214 Developmental Psychology
has come largely from the work of socialization scholars
interested in parental disciplinary styles and socialization
techniques and who generally used between-family than
within-family designs (Baumrind, 1973; Radke-Yarrow &
Zahn-Waxler, 1984). In fact, the reorientation of research to
a nonshared emphasis remains controversial, and there is
considerable debate about the implications and interpretation
of nonshared effects (Baumrind, 1993; Hoffman, 1991;
Scarr, 1993). Recently there has been a rise of interest in
the role of molecular genetics in developmental research
(Plomin & Rutter, 1998; Reiss, Neiderhiser, Hetherington, &
Plomin, 2000) with the goal of identifying how specific
genes or clusters of genes are linked with developmental
outcomes.
Other ways that developmentalists in the current period
focus on the biological bases of behavior is studying hor-
mones and behavior during infancy and adolescence
(Gunnar, 1987) and looking for the biological bases for tem-
perament in infancy (Rothbart & Bates, 1998). They also
study biological constraints on behavior development; for
example, developmental implications of immature sensory
systems have been related to the social world of infants (e.g.,
Aslin, 1998), the implication of immature limb systems have
been related to locomotion (Thelen & Ulrich, 1991), and the
implications of the immature cortex have been related to in-
fant search behavior (Diamond, 1990, 1991). As these last
studies indicate, recent advances in cognitive neuroscience
have also begun to influence developmental psychology
(Diamond, 1990; Greenough, Black, & Wallace, 1987), and
this is another sign of developmental psychologists’ return
to biology. Finally, the resurgence of interest in the types of
evolutionary approaches to the study of human development
represents a return to Darwin’s early efforts to apply evolu-
tionary principles to human development (Bjorklund &
Pellegrini, 2000; Hinde, 1991). Although controversial
(Hinde, 1991), this theorizing clearly illustrates one of the
myriad ways in which psychologists are returning to ques-
tions that were raised by our forebears.
Deepening the Study of Cognitive Development
As part of the current vigorous study of cognitive develop-
ment, researchers have returned to issues of consciousness,
reflection, intention, motivation, and will (Flavell, 1999).
There has been a reemergence of interest in the interplay
between conscious and unconscious processes, an indi-
cation of a willingness to tackle problems that preoc-
cupied our field’s founders but were set aside for nearly a
century. Several investigators (Greenwald, 1992; Kihlstrom,
Barnhardt, & Tataryn, 1992) have developed methods that
permit examination of the impact of unconscious processes
on a variety of cognitive and perceptual processes and allow
methodologically defensible excursions into such classic
clinical issues as repression and self-deception. These meth-
ods could be adapted usefully for developmental studies and
would provide interesting approaches to a range of current is-
sues, from eyewitness testimony to early affective memories.
In turn, such applications would have important implica-
tions for an understanding of effects of early experience and
attachment.
There is also a strong interest in the interplay between
cognition and emotion, as reflected in the activity surround-
ing children’s understanding of emotion (Harris, 1989;
Saarni, 1999). Most recently, the range of emotions under in-
vestigation has expanded to include self-conscious emotions
such as shame, guilt, pride, empathy, and envy, topics that
were anticipated by Freud and others but were of little inter-
est for many years (Denham, 1998; Eisenberg, 1991; Lewis,
1992).Appreciation of the Role of Culture in DevelopmentOne of the major shifts in our thinking about development in
the current era is our recognition of the central role played by
culture. Since the 1980s, more attention has been given to
contributions of culture to our theoretical explanations of de-
velopment (e.g., Gauvain, 2001; Rogoff, 1990). One example
is the cross-cultural studies of infant–parent attachment, in
which wide disparities were found in the distribution of
infants in terms of their attachment classifications. Although
the measures show securely attached infant–mother relations
in 57% of American samples, the rate drops to 33% in sam-
ples tested in northern Germany (Grossman, Grossman,
Spangler, Suess, & Unzner, 1985). These and other findings
underscore the need to consider cultural influences in our
developmental theories.
Similarly, there have been advances, albeit limited, in our
understanding of intracultural and socioeconomic differences
in the United States (Parke & Buriel, 1998). Although
African American children have received the most attention,
other groups, including Latino and Asian American children,
are beginning to be more commonly included in develop-
mental investigations (McLoyd, Cauce, Takeuchi, & Wilson,
2000; Steinberg, Dornbusch, & Brown, 1992). These varia-
tions across ethnic lines represent important opportunities to
explore the universality of psychological processes and to
provide naturally occurring variations in the relative salience
of key determinants of social, emotional, and cognitive de-
velopment. These studies may provide a better basis for guid-
ing policies, programs, and culturally sensitive interventions