Kail Advances in Child Development and Behavior

1. Auflage 2002
ISBN: 978-0-08-052626-3
Verlag: Elsevier Science & Techn.
Format: EPUB
Kopierschutz: 6 - ePub Watermark

E-Book, Englisch, Band Volume 30, 346 Seiten

Reihe: Advances in Child Development and Behavior

Advances in Child Development and Behavior is intended to ease the task faced by researchers, instructors, and students who are confronted by the vast amount of research and theoretical discussion in child development and behavior. The serial provides scholarly technical articles with critical reviews, recent advances in research, and fresh theoretical viewpoints. Volume 30 discusses early recall memory, balance and motor learning, sexual selection, emotion-related regulation, maternal sensitivity and attachment, and influences of friends.

Autoren/Hrsg.

Kail, Robert V.

Inhaltsverzeichnis

1;Front Cover;1
2;Advances in Child Development and Behavior;4
3;Copyright Page;5
4;Content;6
5;Contributors;10
6;Preface;12
7;Chapter 1. Learning to Keep Balance;14
7.1;I. Introduction;14
7.2;II. Learning to Keep Balance: Sway Model of Balance Control;16
7.3;III. Flexibility and Specificity of Motor Learning;22
7.4;IV. How Development May Constrain Motor Learning;40
7.5;References;49
8;Chapter 2. Sexual Selection and Human Life History;54
8.1;I. Introduction;54
8.2;II. Natural Selection and Life History;55
8.3;III. Sexual Selection;64
8.4;IV. Life History and Sexual Selection;69
8.5;V. Human Developmental Sex Differences;76
8.6;VI. Conclusion;100
8.7;References;102
9;Chapter 3. Developments in Early Recall Memory: Normative Trends and Individual Differences;116
9.1;I. Initiating the Study of Early Recall Memory;118
9.2;II. Characterizing Recall Memory in the First Two Years of Life;123
9.3;III. Individual Differences in Long-Term Recall: Children's Gender, Children's Language Proficiency, and Variability in Initial Learning;128
9.4;IV. Individual Differences in Long-Term Recall: Children's Temperament Characteristics;134
9.5;V. Children's Temperament and Mothers' Language as Interacting Sources of Individual Differences in Long-Term Recall;143
9.6;VI. Conclusions and Implications;151
9.7;References;159
10;Chapter 4. Intersensory Redundancy Guides Early Perceptual and Cognitive Development;166
10.1;I. Introduction: Historical Overview and Perspectives on Perceptual Development;166
10.2;II. Amodal Relations and the Multimodal Nature of Early Experience;169
10.3;III. Unimodal–Multimodal Dichotomy in Developmental Research;171
10.4;IV. Neural and Behavioral Evidence for Intersensory Interactions;172
10.5;V. Intersensory Redundancy Hypothesis: Toward an Integrated Theory of Perceptual Development;176
10.6;VI. Summary and Directions for Future Study of Perceptual Development;191
10.7;References;194
11;Chapter 5. Children's Emotion-Related Regulation;202
11.1;I. Definition of Emotion-Related Regulation;203
11.2;II. A Brief Review of Views of Emotion Regulation in Theories of Emotion;204
11.3;III. Conceptual Issues;207
11.4;IV. Age-Related Trends in Emotion-Relevant Regulation;211
11.5;V. Measurement of Emotion Regulation;217
11.6;VI. Relation of Emotion-Relevant Regulation to Quality of Social Functioning;223
11.7;VII. Relations of Dispositional Resiliency to Effortful and Reactive Control and Socioemotional Functioning;228
11.8;VIII. Summary and Future Directions;232
11.9;References;233
12;Chapter 6. Maternal Sensitivity and Attachment in Atypical Groups;244
12.1;I. Introduction;244
12.2;II. Organization of Attachment;246
12.3;III. Maternal Sensitivity;249
12.4;IV. Role of Child Characteristics;255
12.5;V. Atypical Groups of Mothers;268
12.6;VI. Conclusions;273
12.7;References;276
13;Chapter 7. Influences of Friends and Friendships: Myths, Truths, and Research Recommendations;288
13.1;I. Introduction;288
13.2;II. Influences of Friends' Characteristics;290
13.3;III. Influences of Friendship Quality;307
13.4;IV. Influences of Friends' Characteristics in Friendships Differing in Quality;312
13.5;V. Conclusions and Implications;315
13.6;References;320
14;Author Index;324
15;Subject Index;342
16;Contents of Previous Volumes;352

Leseproben

Sexual Selection and Human Life History
David C. Geary    Department of Psychological Sciences University of Missouri at Columbia Columbia, Missouri 65211 I Introduction
What is the evolutionary raison d’être of lifetimes and effort? —R. D. Alexander, The biology of moral systems (1987, p. 38) Sexual selection and life history are firmly established disciplines in evolutionary biology, and associated theory and research are focused on determining the ultimate and proximate causes of sex differences and developmental patterns, respectively (Andersson, 1994; Charnov, 1993; Darwin, 1871; Roff, 1992). Research in human developmental science in general and human developmental sex differences in particular has not been informed by this wealth of empirical and theoretical work, with a few exceptions (Archer, 1992; Bjorklund & Pellegrini, 2002; Bogin, 1999; Freedman, 1974; Hill & Kaplan, 1999; Kenrick & Luce, 2000). As a redress, the general focus here is on relating human developmental sex differences to sexual selection and life history (Geary, 1999). In particular, I describe theory and evidence regarding the view that many human life history traits and developmental sex differences have evolved as a result of various forms of social competition (Alexander, 1987, 1989; Geary & Flinn, 2001). To provide the necessary background and to introduce human developmental scientists to relevant work in evolutionary biology, in the next three sections I review research on life history, sexual selection, and their relation in nonhuman species. Then I relate the basic patterns and principles described in the first three sections to human developmental sex differences, with a focus on the relation between the social competition inherent in the dynamics of sexual selection and the evolution of sex differences in human life history traits (e.g., adult size, maturational patterns) and in developmental activity (e.g., play). II Natural Selection and Life History
I begin by describing the basic mechanisms of natural selection along with the basic principles of life history and sexual selection. Then I meld the principles of life history and sexual selection to provide the theoretical foundation for interpreting research on human developmental sex differences. A NATURAL SELECTION
The fundamental observations and inferences that led to Darwin’s and Wallace’s (1858; Darwin, 1859) insights regarding natural selection and evolutionary change are shown in Table I. Of particular importance are individual differences, which largely result as a consequences of sexual reproduction (Hamilton & Zuk, 1982; Williams, 1975). The process of natural selection occurs when heritable variability in a trait, such as age of reproductive maturity, covaries with variability in survival or reproductive outcomes (Price, 1970). As an example, if age of maturation is heritable and early maturing individuals survive to maturity and thus reproduce more successfully than later maturing individuals, then after many generations the mean age of maturation for this population will shift downward (see Reznick & Endler, 1982). Table I Darwin’s and Wallace’s Observations and Inferences 1. All species have such high potential fertility that populations should increase exponentially. 2. Except for minor annual and rare major fluctuations, population size is typically stable. 3. Natural resources are limited and in a stable environment they remain constant. 1. More individuals are born than can be supported by available resources, resulting in competition for those resources that covary with survival prospects. 1. No two individuals are exactly the same; populations have great variability. 2. Much of this variability appears to be related to inheritance that is passed on from parents to offspring. 1. Prospects for survival are not entirely random but covary with inherited characteristics. The relation between these characteristics and differential survival is natural selection. 2. Over generations, natural selection leads to gradual change in the population, that is, microevolution, and production of new species, that is, macroevolution or speciation. Note: Observations and inferences are based on Darwin and Wallace (1858), Darwin (1859), and Mayr (1982). Although genetics were not yet understood, Darwin inferred that traits were passed on from parent to offspring through, among other things, what was known about the effects of selective breeding (artificial selection) on the emergence of various domestic species. The strength of selection pressures can vary such that individual differences in some traits strongly influence the probability of survival or reproduction (e.g., to next breeding season), whereas other traits are only weakly related to or are unrelated to survival or reproductive prospects. If strong selection is maintained across many generations, then heritable variability should be reduced to zero, and it has been for some traits (e.g., all genetically normal humans have two legs, a heritable trait that shows no variability across individuals). However, for a variety of reasons many of the traits that covary with survival and reproductive outcomes show heritable variability and are thus subject to evolutionary change (see Roff, 1992, for a discussion of why heritable variability is maintained). Mousseau and Roff (1987) conducted a comprehensive review of the heritable variability of the morphological, behavioral, physiological, and life history phenotypes (i.e., measurable traits) that covary with survival and reproductive outcomes in wild, outbred animal populations. The analysis included 1120 heritability estimates—the proportion of variability across individuals that appears to be due to genetic variability—across 75 invertebrate and vertebrate species. Although there was considerable variation—across species, contexts, and phenotypes—in the magnitude of the heritability estimate, their analysis indicated that “significant genetic variance is maintained within most natural populations, even for traits closely affiliated with fitness” (Mousseau & Roff, 1987, p. 188). The median heritability estimates were .26 for life history traits (e.g., age of maturation), .27 for physiological traits (e.g., cardiovascular capacity), .32 for behavioral traits (e.g., mating displays), and .53 for morphological traits (e.g., body size), values that are similar to those found in human populations (Plomin, DeFries, McClearn, & McGuffin, 2001). Kingsolver and colleagues (2001) reviewed field studies of the relation between the types of traits analyzed by Mousseau and Roff (1987) and survival and reproductive outcomes in wild populations (see also Endler, 1986). Across species and triats, the median effect size indicated that being one standard deviation above (e.g., late maturation) or below (e.g., early maturation) the mean was associated with a 16% increase in survival (e.g., surviving to next breeding season) or reproductive (e.g., number of offspring) fitness. If the heritability of any such trait was only .25, “then selection of this magnitude would cause the trait to change by one standard deviation in only 25 generations” (Conner, 2001, p. 216), or in 12–13 generations with a heritability of .50. The basic point is that the principles of natural selection have been empirically evaluated in many species and for many different traits. Many of these traits both show heritable variability and covary with survival and reproductive outcomes, the conditions needed for natural selection and thus evolutionary change to occur (see Table I). B LIFE HISTORY
As aptly described by Alexander, “lifetimes have evolved to maximize the likelihood of genic survival through reproduction” (Alexander, 1987, p. 65), and the focus of life history research is on the suite of phenotypic traits that defines the species’ maturational and reproductive pattern (Charnov, 1993; Roff, 1992). A suite of traits must be considered because of the trade-offs involved in the expression of one phenotype versus another (Williams, 1957). The trade-offs are commonly conceptualized in terms of a competitive allocation of resources (e.g., calories) to somatic effort or reproductive effort, as shown in Figure 1 (Alexander, 1987; Reznick, 1985, 1992; Williams, 1966). Somatic effort is traditionally defined as resources devoted to physical growth and to maintenance of physical systems during development and in adulthood (see West, Brown, & Enquist, 2001), although growth also involves the accumulation, as in...