1. Culturally-specific caregiving practices: North Germany: Parental encouragement of infant independence when infants become mobile Israeli kibbutzim: Infants cared for by professional caregivers during the day and sometimes at night Japanese infants: Encouragement of “dependence” (physical contact, anticipating needs, focus on social versus nonsocial aspects of the environment)

2. Use of a culturally-biased measure (Strange Situation) –Failure to capture the meaning and goals of parent- infant relationships in different cultures (Rothbaum et al., 2000) Attachment theory privileges individualism or autonomy over relatedness –Using the parent as a secure base for exploration is characteristic of infants classified as “secure” in the Strange Situation— exploration believed to lead to self-reliance

3. –In Japan, dependence is considered an integral part of the attachment relationship— dependence believed to lead to the ability to integrate successfully into a social group »Behaviors widely regarded as adaptive in Japan are similar to behaviors characteristic of insecure-ambivalent attachment classifications »Exs: extensive clinging and proximity- seeking, extreme expressions of need for care (e.g., high distress), failure to engage in exploration

4. Developmental Psychology: Research Issues Intractable Variables –Difficult or impossible to manipulate Heredity/Genes Environment Age –Age is a “proxy” for causal variables—i.e., age co-varies with these causal agents, but it is not a causal variable

5. Measurement Equivalence –When constructs change with development, measures that are appropriate at one age (time) may be inappropriate at another age Ex: Assessment of attachment in preschoolers –Is a separation-reunion procedure appropriate?

6. Self-report data are limited –Parents, teachers, and other adults often complete “self-report” measures of children’s behavior –Greater reliance on observational techniques Inferring the meaning of behavior is difficult –Ex: Infants’ understanding of object permanence

7. Complexity of causal influences –Ethical concerns preclude manipulation of many variables Ex: maltreatment and children’s development –Laboratory analog studies may compromise external validity Ex: Marital conflict and children’s development

8. Direction of causation –Biases/assumptions about the direction of influence Ex: parents influence children rather than the reverse –Bidirectional influences are more likely than unidirectional influences

9. General Research Designs Experimental Designs –Manipulation of hypothesized independent variable –Random assignment of participants to different conditions (between-subjects designs) OR participants serve as their own controls (within- subjects designs) –Allow strong inferences about causal relationships

10. Non-experimental (Correlational) Designs –No manipulation of variables –No random assignment or other control procedures –Not possible to make causal inferences

11. Developmental Designs Designs in which age-related change is examined –Normative changes in development –Individual differences in developmental change Nonexperimental

12. Variables Involved in Developmental Designs Cohort: Groups of participants who are born or experience some other common event in the same time period –Ex: children born in 1980 are a cohort; individuals growing up during the Great Depression are also a cohort Age Time/Point of Assessment

13. Simple Developmental Designs Longitudinal Designs –A single cohort is examined at multiple ages (and thus at multiple points of assessment) –Age and time of assessment are confounded An event may occur between points of assessment that produces differences in the dependent variable –Ex: Sept. 11 may affect rates of psychological disorders in children »If we see increases in psychological disorders in a longitudinal design, are they due to age or to time of assessment differences?

14. Cross-sectional Designs –Multiple cohorts (and multiple ages) are examined at a single point of assessment –Cohort and age are confounded Differences across cohorts may produce changes in the dependent variable –Ex: Cohorts born in 1970 and 1990 are likely to differ with respect to early child care experiences »If we see differences in social competence in a cross- sectional design, are they due to age or to cohort differences?