Pub Date : 2021-07-01Epub Date: 2021-06-25DOI: 10.1159/000517406
Audun Dahl, Charles P Baxley, Talia Waltzer
For over a century, developmental psychologists have debated whether morality is innate (Allen & Bickhard, 2013; Antipoff, 1928; Bloom, 2013; Piaget, 1932; Tremblay et al., 1999; Turiel, 2015a). Before the era of developmental psychology, philosophers debated for centuries whether humans are, by nature, good or evil (Hobbes, 1651; Plato, 1998; Rousseau, 1762). The developmental debate about moral nativism resurfaced in the late 2000s, after the publication of studies that, to many scholars, demonstrated morally relevant abilities in infants (Hamlin et al., 2007; Warneken & Tomasello, 2006; for discussion, see Dahl, 2019; Hamlin, 2013; Thompson, 2012; Smetana, 2018). These claims in turn informed cognitive, evolutionary, and social psychological accounts of morality (Graham et al., 2013; Haidt, 2012; Haidt & Joseph, 2008; Hauser, 2007). While the terms of the debate have shifted – “innate,” “core,” “first draft,” and “natural,” to mention a few examples – the basic question of moral nativism remains: Do some parts of human morality emerge independently of learning and experience? After a century of data collection, we might expect that moral developmentalists would have settled this question and moved on. Yet, moral developmentalists have not settled this question, and Carpendale et al. (this issue, DOI 10.1159/000517221) remind us why. Alongside the empirical debate – about whether morality is innate – runs a second, paradigmatic debate that interferes with the empirical one (Witherington, 2015). That paradigmatic debate is about whether it even makes sense to separate morality into those components that are innate and those that are not. Carpendale et al. (this issue), among others, reject the dichotomy between innate and noninnate characteristics, and they propose instead that biological contributions are inseparable from environmental contributions to development (see also Allen & Bickhard, 2013; Gottlieb, 2007; Lickliter & Honeycutt, 2010; Piaget, 1932; Spencer et al., 2009). We may therefore call the moral nativism debate a two-front war: moral nativists argue both against scholars who propose that morality is learned rather than
{"title":"The Two-Front Forever War: Moral Nativism and Its Critics.","authors":"Audun Dahl, Charles P Baxley, Talia Waltzer","doi":"10.1159/000517406","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1159/000517406","url":null,"abstract":"For over a century, developmental psychologists have debated whether morality is innate (Allen & Bickhard, 2013; Antipoff, 1928; Bloom, 2013; Piaget, 1932; Tremblay et al., 1999; Turiel, 2015a). Before the era of developmental psychology, philosophers debated for centuries whether humans are, by nature, good or evil (Hobbes, 1651; Plato, 1998; Rousseau, 1762). The developmental debate about moral nativism resurfaced in the late 2000s, after the publication of studies that, to many scholars, demonstrated morally relevant abilities in infants (Hamlin et al., 2007; Warneken & Tomasello, 2006; for discussion, see Dahl, 2019; Hamlin, 2013; Thompson, 2012; Smetana, 2018). These claims in turn informed cognitive, evolutionary, and social psychological accounts of morality (Graham et al., 2013; Haidt, 2012; Haidt & Joseph, 2008; Hauser, 2007). While the terms of the debate have shifted – “innate,” “core,” “first draft,” and “natural,” to mention a few examples – the basic question of moral nativism remains: Do some parts of human morality emerge independently of learning and experience? After a century of data collection, we might expect that moral developmentalists would have settled this question and moved on. Yet, moral developmentalists have not settled this question, and Carpendale et al. (this issue, DOI 10.1159/000517221) remind us why. Alongside the empirical debate – about whether morality is innate – runs a second, paradigmatic debate that interferes with the empirical one (Witherington, 2015). That paradigmatic debate is about whether it even makes sense to separate morality into those components that are innate and those that are not. Carpendale et al. (this issue), among others, reject the dichotomy between innate and noninnate characteristics, and they propose instead that biological contributions are inseparable from environmental contributions to development (see also Allen & Bickhard, 2013; Gottlieb, 2007; Lickliter & Honeycutt, 2010; Piaget, 1932; Spencer et al., 2009). We may therefore call the moral nativism debate a two-front war: moral nativists argue both against scholars who propose that morality is learned rather than","PeriodicalId":47837,"journal":{"name":"Human Development","volume":"65 3","pages":"180-187"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2021-07-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://sci-hub-pdf.com/10.1159/000517406","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"39504398","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"心理学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"OA","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Despite decades of research efforts, researchers have yet to reach a consensus on the definition of bullying. There are ambiguities around the conceptualization of bullying relating to the intent, harm, repetitions of an act, and power disparity in episodes of bullying. Practically, the lack of differentiation between bullying and playful teasing as well as between bullying and other types of aggression has made it difficult to accurately measure bullying and derive the prevalence rate. There has been scant attention to how people evaluate an intent, harm, repetitions of an act, and power disparity between bullies and targets. If bullying is a moral issue, it involves people’s moral judgments and cannot be understood solely by empirical descriptions of the behavior. In this paper, I considered how social domain theory can be applied to help understand people’s judgments about bullying behaviors, which, in turn, is helpful in improving our conceptualization of bullying.
{"title":"Inconsistent Definitions of Bullying: A Need to Examine People’s Judgments and Reasoning about Bullying and Cyberbullying","authors":"Vivian Chang","doi":"10.1159/000516838","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1159/000516838","url":null,"abstract":"Despite decades of research efforts, researchers have yet to reach a consensus on the definition of bullying. There are ambiguities around the conceptualization of bullying relating to the intent, harm, repetitions of an act, and power disparity in episodes of bullying. Practically, the lack of differentiation between bullying and playful teasing as well as between bullying and other types of aggression has made it difficult to accurately measure bullying and derive the prevalence rate. There has been scant attention to how people evaluate an intent, harm, repetitions of an act, and power disparity between bullies and targets. If bullying is a moral issue, it involves people’s moral judgments and cannot be understood solely by empirical descriptions of the behavior. In this paper, I considered how social domain theory can be applied to help understand people’s judgments about bullying behaviors, which, in turn, is helpful in improving our conceptualization of bullying.","PeriodicalId":47837,"journal":{"name":"Human Development","volume":"65 1","pages":"144 - 159"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2021-06-25","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://sci-hub-pdf.com/10.1159/000516838","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"41819296","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"心理学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
The article by Zhang, Wang, and Duh (2021, this issue, DOI: 10.1159/000517081) provides a comprehensive review of the existing research concerning cultural ways of learning focusing on Chinese and Taiwanese cultures (e.g., Li, 2012), verbal and nonverbal aspects of socialization (e.g., Goldin-Meadow & Saltzman, 2000; Miller et al., 2012), learning through observation (e.g., Gaskins & Paradise, 2010), and multifaceted frameworks of learning (e.g., Rogoff, 2014). Zhang et al. (2021, this issue) propose a framework of analysis for examining how 9-month-old infants’ experiences with learning are shaped by co-creating “directive guidance” – a practice derived from Chinese cultural ideologies – with their mothers in Taipei, Taiwan. This practice is less frequently observed among their European-American counterparts in Santa Cruz in the USA. The authors propose an assets-based approach in creating a smooth transition from preschool to formal education as well as enhancing diversity in the classroom. This article makes 3 significant contributions. First, the authors exemplify the strengths of adopting mixed methods in examining mother-child interactions across cultures. By so doing, the authors extend our understanding of infant development from an individual level to interpersonal and sociocultural levels. Second, this study demonstrates and expands culture-specific socialization practices in Chinese-heritage communities from 2 years old to as early as 9 months old. Lastly, the authors approach child development from a cultural assets perspective (rather than a deficit model) that opens doors for future research. Below I first stress each of the 3 contributions by providing more contexts in understanding early childhood socialization. I then discuss future directions that each of the contributions can lead us to in furthering our knowledge of early human development.
{"title":"Mother-Infant Interaction Unfolds Using Mixed Methods: An Examination of Two Cultural Sites","authors":"Eva Chian‐Hui Chen","doi":"10.1159/000516840","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1159/000516840","url":null,"abstract":"The article by Zhang, Wang, and Duh (2021, this issue, DOI: 10.1159/000517081) provides a comprehensive review of the existing research concerning cultural ways of learning focusing on Chinese and Taiwanese cultures (e.g., Li, 2012), verbal and nonverbal aspects of socialization (e.g., Goldin-Meadow & Saltzman, 2000; Miller et al., 2012), learning through observation (e.g., Gaskins & Paradise, 2010), and multifaceted frameworks of learning (e.g., Rogoff, 2014). Zhang et al. (2021, this issue) propose a framework of analysis for examining how 9-month-old infants’ experiences with learning are shaped by co-creating “directive guidance” – a practice derived from Chinese cultural ideologies – with their mothers in Taipei, Taiwan. This practice is less frequently observed among their European-American counterparts in Santa Cruz in the USA. The authors propose an assets-based approach in creating a smooth transition from preschool to formal education as well as enhancing diversity in the classroom. This article makes 3 significant contributions. First, the authors exemplify the strengths of adopting mixed methods in examining mother-child interactions across cultures. By so doing, the authors extend our understanding of infant development from an individual level to interpersonal and sociocultural levels. Second, this study demonstrates and expands culture-specific socialization practices in Chinese-heritage communities from 2 years old to as early as 9 months old. Lastly, the authors approach child development from a cultural assets perspective (rather than a deficit model) that opens doors for future research. Below I first stress each of the 3 contributions by providing more contexts in understanding early childhood socialization. I then discuss future directions that each of the contributions can lead us to in furthering our knowledge of early human development.","PeriodicalId":47837,"journal":{"name":"Human Development","volume":"65 1","pages":"139 - 143"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2021-06-25","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://sci-hub-pdf.com/10.1159/000516840","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"42450843","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"心理学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
J. Carpendale, Ulrich Müller,, B. Wallbridge, Tanya Broesch, T. Cameron-Faulkner, Kayla D. Ten Eycke
Giving is an act of great social importance across cultures, with communicative as well as moral dimensions because it is linked to sharing and fairness. We critically evaluate various explanations for how this social process develops in infancy and take a process-relational approach, using naturalistic observations to illustrate forms of interaction involving the exchange of objects and possible developmental trajectories for the emergence of different forms of giving. Based on our data, we propose that the object becomes a pivot point for interaction, and through the process of such interaction the social actions of showing and giving emerge and take on diverse social meanings within the relations between infants and caregivers.
{"title":"The Development of Giving in Forms of Object Exchange: Exploring the Roots of Communication and Morality in Early Interaction around Objects","authors":"J. Carpendale, Ulrich Müller,, B. Wallbridge, Tanya Broesch, T. Cameron-Faulkner, Kayla D. Ten Eycke","doi":"10.1159/000517221","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1159/000517221","url":null,"abstract":"Giving is an act of great social importance across cultures, with communicative as well as moral dimensions because it is linked to sharing and fairness. We critically evaluate various explanations for how this social process develops in infancy and take a process-relational approach, using naturalistic observations to illustrate forms of interaction involving the exchange of objects and possible developmental trajectories for the emergence of different forms of giving. Based on our data, we propose that the object becomes a pivot point for interaction, and through the process of such interaction the social actions of showing and giving emerge and take on diverse social meanings within the relations between infants and caregivers.","PeriodicalId":47837,"journal":{"name":"Human Development","volume":"65 1","pages":"166 - 179"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2021-06-25","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://sci-hub-pdf.com/10.1159/000517221","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"47530731","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"心理学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
We provide a framework of analysis for Chinese ways of learning that extends beyond the individual level. The theoretical framework focuses on Confucian principles of xiào (孝, filial piety), guăn (管, to govern), and dào dé guān (道德觀, virtues), which leads us to argue that directive guidance as a cultural practice nourishes Chinese-heritage children’s learning as early as in infancy. To illustrate how directive guidance occurs in action for infants, we present an empirical study that examined the interaction of mother-infant dyads in Taipei, Taiwan, when they played with a challenging toy. The dyads co-enacted directive guidance more frequently than their European-American counterparts in the USA – through hand holding, intervening, and collaboration – while infants actively participate in the practice. We discuss the early development of strengths for learning that is fostered through culturally meaningful practices recurrent in parent-infant interaction.
我们为中国人的学习方式提供了一个超越个人层面的分析框架。理论框架侧重于儒家的xiào(孝)、gugun(治)和dào d guān(德)原则，这使我们认为，作为一种文化实践的指导性指导，早在婴儿时期就能滋养中国传统儿童的学习。为了说明指令指导是如何在婴儿的行动中发生的，我们提出了一项实证研究，研究了台湾台北的母子二人在玩具有挑战性的玩具时的互动。与美国的欧美同行相比，这对夫妇通过牵手、干预和合作，更频繁地共同制定指令指导，而婴儿则积极参与其中。我们讨论了通过在亲子互动中反复出现的有文化意义的实践来培养学习优势的早期发展。
{"title":"Directive Guidance as a Cultural Practice for Learning by Chinese-Heritage Babies","authors":"Yu Zhang, Su-hua Wang, Shinchieh Duh","doi":"10.1159/000517081","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1159/000517081","url":null,"abstract":"We provide a framework of analysis for Chinese ways of learning that extends beyond the individual level. The theoretical framework focuses on Confucian principles of xiào (孝, filial piety), guăn (管, to govern), and dào dé guān (道德觀, virtues), which leads us to argue that directive guidance as a cultural practice nourishes Chinese-heritage children’s learning as early as in infancy. To illustrate how directive guidance occurs in action for infants, we present an empirical study that examined the interaction of mother-infant dyads in Taipei, Taiwan, when they played with a challenging toy. The dyads co-enacted directive guidance more frequently than their European-American counterparts in the USA – through hand holding, intervening, and collaboration – while infants actively participate in the practice. We discuss the early development of strengths for learning that is fostered through culturally meaningful practices recurrent in parent-infant interaction.","PeriodicalId":47837,"journal":{"name":"Human Development","volume":"65 1","pages":"121 - 138"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2021-06-24","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://sci-hub-pdf.com/10.1159/000517081","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"43401041","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"心理学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
US Latinx youth are overrepresented across numerous social inequity domains (e.g., education, incarceration, health) in US society. Such concerning data call for culturally sensitive and strength-based models to guide future research to better understand, and perhaps mitigate, such inequities. The present paper presents a conceptual model that highlights the roles of multiple systems (cultural, relational, intrapersonal, behavioral) that predict US Latinx youth social inequities. The proposed model incorporates a culture- and strength-based approach to further our understanding of US Latinx youth developmental trajectories associated with social inequalities. We also highlight a set of culture-specific and non-culture-specific risk and protective factors (e.g., ethnic identity, social support, neighborhood characteristics) that can exacerbate or mitigate social inequities, with a focus on positive social behaviors. The extant research literature that yields supportive evidence for the model and gaps in the research are briefly reviewed. The essay concludes with recommendations for future research.
{"title":"Towards a Multisystem, Strength-Based Model of Social Inequities in US Latinx Youth","authors":"A. Davis, G. Carlo, Sahitya Maiya","doi":"10.1159/000517920","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1159/000517920","url":null,"abstract":"US Latinx youth are overrepresented across numerous social inequity domains (e.g., education, incarceration, health) in US society. Such concerning data call for culturally sensitive and strength-based models to guide future research to better understand, and perhaps mitigate, such inequities. The present paper presents a conceptual model that highlights the roles of multiple systems (cultural, relational, intrapersonal, behavioral) that predict US Latinx youth social inequities. The proposed model incorporates a culture- and strength-based approach to further our understanding of US Latinx youth developmental trajectories associated with social inequalities. We also highlight a set of culture-specific and non-culture-specific risk and protective factors (e.g., ethnic identity, social support, neighborhood characteristics) that can exacerbate or mitigate social inequities, with a focus on positive social behaviors. The extant research literature that yields supportive evidence for the model and gaps in the research are briefly reviewed. The essay concludes with recommendations for future research.","PeriodicalId":47837,"journal":{"name":"Human Development","volume":"65 1","pages":"204 - 216"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2021-06-24","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://sci-hub-pdf.com/10.1159/000517920","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"45455857","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"心理学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
In the bullying literature, there often appears to be a tension between the theoretical conceptualization of bullying by researchers and the practical limitations around measuring bullying among youths in survey research. In contrast to Chang (this issue, DOI 10.1159/000516838), we believe that there is a strong agreement among researchers about how to conceptualize bullying. Researchers almost universally conceptualize bullying as a subset of peer-targeted aggression (behavior intended to cause harm) characterized by repetition or chronicity and a power imbalance between the perpetrating youth and the victimized youth (e.g., Farrington, 1993; Felix et al., 2011; Gladden et al., 2014; Leff & Waasdorp, 2013; Solberg & Olweus, 2003; Vivolo-Kantor et al., 2014). Rather, the inconsistency is around how to measure bullying among youths. The question, then, is around construct validity – the extent to which our measures of bullying are actually measuring bullying, and not more general aggression or victimization, or something else entirely. In this review, we discuss possible causes of variations in prevalence rates besides differences in bullying measurement as well as problems with using the word “bullying” and defining bullying in survey research. We also discuss the added empirical value in the ability to assess bullying separately from more general aggression and practical reasons that some researchers use simplified measurement. We close with a caution against so narrowly defining constructs that it limits researchers’ abilities to understand and promote the safety and well-being of youths.
在欺凌文献中，研究人员对欺凌的理论概念化与调查研究中测量青少年欺凌的实际限制之间往往存在紧张关系。与Chang(本期，DOI 10.1159/000516838)相反，我们认为研究人员对如何概念化欺凌有着强烈的共识。研究人员几乎普遍将欺凌定义为以同伴为目标的攻击(旨在造成伤害的行为)的一个子集，其特征是重复或慢性，以及施暴者和受害青年之间的权力不平衡(例如，Farrington, 1993;Felix et al.， 2011;Gladden et al.， 2014;Leff & Waasdorp, 2013;Solberg & Olweus, 2003;Vivolo-Kantor et al.， 2014)。相反，这种不一致在于如何衡量青少年中的欺凌行为。那么，问题就围绕着构念效度——我们对霸凌的测量在多大程度上实际上是在衡量霸凌，而不是更一般的攻击或受害，或其他完全不同的东西。在这篇综述中，我们讨论了除欺凌测量差异外，患病率差异的可能原因，以及在调查研究中使用“欺凌”一词和定义欺凌的问题。我们还讨论了将欺凌行为与更普遍的攻击行为分开评估的能力所增加的经验价值，以及一些研究人员使用简化测量的实际原因。我们以警告结束，反对如此狭隘的定义结构，它限制了研究人员的能力，以了解和促进青少年的安全和福祉。
{"title":"Bullying Conceptualization in Context: Research and Practical Implications","authors":"K. Mehari, Jennifer L. Doty","doi":"10.1159/000516839","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1159/000516839","url":null,"abstract":"In the bullying literature, there often appears to be a tension between the theoretical conceptualization of bullying by researchers and the practical limitations around measuring bullying among youths in survey research. In contrast to Chang (this issue, DOI 10.1159/000516838), we believe that there is a strong agreement among researchers about how to conceptualize bullying. Researchers almost universally conceptualize bullying as a subset of peer-targeted aggression (behavior intended to cause harm) characterized by repetition or chronicity and a power imbalance between the perpetrating youth and the victimized youth (e.g., Farrington, 1993; Felix et al., 2011; Gladden et al., 2014; Leff & Waasdorp, 2013; Solberg & Olweus, 2003; Vivolo-Kantor et al., 2014). Rather, the inconsistency is around how to measure bullying among youths. The question, then, is around construct validity – the extent to which our measures of bullying are actually measuring bullying, and not more general aggression or victimization, or something else entirely. In this review, we discuss possible causes of variations in prevalence rates besides differences in bullying measurement as well as problems with using the word “bullying” and defining bullying in survey research. We also discuss the added empirical value in the ability to assess bullying separately from more general aggression and practical reasons that some researchers use simplified measurement. We close with a caution against so narrowly defining constructs that it limits researchers’ abilities to understand and promote the safety and well-being of youths.","PeriodicalId":47837,"journal":{"name":"Human Development","volume":"65 1","pages":"160 - 165"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2021-06-10","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://sci-hub-pdf.com/10.1159/000516839","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"43885256","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"心理学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
{"title":"What Makes a Purpose “Worth Having”?","authors":"K. Bronk, W. Damon","doi":"10.1159/000515949","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1159/000515949","url":null,"abstract":"","PeriodicalId":47837,"journal":{"name":"Human Development","volume":"65 1","pages":"113 - 117"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2021-05-11","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://sci-hub-pdf.com/10.1159/000515949","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"46695561","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"心理学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Although associations between joint attention and infant development have been extensively investigated (e.g., Carpenter et al., 1998; Donnellan et al., 2020; Mundy & Newell, 2007), the question of how, exactly, interactive behaviours support infant learning remains widely debated (Abney et al., 2020; Tomasello et al., 2007). Hudspeth and Lewis (this issue, DOI 10.1159/000515681) suggest that measures of joint attention in early interaction with an adult partner might merely reflect the ability of the infant to sustain their attention. This theory places infant object engagement at the forefront of attention and learning in joint interaction, in contrast to more traditional views that emphasise infants’ engagement with the attentional behaviours of their adult partner (e.g., Carpenter et al., 1998). First, we discuss Hudspeth and Lewis’s comments on methodological issues to do with defining sustained attention. Next, we consider an important point that they do not mention – namely, the inconsistencies in defining joint attention in the literature. We end by exploring endogenous and exogenous influences on sustained and concurrent looking in early interaction, as well as their implications for understanding infant learning.
{"title":"Bidirectional Mechanisms rather than Alternatives: The Role of Sustained Attention in Interactive Contexts Can Only Be Understood through Joint Attention","authors":"E. A. Phillips, S. Wass","doi":"10.1159/000515869","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1159/000515869","url":null,"abstract":"Although associations between joint attention and infant development have been extensively investigated (e.g., Carpenter et al., 1998; Donnellan et al., 2020; Mundy & Newell, 2007), the question of how, exactly, interactive behaviours support infant learning remains widely debated (Abney et al., 2020; Tomasello et al., 2007). Hudspeth and Lewis (this issue, DOI 10.1159/000515681) suggest that measures of joint attention in early interaction with an adult partner might merely reflect the ability of the infant to sustain their attention. This theory places infant object engagement at the forefront of attention and learning in joint interaction, in contrast to more traditional views that emphasise infants’ engagement with the attentional behaviours of their adult partner (e.g., Carpenter et al., 1998). First, we discuss Hudspeth and Lewis’s comments on methodological issues to do with defining sustained attention. Next, we consider an important point that they do not mention – namely, the inconsistencies in defining joint attention in the literature. We end by exploring endogenous and exogenous influences on sustained and concurrent looking in early interaction, as well as their implications for understanding infant learning.","PeriodicalId":47837,"journal":{"name":"Human Development","volume":"65 1","pages":"72 - 76"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0,"publicationDate":"2021-04-28","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://sci-hub-pdf.com/10.1159/000515869","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"48686902","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"心理学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
京公网安备 11010802042870号
京ICP备2023020795号-1
扫码关注我们
求助内容：
应助结果提醒方式：