1 8 , 2 1 9 , 223 Dennis, W., 214,223 DeWitt, S., 85, 103 Dieruf, W., 13,34 Domino, E. F., 59,64 Donaldson, M., 93,103 Doubros, S . G., 1 0 , 3 1 Douglas, V. I., 3,4, 5 , 7, 9, 10, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17,30, 31, 34, 3 7 , 6 3 Douvan, E., 176,185 Duffy, D. M., 216,223 Dulit, E., 228, 229,238 Dumitru, J., 193,211 Dykman, R. A., 3 7 , 6 3

E Eccles, A,, 2, 32 Eckoldt, K., 4 4 , 6 3 Egan, R. A., 2 4 , 3 2 Ehrhardt, A., 174, 175, 186 Eisdorfer, C., 199,210 Eisenberg, L., 12, 13, 14, 15, 19, 24,30, 31 Elder,G. H., 173,185, 226,238 Elkind, D., 75, 8 0 , 1 0 3 E%s, N. R., 1 0 , 3 1 El-Yousef, M. K., 4 2 , 6 0 , 6 3 Emde, R. N., 114,138 Emerson, P. E., 179,187 Emmerich, W., 178,185

269

Englemann, S., 12,29 Eppinger, H., 36, 6 0 , 6 3 Epstein, L. C., 15, 18,31 Epstein, S., 242, 249, 250,251 Erikson, E. H., 185, 228,238 Eron, L. D., 175,182,186 Esposito,A., 115, 116, 119, 121, 124, 136, 137 Estes, W. K., 24,31 Etzel,B.C., 110, 113, 125,137, 143,161 Eveloff, H. H., 4, 11,31 F

Farrow, B. J., 204,210 Feingold, B. I;., 13,31 Feldman, S. S., 178,186 Ferguson, C. A., 145,161 Ferriero, E., 99,103 Figurclli, J. C., 85, 1 0 3 Finnerty, R. J . , 15,31 Fisher, S., 1 5 , 3 3 Fitzgerald,H.E., 126, 127, 132, 133, 136, 136,137 Flavell, J. H., 72,103, 178,185, 191, 192, 205,210, 211, 212, 214,216,218,223, 231,232,234,238 Foner, A., 170,187 Fournier, M., 1 5 , 3 1 Fowler, G. W., 3,32, 3 7 , 6 4 Fozard, J. L., 200,209 Franklin, I., 73, 102 Freedman, D., 5 8 , 6 5 Freedman, D. G., 114,137 Freeman, R. D., 20,31 Freibergs, V., 16,31, 37, 63 Friedlander, B. Z . , 127, 129,137 Friedrich, D., 193,210 Frohring, W. R., 206,211 Furth, H. G., 230,238 G

Gay, J., 216,223 Geisse,, S., 2 3 , 3 1 Geller, E., 5 5 , 5 8 , 5 9 , 64, 65 Gellhorn, E., 37,40, 5 6 , 6 3 Gelman, R., 236,239 Gewirtz, H. B., 150,161 Gewirtz, J. L., 110, 112, 113, 114, 115,

270

Author Index

116, 117, 118, 120, 121, 122, 124, 125, 137, 139, 143, 144, 150, 154, 155, 156,

160, 161, 162, 176, 179,185 Glass, G. V., 182, 185 Glick,J.,75,96, 103, 104 Glick, J. A,, 216,223 Glousman, R., 59, 65 Goldberg, A. M., 4 , 3 3 Goldberg, S., 128, 138 Gottman, J. M., 182, 185 Goulet, L. R., 170, 171, 172, 173, 181, 183, 185, 204,205,206,209, 210,211, 260,261,264 Graham, F. K., 6 3 Grant, Q. R., 20,31 Greenfield, P. M., 80, 95,98,103 Greenhouse, S. W., 23,31 Greer, M., 17, 19,29 Greitzer, G., 75, 103 Gribbin, K., 170, 176,187 Griffiths, J. A., 76, 91, 93, 1 0 3 Grinder, R. E., 177, 185 Grinspoon, L., 1 1 , 3 1 Groffmann, K . J., 170,185 Grossman, J. L., 197, 198,199,210 Gruen, G. E., 80 , 1 0 3 Gurin, G., 247,251 Gurin, P., 247, 251 Gutmann, D., 248,251 H

Haan, N., 229,238 Hagen, J. W., 191, 192,210 Halverson, C. I., 145, 161 Hamel, B. R., 85,94,103, I 0 4 Hamilton, L. W., 41, 65 Harbordt, S., 261,265 Harper, L. V., 144,161 Harris, A. E., 236,238 Harris, C., 118, 140 Harris, D. B . , 227, 238 Hartup, W. W., 150,151, I 6 1 Harvey, J. A., 6 0 , 6 3 Haugan, G. M., 123, 135,137, 143,162 Havighurst, R . J., 185, 228,238 Hay, C. M., 173, 181, I85 Heavenrich, J., 180, I85 Henry, C. E., 13,32 Hershey, G. L., 171,186

Hcrtzig, M. E., 7 , 3 1 Hcss, L., 36,60, 6 3 Hetherington, E. M., 175,185 Hieger, L., 128, I38 Himwich, H. E., 5 9 , 6 4 Hinde, R. A., 131,138 Hinton, G. G., 15, 16, 18,32 Hoerniann, H., 256,265 Hofstatter, P. R., 170,185 Hogan, J. A., 131,138 Hoijer, B., 8 4 , 1 0 5 Hooper, F., 75,103 Horka, S. T., 204,210 Horn, J . L., 177,10^5, 195, 196, 197, 199, 210 Hornblum, J . N., 217,223 Howard, C., 5 8 , 6 4 Hoyer, W. J., 218,223, 260, 261,265 Hoyt, D. P., 246,251 Hubley, P., 134, I 3 9 Huesmann, L. R., 175,182,186 Hulicka, I. M., 197,199,210, 220,223 Hultsch, D. F., 199,200,210, 211 Hunt, J . McV., 126,139 Hutt, C., 4, 1 0 , 3 2 Hutt, S. J., 4, 1 0 , 3 2

I Inhelder, B., 68, 70,72, 74, 77, 82, 86, 87, 9 1 , 9 5 , 9 6 , 9 9 , 101,104, 105, 190,204, 210,211, 213,224, 234,239 J Jacobs, P. I., 217,223 Jacobsen, L . , 145,162 Jahoda, M., 254,265 James, W., 4 9 , 6 3 Janowsky, D. S., 4 2 , 6 0 , 6 3 Jeffrey, W. E., 75,103, 210 Jenkins, G . M., 4 4 , 6 2 Jenkins, J. J., 205,210 Jerome, E. A., 195,210 Jih, F., 4 4 , 6 3 Johnson, R . C., 9 3 , 1 0 5 Johnson, W., 1 7 0 , 1 8 7 Johnson, W. T., 5 9 , 6 3 Jones, R., 3, 10,33 Jongeward, R. H., 191, 192, 193,210

Author Index

K Kagan, J., 119,138, 177,186, 259,265 Kail, R.V., 191,192, 193,210 Kales, A., 58, 64 Kaluger, G., 171,186 KdlUger, M. F., 171,186 Kanner, L., 55,58,63 Kaplan, B., 218,224 Karduck, W.A., 3, 13,34 Kaspar, J. C., 7, 13,33 Katona, P. G., 44, 6 3 Keller, H.R.,8 5 , 1 0 3 Keniston, K., 170,186 Kessen, W., 144,162 Kimmel, H.D., 113,138 Klaiber, E. L., 37, 39,43,62 Klebanoff, L. B., 145,162 Kling, J. K., 93,104 Klisz, D., 128,138 Knights, R.M., 15, 16, 18,32 Knobel, M., 3,5, 11, 12.32 Kobayashi, Y., 37, 39,43,62 Koch, J., 125,138 Koegel, R.,56,64 Kohlberg, L., 174, 178, 181,186, 216,223 Koivisto, E., 145,163 Kominski, C., 214,223 Konorski, J., 131,138 Korb, R.J., 18,27,33, 37,46,50,64 Korchin, S. H., 200,211 Korner, A. F., 144,162 Koslowski, B., 151, 152,161 Krager, J. M.,2,32 Krause, R.R.,59,64 Kuhlen, R. G., 170,187 Kupietz, S., 15,34 Kurtz, M. A., 15,31 Kuypers, J., 176,186 Kvale, S.,204,210 L Labouvie, E. W., 181, 182,186 Labouvie,G. V., 206,211, 218,223, 228, 238 Lacey, J. I., 6 3 L'Allier, 114 Lanaro, P., 90,97,106 Langer, J., 180,185, 227,232,239 Laroche, J. L., 114,138

27 1

Larsen, K . W., 24,32 Lasagna, L., 15, 18,31 Laufer, M. W., 3 , 4 , 5 , 6 , 11, 19,32, 37,63 Laurendeau, M., 214,224, 231,239 LeBlanc, J. M., 16,25,29 Lee, D., 10,32 Lee-Painter, S., 146, 150, 151,162 Lekowitz, M.M., 175,182, I86 Leiderman, P. H.,145,163 Leiman, B., 193,211 Lempers, J. A., 150,151,161 Lennon, M.L., 214,223 Lesser, L. I., 11, 13,15, 18,24,33 Levin, H.,144,163 Levine, F. J., 245,25I Levinson, B., 206,211 Levy, M. N.,44,50,63 Lewis, M., 119, 127,138, 145,146, 150, 151,162, 245,251 Liebert, R.M., 86,105 Lilienfeld, A. M., 11,32 Lillyquist, T. D., 200,209 Lind, J., 145,163 Lindsley, D.B., 13,32 Linn, 182 Lintz, L. M., 132, 133,137 Lipman, R. S., 15,33 Lippert, W. W., 39,64 Lipps, L., 79,104 Lister, C. M., I 0 4 Looft, W. R.,170,186, 214,223, 224, 257, 265 Lovaas, 0. I., 56, 64

Lowe,R.C.,72,106 Lucas, A , , 7 , 3 3 Lucas, A. R.,59,64 Lugo, J. O., 171,186 Lumsden, E. A., 93,104 Lundell, F. W., 14, 16, 19,29 Lykken, D.T., 39,64 Lyle, J., 174,188 Lynn, R.L., 188 Lytton, G. J., 11, 12,32

M Maas, H., 176,186 Mdallum, C., 57, 65 McCarthy, J. J., 127,137

212

Author Index

Maccoby, F. E., 144,163, 178,186 McDonald, F. J., 180, 184 McFarland, J . N., 1 0 , 3 2 McIntire, R. W., 123, 135,137, 143,162 McKenzie, B., 143, 162 Madsen, C. N.,J r . , 1 0 , 3 0 Main, M., 151, 152, I 6 1 Mallinger, B., 214,223 Manto, P. G., 4 1 , 6 4 Marks, L. A., 16,2Y Martin, D. M., 13, 32 Martin, J., 3, 4, 5 , 9, 10, 13,34 Massarik, F., 170, 185 Matsuno, D., 5 9 , 6 5 Meacliani, J . A., 192, 193, 202, 205,211 Mchler, J., 81,104 Menkes, J . H., 6, 1 1 , 3 2 Mcnkcs, M. M., 6, 1 1 , 3 2 Mco, G.: 1 5 , 3 1 Mcyer, 13. L., 255,265 Milgram, N. A , , 247,251 MiI1ar.W. S., 114, 115, 117, 120, 121, 122, 123, 127, 129,130,131,134,138 Miller, J. A., 245,251 Miller, S. A,, 79,104, 205,211, 229,239 Miller, W. H., 57,152 Millichap, J. G., 3, 4, 5, 7, 11, 24, 25,32, 37,64 Milstein, V., 4 , 7, 34 Minde, K. K., 3, 11, 15, 17,32, 34, 37,65 Moerk, E., 236,239 Molitch, M.,2, 32 Mone), J., 174, 175,186 Mongc, T. H., 199,211 Montgomery, A. A , , 123, 1 3 7 Morf, A., 72,104 Morgenstern, G., 7 , 3 0 , 34 Moss, H. A., 144,145, 177,162, 259,265 Moynahan, E., 75, 104 Munday, L. A , , 246,251

N Ndiasimhdchar~,N., 59, 64 Nathanson, M., 180, 185 Nedk, J . M., 182,186 Necselroade, J. R., 170, 171, 173, 176, 179, 181,183, 186, 204,205,206, 20Y, 211

Ncugarten, B. L., 170, 173, 177, 186, 226, 239, 246,251, 257,265 Newnian, B. M., 171, 1 8 7 Newnian, P. R., 171, 187 Nichamin, S. J . , 1 1 , 3 2 Novack, 1-1. S., 8 , 9 , 3 1 Nunnally, J. C., 206,211

0 O’Brien, R. A., 5 8 , 5 9 , 6 2 O’Connell, E. J . , 144, 145,162 O’Gorman, G., 5 7 , 6 5 Oleron, P., 72, 104 Olson, J. P.,145, 1 6 3 Olsson, I., 84, 1 0 5 Olver, R. R., 8 0 , 9 5 , 9 8 , 1 0 3 Ornitz, E. M., 5 5 , 5 6 , 5 8 , 6 4 , 65 Osofsky, J. D., 144, 145, 162 Ounstead, C. A., 4 , 1 0 , 3 2 Ourth, L. L., 117,138, 143, 162 Overbeck, C., 84,104 Overton, W. F., 48,49,64, 98, 146, 147, 148,162, 178,187, 205,211. 217,223, 227,239, 254,265

P Paasonen, M. K., 5 8 , 6 4 Paine, R. S . , 5 , 6 , 7 , 3 2 Paivio, A., 199, 211 Palerrno, D. S., 93,104 Palmer, B., 122, 124,139 Papalia, D. E., 214,222, 224 Paris, S. G., 195, 199,212 Park, L. C., 1 5 , 3 3 Puke, R. D., 179,187 Parker, E. B., 174,188 Partcn, M. B., 176, 1 8 7 Pasanianick, B., I 1 , 3 2 Patterson, G. R., 3, 1 0 , 3 3 Peacock, L. J., 10,32 Pearson, M. E., 118,140 Peters, D. L., 84,104 Peters, J . E., 3,30, 3 7 , 6 3 Peterson, D. R., 9 , 3 3 Piaget, J., 68, 70,72, 73, 78,80, 81, 83, 91,

99,104, 114, 126,138, 190.211, 213, 224, 2 2 9 , 2 3 0 , 2 3 4 , 2 3 5 , 2 3 9 Pinard, A., 231,239 Pitts, r., 1 3 , 3 4 Pletscher, A., 5 8 , 6 4 Plotkin, S., 55, 58,64, 65 Podosin, R. D., 11, 13, 15, 18,3.? Polak, R. R., 114, 119, 138 Pollack, R. H., 172,188 Porges, S. W., 18, 27, 33, 37, 46, SO, 61, 64. 65. 1 2 7 , 1 3 7 Pratoomraj, S., 9 3 , 1 0 5 Prechtl, H. F. R., 145,162 Pressey, S. L., 1 7 0 , 1 8 7 Pryer, R. S., 1 0 , 3 1

Q Quay, H. C., 7, 10,32, 34, 3 8 , 6 0 , 6 4 Quetelet, A., 1 7 0 , 1 8 7

R Rabban, M., 181, 1 8 7 Rabbitt, P., 200,211 Raniey,C.T., 117, 121, 125, 120, 128, 132,138,139, 143,162 Rashkis, S., 58, 64 Raskin, D. C., 50,64 Rech, R. H., 4 1 , 6 5 Reese, H . W., 4 8 , 4 9 , 6 1 , 8 1 , 9 8 , 6 4 , 146, 147,148,154,160, 162, 170, 178,186, 187, 193,194, 1 9 5 , 1 9 9 , 2 0 0 , 2 0 2 , 2 0 3 , 205,206,210,211, 212,227,239, 254, 265 Rehm, R., 56, 6 4 Reinert, G., 181, 184, 206, 211 Reisman, J. M., 1 0 , 3 3 Rescorla, R. A., 119,138 Rheingold, H. L., 112, 115, 116, 1 1 7 , 118, 120,121,122,124, 125,139, 143,162 Richards, M. P. M., 146,162 Rlckels, K., 1 5 , 3 3 Riegel, K., 255,265 Riegel,K. F., 171, 173, 178,187, 214, 215, 224, 228,230,231,234,235,231,239, 255,265 Riegel, R. M., 214,224

Riksen, R. 0. M., 85, I 0 3 Riley, M. W., 170,187 Rimland, 8 . , 5 5 , 5 6 , 5 8 , 5 9 , 6 2 , 64 Risky, T. R., 260,265 Ritvo, E. R., 55, 5 6 , 5 8 , 5 9 , 6 4 , 65 Robins, L. M . , 254, 265 Robinson, E., 1 5 , 3 1 Robson, K. S., 145,162 Rodin, E., 7 , 3 3 Rodriguez, A., 15, 1 8 , 3 / Rogers, M., 1 1 , 3 2 Rosc, J. S., 6, 1 I , 3 2 Rosenberg, D., 123, 124, 139 Rosenfeld, H. M., 1 0 8 , 1 3 9 Rosenthal, M. K., 133,139 Rosenthal, R., 1 4 5 , 1 6 2 Roscnthal, T. L.,88, 89, 97, 105, 106, 217, 224 Ross,Il. W., 112, 115, 116, 117, 118, 120, 121, 122, 124,139, 143,162 Rothschild, G . H . , 15, 1 6 , 3 1 Routh,D.K., 116, 118, 119, 136.13Y, 143, 154,162 Rovee, C. K., 121, 125,139 Rovee, D. T., 121, 125,139 Rowe, 6. J., 1 9 7 , 2 1 2 Rubin, K. II., 214, 224 Rubin, L. S., 56, 57, 65 Russell, J., 93, 105 Rust, L. D., 197, 210 Rutter, M., 13, 30, 56, 65

S Sachdev, K., 4,7 , 3 4 Saeger, K., 5 5 , 5 8 , 6 5 Safer, D. J., 2 , 3 2 Sainz, A . , 3 , 4 , 3 3 Salatas, H., 192,212 Salzen, E. A . , 118,139 Sameroff, A . J., 131, 133, 139 Sanders, S., 214,224 Satterticld, 8.T., 12, 13, 18, 26, 2 7 , 3 3 Sattertield, J. H., 11, 12, 13, 15, 18, 24, 26, 27,33 Satterfield, J . R., 3 7 , 6 5 Saul, R. E., 1 8 , 2 4 , 3 3 Schack, M . L., 8 1 , 1 0 5

274

Author Index

Schaffer, H. R., 121,130,138, 179,187 Schaie, K. W.,170, 171, 173, 176, 178, 180,181,182,184, 187, 204,212, 214, 224, 225,228,238, 239, 254,257,260, 264, 265 Schain, R. J., 5 8 , 6 5 Sharp, D. W., 216,223 Shatz, M., 236,239 Schicor, A., 5 8 , 6 4 Schlosberg, A. J., 6 0 , 6 3 Schneewind, K. A,, 259,265 Schneiderman, G., 5 9 , 6 5 Schnore, M. M., 197,212 Schramm, W., 174,188 Schreibman, L., 5 6 , 6 4 Schubert, E., 4 4 , 6 3 Schulman, J. L., 7, 10, 1 3 , 3 3 Schwartz, A., 123, 124,139 Schwartz, L. S., 15,31 Schwartz, M., 84, 104 Scott, K. G., 1 6 , 3 3 Scott, P. M., 144, 145,163 Scribner, S., 194,212 Sears, R. R., 143, 1 4 4 , 1 6 3 Sekerke, H. J., 4 2 , 6 0 , 6 3 Seligman, M. E. P., 131, 132,139 Senter, M. G., 122,140 Senter, R. J., 39,64 Sevinc, M., 92, 105 Shannon, W. R., 1 3 , 3 3 Shantz,C. U., 76, 91, 93,103, 105 Sharpe, L., 12,30 Shaywitz, B. A., 5 9 , 6 3 Sheeran, L., 134,139 Shelton, J., 205,211 Sheppard, W . C . , 117, 119, 128, 136,139 Sherman, J. A., 174,188 Shettleworth, S. J., 131, 132,139 Sidman, M., 24, 2 8 , 3 3 Siegel, G. M., 145,163 Siegler, R. S., 8 6 , 8 7 , 1 0 5 Sigel, I. E., 76,91, 93,103, 105, 221,224 Silbergeld, E. K., 4 , 3 3 Simeonsson, R., 118,140 Simon, H. A., 193,212 Simson, C., 7 , 3 3 Sinclair, H., 72, 74, 7 7 , 8 2 , 8 6 , 8 7 , 9 1 , 9 5 , 96,101,104, see also Sinclairde Zwart, H.

Sinclair-de Zwart, H., 83, 91, 92,105, see also Sinclair, H. Singer, S. B., 1 1 , 3 1 Siqueland, E. R., 131,139 Sjoberg, L., 84, 105 Sjostrom, K. P., 172,188 Sleator, E. K., 25,33, 4 6 , 6 5 Sly, W. S., 3, 13,34 Small, J. G., 5 7 , 6 5 Smedslund, J., 7 2 , 7 3 , 7 9 , 1 0 5 Smith, I., 84,106 Smith, K. U., 128,139 Smith, M. B., 229,238 Smith, N. J., 128,139 Smith, S., 181,188 Snow, C. E., 145,163, 236,239 Soforenko, A. Z., 127, I 3 7 Sokolov, E. N., 50,65 Solomon, R. L., 4 0 , 6 5 Solomons, G., 3 , 7 , 11,13,19,32,33, 37, 63 Soltys, J. J., 1 5 , 3 1 Sorenson, E. R., 205,212 Spitz, R. A., 114,138 Sprague, R. L. 3 , 9 , 10, 12, 15, 16, 18, 19, 20, 27,33, 34, 37,46, SO, 64, 65 Stanley, J. C., 260,265 Steiner, G., 95,106 Steinhardt, M. H., 122,140 Stern, D. N., 146,163 Sterns, H., 199,210 Stevens, J. R., 4, 7 , 3 4 Stewart, M. A. 3,4, 13,34, 3 7 , 6 5 Studer, R. G., 255,265 Sturgis, L. H., 24,32 Sullivan, E. V., 88,106 Swonger, A. K., 4 1 , 6 5 Sykes, D. H., 3, 15, 1 7 , 3 4 Szeminska, 234,239

T Tam, M. K., 4 4 , 6 3 Tapp, J. L., 245,251 Tautermannova, M.,110,139 Taylor, E., 15, 31 Tcheng, F., 114,138 Teitelbaum, P., 126,139 Thomae, H., 170,288

Author Index

Thoman, E. B., 145,163 Thomas, A., 1 3 , 3 0 Thomas, D. R., 10, 12,29, 3 0 Thong, T., 72,104 Throne, J. M., 7, 1 3 , 3 3 Tierney, M., 214,224 Tobias, J., 1 5 , 3 4 Todd, G . , 122,124,139 Tomlinson-Keasey, C., 129,139, 214, 217, 224 Toppe, L. K., 1 0 , 3 3 Treat, N. J., 199,212 Trevarthen, C., 134,139 Tulving, E., 190,212 Tumolo, P., 214,224 Turner, C., 9 2 , 1 0 5 Turner,T., 232,234, 235, 236, 237,239 U Uhlenhuth, E. H., 1 5 , 3 3 Upton, L. R., 195,211 Uzqiris, I. C., 126,139 V Van den Daele, L. D., 230,239 Van Der Veer, M. A. A., 94,104 Vandeventer, M., 217,223 Van Riper, C., 1 7 , 3 1 Vine, I., 110, 135,139 Vogel, W., 37, 3 9 , 4 3 , 6 2 Vuorenkoski, V., 145,163 W

Waghorn, L., 88,106 Wahler,R.G., 109,112, 118,139 Walder, L. O., 175,182,186 Waldrop, M. F., 145,161 Walter, G. F., 1 8 , 2 7 , 3 3 , 37,46,50,64, 6s Walter, G . W., 57, 65 Wambold, C., 191,203,209 Wapner, S., 214,223 Warren, R. J., 3, 1 3 , 3 4 Wasz-HGckert, O., 145,163 Watson, J. A., 1 0 , 3 2 Watson, J. S., 117,121, 125, 126, 127, 128, 132,138,139

275

Waxler, C. Z., 144, 1 4 5 , 1 6 3 Webb, G . , 11,32 Webster, R. L., 121, 122, I 4 0 Weiner, S. L., 93,106 Weisberg,P., 115, 118, 119, 120, 121, 122, 124, 125, 127, 133,140, 143,163 Weiss, G . , 3 , 4 , 5 , 7 , 9 , 10, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17,31, 34, 3 7 , 6 5 Weiss, R. L., 197,210 Wenar, C., 144,163 Wenar, S. C., 144, I 6 3 Wender, P. H., 3, 7 , 8 , 9 , 3 4 Wenger, M. A., 36,60,6S Werner, H., 214, 218,223, 224 Werry, J. S., 3 , 4 , 5 , 6 , 7 , 9 , 10, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 19, 20,32, 33, 34, 37, 6S Werts, C. E., 182, 188 Westerhof, R., 94, 104 Wheeler, C. A., 38,6S Wheeler, S., 226,238 White, M. S., 177,188 Whittier, J., 3, 10, 33 Wiegerink, R., 118, I 4 0 Wilder, J., 36, 6 0 , 6 5 Wilkie, F. L., 199,210 Williams, J. M., 4 1 , 6 5 Willis, S. L., 171, 173, 176, 177,184, 228, 238 Wilson, V. C., 182,185 Winer, B. J., 26,34 Winsberg, B. G., 1 5 , 3 4 Winter, A. L., 57, 65 Witkin, H. A., 247,251 Wohlwill, J. F., 72, 13, 106, 178, 182,188, 205,212, 231,234,238, 258,262,265 Wolf, M. M., 260,265 Wolfs, P., 145,163 Woodruff, D. S., 257,264 Wortman, P. M., 260,265 Wright, M. A., 3, 1 0 , 3 3 Y

Yarrow, L. J., 145,163 Yarrow, M. R., 144, 145,163 Yendovitskaya,T. V., 190, 193, 195,212 Youdim,M.,59,62 Youniss, J., 229,234, 237,239

216

Author Index

Yunger, L. M., 6 0 , 6 3 Yuwiler, A., 5 5 , 5 8 , 5 9 , 6 4 , 65 Z

Zelazo, P. R., 111, 112, 113,140 Zentall, S., 5 , 1 2 , 3 4

Zieske, H., 44, 50,63 Zigler, E., 174, 181,186, 260,265 Zirniles, H., 73,106 Zirnmernian,B. J., 8 8 , 8 9 , 9 0 , 9 7 , 1 0 5 , 106, 211,224 Ziobrowski, M. J., 219,223 Zwerg, C., 128,139

SUBJECT INDEX A

Academic performance, of hyperactive child, 5 drugs and, 19-20 Acquisition, constraints on, 131-133 Age, developmental change and, 176-177 Associative memory, in adulthood and old age, 197-200 Attention, 47-50 two-component model of, 50 autonomic and neurotransmitter activity and, 5 1-55 Autism, 55-60 Autonomic activity attention and, 47-55 central and peripheral, 4 0 4 3 statistical model of balance in physiological assumptions of, 4 3 4 4 statistical techniques, 44-45 test with hyperactive children, 4 5 4 7

B Behavioral factors in hyperactivity diagnosis of, 9-10 drug effects on, 17-1 8 C Caregiver, child influence on, 144-146 Cognition adult, 213-215, 225-226 in children, 220-222 developmental theory and, 215-220 multilinear development and, 229-232 social versus impersonal, 233-237 Conditioning, social, see Social responses Conservation, 69-71 linguistic structuralism and, 99-100 Piagetian training, 7 1-75 representative functionalism and, 98-99

social learning theory and, 97-98 training model for, 75-82 verbal-rule instruction and, 83-90. 100102 Contextual factors, in social conditioning, 122-1 2 s Continuity, developmental, 177-1 79 Culture, theory of self and, 244-245

D Development, mechanistic and organismic models of, 146-147 mother-infant interaction and, 147-149 Developmental psychology, see Life-span developmental psychology Drug(s), hyperactivity and academic performance and, 19-20 behavioral measures, 17-1 8 laboratory task performance, 16-17 physiological measures, 18-19 psychological measures, IS-16 research designs for, 20-28 symptom ratings, 14-15

E Education, life-span developmental psychology and, 254-264 Expectancies, interactional, 134-1 35

F Feedback, social, reinforcement of social responses by, 109-1 1 I Functionalism, representative, 98-99

H Hyperactivity, 2-3, 37-38 autonomic balance and, 4 5 4 7 217

278

Subject Index

characteristics of, 3-5 diagnosis of, 5-1 1 etiology of nonorganic factors in, 13-14 organic factors, in, 11-1 3 pharmacotherapeutic effects in academic performance, 19-20 behavioral measures, 17-18 laboratory task performance, 16-17 physiological measures, 18-1 9 psychological measures, 15-16 research, 20-28 symptom ratings, 14-15

I Interactional expectancies, social responses and, 134-135 lntervcntion programs, design of, 257-261

K Knowledge, lexical, 91-95

L

ontogenetic and historical-evolutionary sources of change, 173-176 , 1 theory of ~ c l f 241-25 Linguistic structuralism, 99-100 Linguistic training lexical factors in, 91-95 verbal rule instruction in, 83-90

M Memory adult developnient of, 195-200 childhood compared with, 200-201 childhood dialectical model, 202-204 interrelatcdncss of attributes in, 205-207 life-span perspective, 204-205 old age compared with, 200-201 Mother-infant intcraction direction of influence in, 142-146 developmental and organismic models and, 147-149 experimental analysis of, 153-159 in natural settings, 149-152 simultaneous behaviors and, 152-153 N

Language, as representation, 68-69 Lexical training, 91-95 Life-span developmental psychology, 169-171 cognition, 21 3-222,225-226 in adulthood, 226-229 multilinear development, 229-232 social versus impersonal, 233-237 education and, 254-264 memory, 190,207-208 in adulthood and old age, 195-200 in childhood, 190-195 childhood and old age compared, 200-201 methodology, 179-180 change versus differences, 180-1 8 1 time-lag and distal-cause effects, 181-183 theory, 171-173 age irrelevance of change, 176-177 continuity versus discontinuity, 177-179

Neurological factors, in diagnosis of hyperactivity, 6-8 Nonsocial responses, social reinforcement of, 129-1 3 1 Personal control, in theories of oneself, 247-248 Physiological factors in hyperactivity diagnosis of, 6-8 drug effects on, 18-19 Piagetian training, 7 1-75 Psychological factors in hyperactivity diagnosis of, 8-9 drug effects on, 15-16 Psychopathy, 38-40

R Reciprocal performance factor, social responses and, 135 Reinforcement nonsocial. 127-1 29

Subject Index

social, 109-1 1 1 of nonsocial responses, 129-1 3 1 Reinforcer salience of, 133-134 social, 122-1 25 Representation, language as, 68-69 Representative functionalism, linguistic construction and, 98-99 Response mode, changes in, 21 8-220 Retrieval, deficits in adulthood and old age, 200 S Self, development of theory of, 241-242 in childhood, 245-247 culture and socialization in, 244-245 life-span changes in, 247-250 sense of self in, 242-244 research in, 250-251 Simultaneous behaviors, learning analysis of, 152-15 3 Smiling conditioned, elicited, and habituated, 111-113 elicitation of, 114 Social behavior, of hyperactive children, 4-5 Social cognition in adulthood, 226-229 impersonal cognition versus, 233-237 multilinear development and, 229-232 Socialization direction of influence in, 142-146

279

mechanistic and organismic models and, 147-149 educational goals and, 255-257 theory of self and, 244-245 Social learning theory, linguistic construction and, 97-98 Social responses constraints on acquisition of, 131-133 interactional expectancies and, 134-1 35 nonsocial reinforcement of, 127-129 reciprocal performance factor in, 135 reinforcer salience and, 133-134 smiling conditioned, elicited, and habituated, 11 1-11 3 elicitation of, 114 social reinforcer and contextual factors in conditioning, 122-125 vocalization conditioned versus elicited, 116-1 1 8 elicitation of, 118-1 22 social conditioning of, 115-1 16 Structural complexity , 2 36-2 3 7 Structuralism, linguistic, 99-1 00 Subject-object interactions, role of object in structuring, 235-236 V Verbal rule instruction, 83-90, 100-102 Vocalization conditioned versus elicited, 116-1 18 elicitation of, 118-122 social conditioning of, 115-1 16

Contents of Previous Volumes Volume 1 Responses of Infants and Children to Coniplex and Novel Stimulation Gordon N. Cantor Word Associations and Children’s Verbal Behavior David S.Palermo Change in the Stature and Body Weight of North American Boys during the Last 80 Years Howard I< A4eredith Discrimination Learning Set in Children Hayne W. Reese Learning in the First Year of Life Lewis P. Lipsitt Some Methodological Contributions from a Functional Analysis of Child Development Sidney W. Bijou and Donald M. Baer The Hypothesis of Stimulus Interaction and an Explanation of Stimulus Compounding Charles C. Spiker The Development of “Overconstancy” in Space Perception Joachini F. Wohlwill Miniature Experiments in the Discrimination Learning of Retardates B e t t y J. House and David %earnan AUTHOR INDEX-SUBJECT INDEX

Volume 2 The Paired-Associates Method in the Study of Conflict Alfred Castaneda Transfer of Stimulus Pretraining in Motor Paired-Associate and Discrimination Learning Tasks Joan If. Cantor The Role of tlie Distance Receptors in the Development of Social Responsiveness Richard H. Walters and Ross D. Parke Social Reinforcement of Children’s Behavior Harold W. Stevenson Delayed Reinforcerricnt Effects Glenn Terrell 280

A Developmental Approach to Learning and Cognition Eugene S. Collin Evidence for a Hierarcliial Arrangement of Learning Processes Sheldon H. Wliitc, Selected Anatomic Variables Analyzed for InteraFe Relationships of tlie Size-Six, SizeGain, and Gain-Gain Varieties Howard V. Meredith AUTHOR INDEX-SUBJECT INDEX

Volume 3 Infant Sucking Behavior and Its Modification Herbert Kaye ‘The Study of Brain tlectrical Activity in Infants Robert I. Elliizgson Selective Auditory Attention in Children Eleanor E. hfaccohy Stimulus Definition and Choice Michael D. Zeiler Experimental Analysis of Inferential Behavior in Children Tracy S. Kendler and Howard H. Kendler Perceptual Integration in Children Herbert L. Pick, Jr., Anne D. Pick, and Robert I?. Kleirz Component Process Latencies in Reaction Times o f Children and Adults Raj~moridH. Hohle AIJTHOR INDEX-SUBJECT INDEX Volume 4 Development Studics of Figurativc Perception David Elkind The Relations of Short-Term Memory to Development and lntclligenee John M. Belmont and Earl C. Butterfield Learning, Developmental Research, and Individual Ilifferences Frances D q e n Horowitz

Contents of Preiwus Volumes

Psychophysiological Studies in Newborn Infants S.J. Hurt, H.G. Lenard, and H.F.R. I’rechtl Development of the Sensory Analyzers during Infancy Yvonne Brackbill and Ifiram E. FitzKerald The Problem Of Imitation Justin Aron freed AUTHOR INDEX-SUBJECT INDEX

Volume 5 The Development of Human Fetal Activity and Its Relation to Postnatal Behavior Tryphena Humphrey Arousal Systems and Infant lleart Rate Responses Frances K. Graham and Jail C. Jackson Specific and Diversive Exploration Coriiitie I h t t Developmental Studies of Mediated Mcmory John H. Flavell Development and Choice Behavior i n I’robabilistic and Problem-Solving Tasks L.R. Goulet and Kathryn S.Goodwin AUTHOR INDEX-SUBJECT INDI’X

Volume 6 Incentives and Learning in Children Sam I,. Witryol Habituation in the Human Infant Wendell E. Jeffre), arid Leslie B. Cohcn Application of Hull-Spence Theory l o thc Discrimination Learning of Children Cliarles C. Spiker Growth in Body Size: A Compcndiurn 01’ Findings on Contemporary Children Living in Different Parts o f the World Howard V. Meredith Imitation and Language Developmcnt James A. Sherman Conditional Responding as a Puradigirl lor Observational, Imitative Learning and Vicarious-Reinforcement Jacob I,. Gewirtz AUTHOR INDEX-SUBJECT INDEX

28 1

Volume 7 Superstitious Behavior in Children: An Experimental Analysis Michael D. Zeiler Learning Strategies in Children from Different Socioeconomic Levels Jean L. Bresnahan and Martin M. Shapiro Time and Change in the Development of the Individual and Society Klaus F. Riegel The Nature and Development of Early Number Concepts Rochel Geltnati Learning and Adaptation in Infancy: A Comparison of Models Arnold J. Samerqff AUTHOR INDEX-SUBJECT INDFX Volume 8 Ilaboration and Learning in Childhood and Adolescence William D. Rohwer, Jr. Exploratory Behavior and Human Devclopnient Jum C, Nunnallv arid L. Charles Leinorid Operant Conditioning of Infant Behavior: A Rcview Robert C. Hulsebus Birth Order and Parental Experience in Monkeys and Man G. Mitchrll and I.. Scliroers Fear of the Stranger: A Critical Examination Harriet I.. Rheingold and Carol 0. Eckermati Applications of Hull-Spence Theory to the Transfer of Discrimination Learning in Children Charles C. Spiker and Joan If. Cantor AUTHOR INDEX-SUBJECT INDEX Volume 9 Children’s Discrimination Learning Based on ldcntity or Difference Betty J. House, Ann I,. Browti. and Marcia s. Scott

282

Contents of Previous Volumes

Boyd R. McCandless and Mary Fulcher Geis The Development of Spatial Representations of Large-Scale Environments Alexander W. Siege1 and Sheldon H. White Cognitive Perspectives on the Development of Memory John W. Hagen, Robert H. Jongeward, Jr., and Robert V. Kail, Jr. The Development of Memory: Knowing, Knowing About Knowing, and Knowing How to Know A n n L. Brown Developmental Trends in Visual Scanning AUTHOR INDEX-SUBJECT INDEX Mary Carol Day The Development of Selective Attention: From Perceptual Exploration t o Logical Volume 10 Search John C Wright and Alice G. Vlietstra Current Trends in Developmental PsycholAUTHOR INDEX-SUBJECT INDEX ogy

Two Aspects of Experience in Ontogeny: Development and Learning Hans G. Furth The Effects of Contextual Changes and Degree of Component Mastery on Transfer of Training Joseph C. Campione and Ann I,. Brown Psychophysiological Functioning, Arousal, Attention, and Learning During the First Year of Life Richard Hirschman and Edward S. Katkin Self-Reinforcement Processes in Children John C. Masters and Janice R. Mokros

A E C D

6 l 8 9

E O F

1

G

2

H

3

1 4 J 5