Culture and developmental trajectories: a discussion on contemporary theoretical models

PREPRINT of the paper: Carvalho, R. V. C., Seidl-de-Moura, M. L., Martins, G. D. F., & Vieira, M. L. (2014). Culture and Developmental Trajectories: A discussion on contemporary theoretical

models.

Early

Child

Development

and

Care.

doi

10.1080/03004430.2013.871273 Published paper available at: http://www.tandfonline.com/eprint/HYzSQQ7b6r77NXxfU6Gh/full#.UxUa_ePxrIY

Culture and Developmental Trajectories: A discussion on contemporary theoretical models

Rafael Vera Cruz de Carvalho Maria Lucia Seidl-de-Moura University of the State of Rio de Janeiro Gabriela Dal Forno Martins Federal University of Rio Grande do Sul Mauro Luís Vieira Federal University of Santa Catarina

Acknowledgements: This paper was possible thanks to the following funding: a doctoral scholarship by Carlos Chagas Filho Research Support of the State of Rio de Janeiro (FAPERJ) and the mentored fellowship by International Society for the Study of Behavioural Development and Jacobs Foundation, both granted to first author; grants by FAPERJ, to

the second author; by National Council for Scientific and Technological Development (CNPq) to the second and the forth authors; and a doctoral scholarship by CNPq to the third author. The authors also would like to thank Professor Toni Antonucci for her precise review of this paper. Correspondences concerning this article should be addressed to Rafael Vera Cruz de Carvalho, e-mail: .

Abstract This paper aims to describe, compare and discuss the theoretical models proposed by Patricia Greenfield, Çiğdem Kağitçibaşi and Heidi Keller. Their models have the common goal of understanding the developmental trajectories of self based on dimensions of autonomy and relatedness that are structured according to specific cultural and environmental aspects. They bring an important contribution to research in the area of Psychology that takes into account the role of context. Greenfield emphasizes the importance of socio-demographic variables and social change. For Kağitçibaşi, family plays an important role in self development, which is understood from two dimensions: agency and interpersonal distance. Finally, Keller contributes to understanding the biologically cultural nature of human development, considering phylogenetic and ontogenetic aspects. The integration and further methodological improvements of three models may have important contributions to the understanding of developmental trajectories in their universal, cultural and socio-demographic aspects.

Keywords: developmental trajectories, self, theoretical models, autonomy, relatedness, social development.

Short biography of authors: Rafael Vera Cruz de Carvalho is a doctoral student in Social Psychology at the University of the State of Rio de Janeiro (UERJ) and has a Master degree in Social Psychology from the same Graduate Program. His research interests are empathy development, family communication and developmental trajectories of self on an evolutionary developmental perspective. E-mail: [email protected] Maria Lucia Seidl-de-Moura has PhD in Cognitive Psychology from Getúlio Vargas Foundation – RJ and a Postdoctoral degree in Experimental Psychology from University of São Paulo and in Clinical Psychology from the Catholic University of Rio de Janeiro. She works at the Graduate Program in Social Psychology at UERJ and coordinates the research group Social Interaction and Development. E-mail: [email protected] Gabriela Dal Forno Martins is a doctoral student in Psychology at the Federal University of Rio Grande do Sul (UFRGS) and member of the Childhood and Family Center at the same university. She works in the field of Child Developmental Psychology

and

its

interface

with

Education

and

Health.

E-mail:

[email protected] Mauro Luís Vieira has PhD in Experimental Psychology from the University of São Paulo and a Postdoctoral degree from Dalhousie University in Halifax, Canada. He works with parenting and child development at the Graduate Program in Psychology of the Federal University of Santa Catarina (UFSC) and he coordinates the Center for Research on Child Development. E-mail: [email protected]

Culture and Developmental Trajectories: A discussion on contemporary theoretical models

From birth children are embedded in a social network that facilitates their survival, and allows a gradual appropriation of their cultural environment. The relations established in the initial context of the family are the basis for the development of a sense of self. To understand this process, it is essential to have consistent theoretical models that take into account biological and cultural aspects. We propose to discuss three of those models and we will argue that they provide useful perspectives to study self development as a universal process that follows diverse pathways according to socio-demographic and cultural factors. Evidence has shown that from birth babies have sensory and perceptual abilities and capacities that allow them to process information about themselves, others, and the world in a more complex mode than it was thought some decades ago (Seidl-de-Moura & Ribas, 2004). Around 18 months old, the first signs of self-recognition are evident (Seidl-de-Moura, Bandeira et al., 2012). An important milestone is achieved when children are capable of recognising their own image in the mirror (Keller, 2007). In addition to this activity of more individual origin, self-regulation, the capacity that children have to regulate their behaviour when interacting with others, is developed. The modulation of these processes is constructed in and according to the valued characteristics of specific cultural contexts. As will be discussed, there seems to be a close relationship among parental care systems, socialisation goals parents establish for their children and specific self developmental trajectory based on cultural models (Keller, 2002, 2007).

Self construction relies both on ontogenetic competences of the human baby, and on social interpretations of the self, which are provided through social interactions. The way each cultural group balances individual objectives and desires with the group’s aims and wishes has been identified as an important source of self interpretation (Keller, Harwood & Carlson, 2009). Some concepts have been coined which aim to capture these associations. In social terms, the concepts of individualism and collectivism (Triandis, 1995) were used to measure how much each culture emphasises the competition (emphasis on individual) and cooperation (emphasis on group). In terms of individual processes, Markus and Kitayama (1991) were the first to describe independent and interdependent self construals. Briefly, this distribution affirms that the primary content of independent self is the individual, considering the set of internal attributes that defines the individual. Similarly, the main functional unit of interdependent self is the sense of belonging to a social network. More recently, other authors have proposed that, instead of self typologies, it would be more accurate to consider different self-dimensions, in which individuals would vary (Chirkov, Ryan, Kim & Kaplan, 2003; Kağitçibaşi, 2005, 2007; Keller, 2012; Ryan & Deci, 2000). Based in somewhat different theoretical models, in general, these authors argue that autonomy and relatedness are core dimensions of self, and/or universally evolved needs. Individuals are autonomous when they tend to experience their behaviours as a voluntary manifestation, oriented mainly by their values and beliefs (Ryan & Deci, 2000). This is not exactly equal to being independent. It has to do with agency and decision making. Individuals with inclinations toward connexion of self-others (relation for Kağitçibaşi, 2007 and for Keller, 2012; dependency for Chirkov et al., 2003), see others as a source of guidance, support and providers of necessities (Chirkov et al., 2003), and behave according to social values and norms.

Whether considered basic human needs or evolved adapted dimensions, autonomy and relatedness in some degree are part of the experiences of all members of our species (Chirkov et al., 2003; Deci & Ryan, 2007; Kağitçibaşi, 2005, 2007; Milyavskaya; Ingras et al., 2009; Keller, 2012; Ryan & Deci, 2000). The above named theorists do not see those dimensions as incompatible and their balance is recognised as important to the individual’s well-being (Sheldon & Niemiec, 2006). However, it is in Keller (e.g. Keller, Harwood et al. 2009), Kağitçibaşi (2007) and Greenfield (2009) that we find the discussion of how those dimensions assume a cultural form and tend to be structured in certain ways consistent with the social and ecological environment. The authors’ models propose different priority levels attributed to the individual self and to relations with the group. This does not imply that cultures can be easily classified in one or another mode, but that each culture solves in a unique way the universal tasks of satisfying the needs of autonomy and relatedness, hence influencing individuals’ self development. As a result, when considering the diversity of environments and cultures in which human beings are raised, distinct developmental trajectories can be observed. Those trajectories are understood as a coherent and significant organisation of a sequence of developmental tasks throughout the life cycle (Greenfield, Keller, Fuligni & Maynard, 2003). Developmental trajectories are thus the reflection on the development of parental beliefs and practises that are immersed in the culture and in the ecological environment which surrounds them. They are organised around the dimensions of autonomy and relatedness, indexes of how people from each cultural context deals with the association self-others. Three eminent developmental researchers have proposed and tested what we believe are the main theoretical models aiming at explaining and describing self

development as both universally and culturally situated process: Çiğdem Kağitçibaşi, Patricia Greenfield and Heidi Keller. Reviewing the literature, although recognising the existence of other important theories, such as Self Determination Theory (Ryan & Deci 2000), we have chosen these three authors’ models for their consistent contribution to the field, and for the amount and diversity of research longitudinal, cross-sectional, experimental, and cross-cultural they have inspired and generated. They all take into account biological and cultural factors. They are also both contextual and developmental. In addition, these theoretical models have been examined for several decades and have proven to be robust. Our choice was based on the above criteria and on the possible implications of the models for the study of human development. We believe that the study of self developmental trajectories, according to the dimensions of autonomy and relatedness, can contribute to the understanding of the variations between developmental contexts and, at the same time, to the identification of general aspects of human development. Moreover, the study of development on a contextual and cross-cultural approach, can contribute to the debate concerning different socialisation models and their impact on individual development. In view of this, and considering the criteria of the models’ strength, the objective of this paper is to present and discuss the theoretical models of Ç. Kağitçibaşi, P. Greenfield and H. Keller and their implications to new investigations in the field of Developmental Psychology. We will present the three models, focusing on their theoretical and methodological underpinnings, beginning with Kağitçibaşi’s which is historically the first in the literature. In the second session, we will discuss and identify similarities and differences among them. Finally, we will present our considerations of the implications of integrating these models to developmental psychology research.

1 Theoretical Models of Developmental Trajectories 1.1 Kağitçibaşi’s Model of Family Change and Integrative Synthesis Of the three theoretical models, the first to appear formally was Kağitçibaşi’s. The preliminary form of the theory was presented in 1985 (Kağitçibaşi, 1985). Çiğdem Kağitçibaşi is a researcher and director of the Centre for Gender and Women’s Studies at Koç University in Istanbul, Turkey, and since 1970s has studied social change and its effects on development. Focusing on Social Psychology and the development of the self, Kağitçibaşi conducted studies mainly in Turkey, where she has also maintained an intervention project (Turkish Early and Enrichment Project) as an extensive longitudinal study, covering the last 22 years. In her book, Kağitçibaşi (2007) introduces herself as a scholar of development from a functional and transcultural perspective. Her emphasis is on a theoretical view of development (ontogeny) inserted in a macro social context, reflecting on issues of development (socioeconomic dimensions) at the country level, in the contemporary world, with a strong influence of Social and Transcultural Psychology. She does not deny the evolutionary view or the ‘micro-processes’ of development, but they do not represent her main focus of interest. The Kağitçibaşi (2007) model has been consistent since her first publications in the 1980s. Her Family Change Theory (FCT) integrates an understanding of family development with the dynamics of autonomy and relatedness. FCT is a contextual model that considers different levels. At a macro-level, there is the overall cultural orientation, toward individualism versus collectivism, the general level of affluence (Gross National Product and Human development Index) and the degree of urbanization (urban or rural communities). Those conditions entail different types of family structure

(nuclear or extended) related to varied fertility rates. Finally, varied family systems are produced related to those structures, in which parental beliefs, values and childrearing practises are observed, and have a major influence on self development. The author’s main objective was to build a model that enables the understanding of the relationship between culture, family and self development. Thus, her theoretical model includes not only the contributions of the different developmental trajectories of the self, but also its different constitutive dimensions. The main argument of Kağitçibaşi’s model is that autonomy and relatedness are not opposite ends of a continuum, but both complement each other and are essential for development. This argument was already introduced in Kağitçibaşi (1996) and has been present in her work since then (Kağitçibaşi, 2007, 2012). For the author, understanding autonomy and relatedness as incompatible is an individualistic bias, common in Western Psychology (Kağitçibaşi, 2012). It was Kağitçibaşi who introduced the notion of autonomousrelated self (Kağitçibaşi, 1996), including a dynamic interplay of autonomy and the proximity to others. Kağitçibaşi (2005, 2007, 2012) proposes that the self represents two distinct dimensions: agency and interpersonal distance (or connexion). The first involves the degree of autonomy in an individual’s functioning and can vary from a high level of autonomy (where one acts according to one’s own laws) to heteronomy (in which the individual acts in accordance with the opinion of others). In turn, interpersonal distance is related to the degree of self-other proximity, and varies from relatedness (high degree of self-other relationship) to separation (low degree of self-other relationship). According to Kağitçibaşi, the agency and interpersonal distance dimensions are separate but coexisting, resulting in different types of family and self orientation (Kağitçibaşi,

2007, 2012; Mayer, Trommsdorff, Kağitçibaşi & Mishra, 2012). In her work, Kağitçibaşi has emphasised three main family models: 1) Family model of independence (fosters the development of autonomousseparated selves) – Prevalent in Western cultures, with an individualistic orientation, and affluent and educated nuclear families. In this type of family, intergenerational independence is valued, and socialisation goals are independence and uniqueness or autonomy. The child has a psychological value of personal satisfaction to parents. These values are related to low fertility rates, high investment in a small number of children, and the use of care practises that prioritize the development of the child’s selfconfidence and self-worth, and less development of closeness to others. 2) Family model of (total) interdependence (fosters the development of heteronomous related selves) – This type of family is characteristic of non-Western less affluent subsistence based cultures, with lower social-economic development. They are usually found in rural areas, and are less affected by modernization processes. A high fertility rate is common and children are seen to have an economic/ utilitarian value for the family, since they can help with the family’s livelihood. According to Kağitçibaşi (2007), intergenerational interdependence is a requirement for family life, and children are expected to contribute throughout their lives to the family’s well-being, including providing care for parents in old age. Care practises are based on the children’s closeness, obedience, and family loyalty. Thus, material and emotional interdependency are strongly valued. 3) Family model of emotional or psychological interdependence (fosters the development of autonomous-related selves) – In this kind of family the interdependence is emotional, not material. The value of material interdependency is diminished. This model is prevalent in families that live in traditionally interdependent contexts that have

undergone modernization processes including urbanization, economic development and educational opportunities. In these families, the child’s involvement in terms of obedience and utilitarianism is no longer needed and valued. Furthermore, the emotional closeness and relationship orientation are preserved. Thus, care practises continue prioritizing control and proximity, since separation is not a goal. Children are expected to develop autonomy, to make decisions and act by themselves. In this context an integrative synthesis permits the development of autonomous-related selves. Kağitçibaşi (2007) considers these three trajectories ideal models, not descriptions of real families. Each trajectory represents a theoretical approach to multiple family configurations. The trajectory of emotional or psychological interdependence expresses the possibility of combining the other two trajectories. At the same time, this trajectory demonstrates how social and economic changes have an impact on the family system and the development of individuals. Thus, her theory has implications for modernization theory, and suggests different possibilities than those approved by classical perspectives. According to classical perspectives, urbanization, modernization and social-economic changes lead necessarily to a Western independent model, of autonomy and separation from others, and even alienation. In the third model proposed by Kağitçibaşi we can see that this is not a predetermined outcome of modernization, since we can have a model of emotional interdependency together with autonomy and individual freedom (Mayer, Trommsdorff, Kağitçibaşi & Mishra, 2012). With this conception of alternative results of modernization, Kağitçibaşi (2012) argues that an autonomous-related self can be a goal of healthy psychological development, because it contemplates what is required in a globalised world: the value of people who can make decisions and act autonomously, but are also able to relate and cooperate with others. Thus, the autonomous-related model could be a powerful tool for

a socio-economic transformation in developing countries, i.e., what Kağitçibaşi calls the ‘Majority World’ (Kağitçibaşi, 2007, 2012). Studies about Kağitçibaşi’s model have followed different paths. They have been mostly cross-cultural, using different sets of scales and instruments, including the author’s (Kağitçibaşi, 2007) scales and other similar instruments. Kağitçibaşi’s scales have been translated and adapted to other cultures (e.g., Seidl-de-Moura, Ziviani, Fioravanti-Bastos & Carvalho, 2013). Recently, Mayer, Trommsdorff, Kağitçibaşi and Mishra (2012) have used a questionnaire measuring cultural and family values, intergenerational quality and support, an instrument of individualism and collectivism – COLINDEX (Chan, 1994) and the value of children. The second important methodological contribution is the vast array of data from the author’s intervention programme. Kağitçibaşi, Sunar, Bekman, Baydar and Cemalcilar (2009) have followed the effects of the ‘Turkish Early Enrichment Programme (TEEP)’ for 22 years. Measures included mothers’ orientation toward the children, their values and expectation, the value they attributed to their children, and childrearing practises, besides family relations and satisfaction with self and life in general. Children were subject to cognitive and social assessments initially; after seven years they were interviewed and took vocabulary and cognitive tests; participants of the original programme were evaluated 22 years later in terms of educational history, occupational status, attitudes toward child rearing and family life. The authors have found that high-quality early childhood enrichment in deprived environments provided by their intervention has positive effects into young adulthood. Both mother training and preschool education showed long standing benefits, such as higher school attainment and higher occupational status for those who have undergone the TEEP.

1.2 Greenfield’s Model of Social Changes and Development Patricia Greenfield is a researcher and professor in Developmental Psychology at the University of California – Los Angeles (UCLA), United States. She is interested in the research on the relation between biology and culture (Greenfield, 2002). In the last decades, her studies have focused on the effect of technology on infant education, developmental aspects, intervention projects, and training professionals who work in schools in different cultures. In the early 1990’s, Greenfield organised with other authors an international workshop which became a special issue of the International Journal of Behavioral Development (Greenfield, 1993) and later a book (edited by Greenfield and Cocking, in 1994), expanding on these issues. Greenfield noted that these thoughts related not only to minority child development, but are also relevant to child development in general. Greenfield (1993, 1994) considers relative emphasis on individuality or collectivity, since every human society has to face this balance within their cultural context. Her argument is based on a cross-cultural, sociological, and anthropological approach designed to avoid an ethnocentric view of individualistic development as universal. Within this perspective, she stresses the idea that independence and interdependence are both human needs. Greenfield (2009) wrote a widely cited review in which she presented the relations between socio-demographic changes and developmental trajectory changes and proposed a Theory of Social Change. She is particularly interested in understanding how socio-demographic changes lead to changes in other levels, such as individuals’ cognitive and social development. This interest was already present in Greenfield (1993, 1994), but in the 2009 paper, she presents a more structured and novel theoretical framework.

Her model defines two socio-demographic prototypes that lead to distinct developmental trajectories. She uses two German terms to represent these prototypes: Gemeinschaft (community) and Gesellschaft (society), proposed by Tönnies in 1887. Gemeinschaft environments are characterized by relatively homogeneous small rural groups with low educational level, whose economy is based on subsistence, employing unsophisticated technology and simple labor division. In contrast, Gesellschaft environments involve large scale heteronymous urban populations, with high educational levels and advanced technology, whose economies are complex and characterized by very wide labor divisions and by activities related to commerce and accumulation of goods. For Greenfield (2009), the use of these prototypes contributes to the understanding of social change, since they establish extreme boundaries in which different characteristics can vary. Thus, the aspects that define the prototypes are presented by Greenfield (2009) as grouped dimensions, all varying on a continuum, from the Gemeinschaft pole to the Gesellschaft pole. The socio-demographic dimension is the basis of this model and is related to ecology (size of the location, its access by other locations, intern homogeneity, access to education and technology, type of labor division and means of production – rural or urban); economy (type of the livelihood activity – subsistence or accumulation of goods – and degree of wealth); and social relationships (duration of social relationships and degree of interdependence on relatives). This basis affects, through cultural values, the learning environment, which in turn affects individual development. Greenfield (2009) rejects the dichotomy between cultures and individuals. She argues that there is diversity in the ways autonomy and relatedness are expressed throughout the world and some are more adjusted to Gemeinschaft conditions and others to Gesellschaft environments.

Greenfield (2009) argues in favour of her theory of the social change and human development with examples of prototypical environments and environments going through changes resulting from historical events. She considers them part of the continuum from individualism (social level) / independence (psychological level) to collectivism (social level) / interdependence (psychological level). In this view, Greenfield (1994) suggests that the more a society values the presence of one script, the more absent is the other one. Cultural values are adjusted to socio-demographic variables, as much as the learning environment is adjusted by parents in the relation to their children’s development (Greenfield, 1994, 2009). In this way, although Greenfield (2009) has emphasised socio-demographic changes as a trigger of social change, she considers individuals as active in this process. Individuals make adjustments to adapt themselves to changes in their ecology and social organisation. Those adjustments can happen either in an endogenous way (changes inside the same context), or in an exogenous way (changes of people from one ecological context to another). She exemplifies this with the case of Latin immigrant mothers who pursue educational opportunities for their children that they did not have. Greenfield’s methodological contribution is significant. From her first studies with Bruner, she has demonstrated the role of culture in human development. The experience of trying to make cross-cultural comparisons of children’s cognitive development as well as several other culturally related studies (Rogoff & Chavajay, 1995 for a review) has led to her criticism of some common methodological practises. According to Greenfield (1997), the alternative is to perform in depth long term cultural studies with an anthropological perspective (as in the title: ‘ability assessments don’t cross cultures’). This is what she has done for more than 20 years, in a Zinacantec Mayan group in Chiapas, Mexico. She also suggests that ‘to elucidate cultural

differences in an unbiased fashion, it is best to have a bicultural (or multicultural) team and to collaboratively develop a single instrument for all the cultures before the study begins’ (p. 5). In general, Greenfield’s strategy has been to use a comprehensive methodological approach, by combining different instruments that produce different kinds of data. Observation, interviews, analyses of cultural productions (e. g., weaving) and socio-demographic variables have been an important source of knowledge and evidence for her theoretical model. In terms of data analysis, her studies have used both qualitative and quantitative analyses, allowing the understanding of the multiple dimensionality of social changes. For example, to investigate historical changes in weaving apprenticeship model of Zinacantec Maya children, Greenfield, Maynard and Childs (2003) coded videos using behavioural categories and statistically compared them between waves of data collections. On the other hand, to understand how individuals make adjustments to adequately prepare themselves to changes in their ecology and social organisation, Manago and Greenfield (2011) used narrative life stories of four Mayan women, and present the results in a case study format.

1.3 Keller’s Model of Socialisation Trajectories and Parenting Systems Heidi Keller is a professor and researcher at the Universität Osnabrück, Osnabrück, Germany. She is the Director of the Research Unit for Culture, Learning and Development at the Lower Saxoninan Institute of Early Childhood Education and Development (NIFBE, in German). She has published in recent decades many papers, books and book chapters, discussing the relationship between biology and culture, socialisation trajectories and parental care systems.

Keller introduces a theory consistent with the Evolutionary Psychology evidence, relating it to Developmental Psychology. She has a particular interest in understanding how different universal developmental tasks (e. g., acquisition of a sense of self) are solved in specific environments. More specifically, this author has an interest in understanding the impact of early caregiver-infant interactions on the development of self. In the book ‘Cultures of Infancy’, Keller (2007) presents the basis of her theory in detail, and provides empirical evidence for it. The first chapters are devoted to what the author calls ‘Psychobiology of Infancy’, which includes both babies’ and caregivers’ universal predispositions for their first social interactions. Regarding caregivers, Keller (2002) proposed the ‘Component Model of Parenting’, which includes parental systems (different types of care) and interactional mechanisms (modulators of interaction) that are performed intuitively by caregivers in different parts of the world. The parenting systems include: basic/ primary care, body contact, body stimulation, object stimulation, face-to-face exchanges, and narrative envelope. (Keller, 2002, 2007). Those systems are considered as the parents’ and children’s preparation for socialisation and they are seen as flexible when facing the diversity of developmental contexts. They are universal, but show different distribution depending on the diversity of the developmental pathways. For example, two major types of care have been indicated in observational studies by Keller and colleagues: the distal style and proximal style (Keller et al., 2004; Keller, Borke, Yovsi, Lohaus, & Jensen, 2005; Keller, 2007; Keller et al., 2009; Keller, Borke, Lamm, Lohaus, & Yovsi, 2010). In the distal style, the strategy focuses on face-to-face interactions and on stimulation with objects. It also includes mechanisms of attention and exclusive dyadic contingencies in reaction to

positive signs by the child, providing an experience of autonomy and separation. The proximal style, in turn, is characterized by body contact and body stimulation, and shared attention mechanisms, contingency to stress signs from the child, ensuring the child a warm and close interpersonal relationship. The two styles of care identified by Keller and colleagues have been associated with specific social-demographic environments (Keller et al., 2004, Keller et al., 2005; Keller, 2007; Keller et al., 2009, Keller et al., 2010). These empirical studies have shown that the distal style is more characteristic of caregivers with high levels of education and those living in Western, highly urbanized and industrialised contexts. On the other hand, the proximal style is more characteristic of caregivers with low levels of education and those living in rural and subsistence contexts. Yet, a balanced presence of elements from both styles has been observed in intermediate environments, traditionally rural, but that have been undergone a socioeconomic development process, and the caregivers have higher levels of education. More recently, Keller (2012) and Keller and Kärtner (2013) have proposed that these three specific social-demographic environments result in three different cultural models that influence self development in specific ways. In this sense, in each model, caregivers emphasise different modes of autonomy and relatedness, differently sensitizing children to specific elements of their social and nonsocial environment (Keller & Kärtner, 2013). The first two models (Western urban middle-class families and subsistence-based farming ecologies) would be more prototypical and the third (non-Western, highly educated, urban middle-class families) would be a hybrid between the other two. However, according to Keller (2012), there are many possible combinations between the two prototypical environments and they are not the opposites of a single dimension, but they represent two very qualitatively contrasting

environments. Her conception of context involves a cultural environment, which combines individual social-demographic characteristics, not countries or societies (Keller, 2012). The psychological-autonomous model would generally be the cultural milieu of Western urban middle-class families (Keller & Kärtner, 2013). Psychological autonomy and psychological relatedness are the types of autonomy and relatedness emphasised in this model. Psychological autonomy centres on the exploration and reflective awareness of personal desires, wishes, and intentions, and is the leading principle for the embodiment of relatedness. So, psychological relatedness consists of a separation mode of relatedness, in which social relationships tend to be more instrumental and are regulated according to individuals’ desires, goals and needs. In turn, the hierarchical-relational model would generally be the cultural milieu of subsistence-based farming families (Keller & Kärtner, 2013). In this case, the emphasis on communal goals and obligations leads to the primacy of action autonomy and hierarchical relatedness. Action autonomy is defined as ‘the individual’s selfregulated capacity to perform complex behavioural necessities, including setting goals, planning, and executing actions independently’ (Keller & Kärtner, 2013, p. 76). In turn, hierarchical relatedness entails the presence of obligatory relationships characterized by ranked and interdependent roles that are mandatory. In this sense, action autonomy is in the service of the hierarchical relatedness, because this kind of autonomy emphasises self-regulated accomplishment of role-based obligations and responsibilities. Finally, a hybrid model would generally be peculiar to non-Western, highly educated, urban middle-class families. Citing Kağitçibaşi’s contributions, Keller and Kärtner (2013) affirm that this cultural model reflects adaptive changes to a global pattern of urbanization and socio-economic development, which leads to the need to

adopt autonomous values, although strong social cohesion and family orientation continue to organise and dominate most spheres of life. This context leads to the primacy of two different modes of autonomy and relatedness: the communal psychological autonomy and the communal psychological relatedness. This model of autonomy reflects the convergence of individual actions and decisions to the group values, especially the family. Then, communal psychological autonomy implies that the communal goals are experienced as internal values. The same principle defines the manifestation of relatedness, which is regulated by the coordinated network of goals, desires, and needs of different individuals in a relationship. In synthesis, Keller proposes that there is variety in autonomy and relatedness developmental patterns in each cultural environment. And that this variety does not only depend on the degree of emphasis in autonomy or relatedness, but also on the kind of autonomy and relatedness that best fits with environmental demands. She also emphasises that the modes of autonomy and relatedness typical to the hybrid model can assume very different phenotypes, considering the great diversity of contexts (Keller, 2012; Keller & Kärtner, 2013). In this sense, these contexts are more flexible, because ‘communal psychological autonomy and relatedness does not seem to coherently organise all spheres of life’ (Keller & Kärtner, 2013, p. 78). In the same manner as the two previous authors, Keller has made long standing and significant methodological contributions. Some of her early studies were observational with very fine microanalyses, focusing on mother-infant interactions and responsivity. Coding systems for different observational studies were developed for diverse age levels and tasks, such as self recognition and self regulation. These have been used extensively in cross-cultural studies. Interview approaches have also been developed, such as a set of photographs presented to mothers to elicit their belief about

parental systems. They have been explored both quantitatively and qualitatively by discourse analysis (Keller, Demuth, & Yovsi, 2008). Scales on socialisation goals and practises targeting different developmental pathways were constructed and have been translated and adapted for various cultures. The studies have been conducted in different settings, both in the natural environment and in the laboratory. They have been crosscultural, cross-sectional and longitudinal. Keller has been conducting a longitudinal study for more than 10 years. Her approach to analysis has also been diversified, using quantitative and qualitative techniques (Keller, 2007).

2 Theoretical models and methodologies: A comparative analysis The theoretical models presented show many commonalities and differences in some important aspects. In this section we present a comparison between the models of Greenfield, Kağitçibaşi and Keller, which was drawn based on these authors’ classic and contemporary chapters and articles. It is important to emphasise that this comparison aims to support the analysis of specific implications of each model to the field of Developmental Psychology, especially to research in this area. Next, we are going to discuss both theoretical concepts and methodologies used by each author. If we consider these researchers’ theoretical approach, academic formation and empirical studies, we can see that Keller and Greenfield give emphasis to Developmental Psychology, with Keller adding an evolutionary view. Kağitçibaşi has a greater interest in a Social Psychology approach, highlighting macro-social aspects, inserting development in this context. From a methodological point of view, we understand that the three authors work on cross-cultural and longitudinal studies, with some differences: Greenfield has an approach related to Sociology (evaluation of demographic data) and Anthropology

(questionnaires and ethnographic field observation); Kağitçibaşi makes less use of observation and relies on scales and questionnaires. In turn, Keller uses a more varied set of strategies for data collection and also includes experiments. Two of the authors have developed instruments. Kağitçibaşi created the Autonomous, Related and Autonomous-related self Scales (published in her book, Kağitçibaşi, 2007). Keller produced the Socialisation Goals and Parental Practises Scales (Keller, 2007). This author also created coding systems based on the parental systems and interactional mechanisms used by the parents in interaction with the child (Keller, 2007). An important difference among the three authors is how they understand the types of self and the dimensionality of their theoretical models. Kağitçibaşi suggests two dimensions, agency and interpersonal distance, respectively on a continuum ranging from autonomy to heteronomy and other separation to relatedness. These produce four types of self: autonomous-separate, heteronomous-separate, autonomousrelated and heteronomous-related. Keller conceives three types of self, and stresses that two of them are prototypical and represent the cultural milieu of contexts with extreme characteristics, and the third is a hybrid model of self that can assume different phenotypes, resulting from great diversity of contexts. Keller also believes that there is a variety of shapes between these types of self, but not on a continuum; perhaps the branches of a tree would be an illustrative metaphor. For Greenfield, developmental trajectories are presented as a continuum (one dimension), ranging from one extreme of independence to the other extreme of interdependence; related autonomy is in the middle of these two poles and vary by socio-demographic characteristics which are also presented in a continuum. She does not consider them as prototypical, as Keller. The same differences can be seen in the environment assumption that the authors present. For Greenfield, there would be two polarised environments and she uses German terms

to describe them: Gemeinschaft (community) and Gesellschaft (society). Here all the authors also consider the evidence about social change in a globalised world, which have transformed contexts from Gemeinschaft to Gesellschaft, although Keller does not emphasise these changes. Kağitçibaşi and Keller have more similar definitions of environment, delimitating the socio-demographic conditions in which development occurs. Greenfield also indicates that socio-demographic variables have great importance in her model, and she formally defines them as being encompassed by the concepts of Gemeinschaft and Gesellschaft. In terms of nomenclature, Greenfield, Keller and Kağitçibaşi most frequently use the terms ‘trajectories or pathways of development’; ‘developmental trajectories’ and ‘socialisation strategies, development pathways’ respectively. However, this does not seem to reflect a different view on these concepts among them.

3 Implications of each theoretical model for Developmental Psychology The dimensions of autonomy and relatedness are important components of the self and significantly guide the developmental course in specific contexts. The three models presented, argue in favour of this idea, although each in a somewhat different fashion. Each suggests that these factors help to understand the relationship between individual, socio-demographic and cultural characteristics. However, in order to assess the contribution of each theoretical model presented, it is necessary to create certain parameters and we identify the following assumptions: 1) The complexity of human development and the active role of the individual (with his/her phylogenetic and ontogenetic history) in this process in interaction with the environment, and 2) Autonomy and relatedness as two basic needs (structural dimension), with different dynamics depending on the social context (functional dimension). From these

principles, a careful analysis of the models reveals their implications for future investigations in Developmental Psychology. The three authors consider that there is a complexity in ontogenetic development that results from the interaction between different levels, from individual to broader ones (e. g., social and cultural context). However, they understand the individual’s role in this process differently. Greenfield has as a primary focus the macro-social dimensions, both socioeconomic and cultural characteristics. Her interest lies in understanding how changes in these levels affect human development, but specifically in cognitive and social dimensions. It reflects in her methodological approach, which is predominantly based on studying cultural groups from within (e. g, weaving in Zinacantecans), analysing how daily chores are expressions of a wider system of shared values. Kağitçibaşi understands that the specific characteristics of the family mediate the influence of macro-social aspects (socioeconomic and cultural context) over individual development. In this sense, she takes into account specific patterns of relationship in the family (roles played by members in terms of rigidity or flexibility and intergenerational factors), since this is considered to be the link between beliefs and more general values, and the individual. These aspects are applied in her methodological design in following families longitudinally, especially in her TEEP study. For Keller, the notion of the individual is highlighted considering the phylogenetic history. For example, babies, with their skills and abilities (which were shaped throughout human evolution), facilitate the bonding process with adults who are around them, indicating that since birth humans play an active role in their social interactions. Other individual variables that must be considered are: sex, age and birth order. Simultaneously, social and cultural aspects are also emphasised, as it can be seen

in her research in different countries. This emphasis on individual characteristics leads to a methodological approach based on microanalyses of interactions between babies and caretakers and their roles. With respect to structural and functional aspects of the concepts of autonomy and relatedness, there are also specificities when comparing the theoretical models in relation to the developmental trajectories. In terms of structure, the models propose, for example, that the dimensions of autonomy and relatedness would be poles of a single continuum (Greenfield), would intersect orthogonally (Kağitçibaşi) or that they would branch in different forms and would combine in different ways (Keller). Kağitçibaşi’s two-dimensional model took a step toward reconciling the structural, functional and conceptual by proposing that autonomy and the relatedness would be each, independently, the extremes of two dimensions: agency and interpersonal distance. Each end of these dimensions could coexist, resulting in four theoretical ‘ideal’ types or of self. The notion of an autonomous-related self has important implications for the development of social policies toward some possible universal contemporary goals for child development as discussed in Kağitçibaşi (2012). Several empirical studies have been based on Kağitçibaşi’s model. Keller was perhaps one of the main authors to use it as a basis for her studies. However, currently she proposes that the dimensions of agency and interpersonal distance take different forms in addition to those defined by Kağitçibaşi (Keller, 2011) and may be combined in various ways (not just orthogonally). Keller’s approach contributes to the understanding of the functional aspect of behavioural development, or the ways in which human beings adapt to extremely distinct and varied living conditions. The author developed new concepts of autonomy and relatedness, which lead to a more reliable understanding of the individuals’

experiences in their real life contexts. She argues that autonomy and relatedness are basic human needs and are present in all individuals, but not experienced in the same way. Greenfield’s continuum view implies that she does not see autonomy and relatedness as totally compatible, but as opposite poles. Thus, the more autonomous, the less related to others and vice versa. And, since she emphasises describing the extremes of this continuum (Gemeinschaft and Gesellschaft), they seem to be her references to understand the cultural contexts she approaches. In addition, her view of a greater tendency of global change from Gemeinschaft to Gesellschaft leads to conceive a group of variables changing into one direction in a societal level that affects the familial and individual levels.

4 Final Considerations The three authors bring important contributions to the development of research that takes into account the role of context. Greenfield emphasises the importance of socio-demographic variables and social change. Kağitçibaşi highlights the importance of the family in these processes and introduces the dimensions of agency and interpersonal distance. Keller is the one of the three authors who is most interested in contributing to the understanding of the development of biologically cultural beings. The greatest current challenge seems to be methodological. In this way, instruments that would translate more faithfully the theoretical framework must be developed. Keller’s scales of beliefs and practises have been translated into various cultures, but they have not been the object of a more specific study to test their validity. Kağitçibaşi’s scales are not focused specifically on parents, such as those proposed by Keller. Kağitçibaşi’s scales were translated into some languages. The Portuguese

version was developed and adapted by Seidl-de-Moura, Ziviani et al. (2012). In this study, it was noted that although every care of translation and adaptation was taken, the scales showed only moderate consistency. Furthermore, the one-dimensional structure of each scale was not evident. For example, there was a reverse grouping of items in the scale of autonomous-self and some items had cross loadings on more than one factor. The authors consider that the adapted version of the Kağitçibaşi’s scales (2007) could be used in research on developmental trajectories in Brazilian contexts, taking into account their moderate indexes of consistency. However, Seidl-de-Moura, Ziviani et al. (2013) concluded that there is a need for the construction of an instrument that would address both dimensions of agency and interpersonal distance, to identify the different models of self with greater consistency. In times of many socioeconomic changes and challenges, the study of developmental trajectories is essential for science to contribute to the discussion about the future of humanity, as indicated by Greenfield. Developmental Psychology, inspired by Evolutionary Psychology, can play an important role in this effort, since it concerns the way in which individuals adapt to their contexts and the consequences that these new adaptations bring to human life. The models discussed here have already generated a great deal of research and have brought important evidences. Their integration accompanied by further methodological improvements will continue to contribute to the understanding of developmental trajectories in their universal and cultural aspects, and to the proposal of intervention programmes and social policies in different contexts.

References Chirkov, V., Ryan, R. M., Kim, Y., & Kaplan, U. (2003). Differentiating autonomy from individualism and independence: A self-determination theory perspective on

internalization of cultural orientations and wellbeing. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 84, 97–109. doi: 10.1037/0022-3514.84.1.97 Deci, E. L., & Ryan, R. M. (2007). Facilitating optimal motivation and psychological well-being across life’s domains. Canadian Psychology, 49(1), 14-23. doi: 10.1037/0708-5591.49.1.14 Greenfield, P. M. (1993). International roots of minority child development introduction to the special issue. International Journal of Behavioral Development, 16(3), 385394. doi: 10.1177/016502549301600301 Greenfield, P. M. (1994). Independence and interdependence as developmental scripts: Implications for theory, research, and practice. In P. M. Greenfield & R. R. Cocking (Eds.), Cross-cultural roots of minority child development (pp. 1-37). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates. Greenfield, P. M. (1997). You can’t take it with you: Why abilities assessments don’t cross cultures. American Psychologist, 52, 1115– 1124. doi: 10.1037/0003066X.52.10.1115 Greenfield, P. M. (2002). The mutual definition of culture and biology in development. In . H. Keller, Y. H. Poortinga, & A. Schoelmerich (Eds.), Between Culture and Biology (pp. 57–76). Cambridge: Cambridge Univ. Press. Greenfield, P. M., Keller, H., Fuligni, A., & Maynard, A. (2003). Cultural pathways through universal development. Annual Review of Psychology, 54, 461–490. doi: 10.1146/annurev.psych.54.101601.145221 Greenfield, P. M., Maynard, A. E., & Childs, C. P. (2003). Historical change, cultural learning, and cognitive representation in Zinacantec Maya children. Cognitive Development, 18, 455–487. doi: 10.1016/j.cogdev.2003.09.004

Greenfield, P. M. (2009). Linking social change and developmental change: Shifting pathways of human development. Developmental Psychology, 45(2), 401-418. doi: 10.1037/a0014726 Kağitçibaşi, Ç. (1985). A model of family change through development: The Turkish family in comparative perspective. In R. Lagunes & Y.H. Poortinga (Eds.), From a different perspective: studies of behavior across cultures (pp. 120-135). Lisse: Swets and Zeitlinger B.V. Kağitçibaşi, Ç. (1996). The autonomous-relational self: A new synthesis. European Psychologist, 1(3), 180-186. doi: 10.1027/1016-9040.1.3.180 Kağitçibaşi, Ç. (2005). Autonomy and relatedness in cultural context: Implications for self and family. Journal of Cross-Cultural Psychology, 36, 403–422. doi: 10.1177/0022022105275959 Kağitçibaşi, Ç. (2007). Family, self, and human development across cultures: theory and applications. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates. Kağitçibaşi, Ç. (2012). Sociocultural change and integrative syntheses in human development: Autonomous-related self and socio-cognitive competence. Child Development Perspectives, 6(1), 5-11. doi: 10.1111/j.1750-8606.2011.00173.x Kağitçibaşi, Ç., Sunar, D., Bekman, S., Baydar, N., & Cemalcilar, Z. (2009). Continuing effects of early enrichment in adult life: The Turkish Early Enrichment Project 22 years later. Journal of Applied Developmental Psychology, 30(6), 764779. doi: 10.1016/j.appdev.2009.05.003 Keller, H. (2002). Development as the interface between biology and culture: A conceptualization of early ontogenetic experiences. In H. Keller, Y. H. Poortinga, & A. Schölmerich (Eds.), Between culture and biology: Perspectives on

ontogenetic development (pp. 215-240). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. doi: 10.1017/CBO9780511489853.011 Keller, H. (2007). Cultures of Infancy. London: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates. Keller, H. (2011). Culture and development: developmental pathways to individualism and interrelatedness. Online Readings in Psychology and Culture, 6. Retrieved from: http://scholarworks.gvsu.edu/orpc/vol6/iss1/1 Keller, H. (2012). Autonomy and relatedness revisited: Cultural manifestations of universal human needs. Child Development Perspectives, 6(1), 12-18. doi: 10.1111/j.1750-8606.2011.00208.x Keller, H., Borke, J., Lamm, B., Lohaus, A., & Yovsi, R. D. (2010). Developing patterns of parenting in two cultural communities. International Journal of Behavioral Development, 35(3), 233–245. doi: 10.1177/0165025410380652 Keller, H., Borke, J., Staufenbiel, T., Yovsi, R.D., Abels, M. Papaligoura, Z., & Su, Y. (2009). Distal and proximal parenting as alternative parenting strategies during infants early months of life: A cross-cultural study. International Journal of Behavioral Development, 33(5), 412-420. doi: 10.1177/0165025409338441 Keller, H., Borke, J., Yovsi, R., Lohaus, A., & Jensen, H. (2005) Cultural orientations and historical changes as predictors of parenting behaviour. International Journal of Behavioral Development, 29(3), 229-237. doi: 10.1177/01650250544000017 Keller, H., Demuth, C., & Yovsi, R. D. (2008). The multivoicedness of independence and interdependence: The case of the Cameroonian Nso. Culture & Psychology, 14(1), 115-144. doi: 10.1177/1354067X07082752 Keller, H., Harwood, R., & Carlson, V. (2009). Culture and developmental pathways of relationship formation. In A. Aksu-Koc & S. Bekman (Eds.), Perspectives on

human development, family and culture (pp. 157-177). Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press. doi: 10.1017/CBO9780511720437.013 Keller, H., & Kärtner, J. (2013). Development. The cultural solution of universal developmental tasks. In M. Gelfand, C. Y. Chiu, & Y. Y. Hong (Eds.), Advances in culture and psychology: Volume 3 (pp. 63-116.). New York, NY: Oxford University Press. Keller, H., Yovsi, R., Borke, J., Kaertner, J., Jensen, H., & Papaligoura, Z. (2004). Developmental consequences of early parenting experiences: Self-recognition and self-regulation in three cultural communities. Child Development, 75(6), 17451770. doi: 10.1111/j.1467-8624.2004.00814.x Kitayama, S., Duffy, S., & Uchida, Y. (2007). Self as cultural mode of being. In S. Kitayama & D. Cohen (Eds.), Handbook of cultural psychology (pp. 136–174). New York: Guilford. Kitayama, S., Markus, H. R., Matsumoto, H., & Norasakkunkit, V. (1997). Individual and collective processes in the construction of the self: Self-enhancement in the United States and self-criticism in Japan. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 72(6), 1245–1267. doi: 10.1037/0022-3514.72.6.1245 Kopp, C. B., & Brownell, C. A. (1991). The development of self: The first 3 years. Developmental Review, 11(3), 195-196. doi: 10.1016/0273-2297(91)90008-C Manago, A., & Greenfield, P. M. (2011). The construction of independent values among Maya women at the forefront of social change: Four case studies. Ethos, 39, 1-29. doi: 10.1111/j.1548-1352.2010.01168.x Markus, H. R., & Kitayama, S. (1991). Culture and the self: Implications for cognition, emotion,

and

motivation.

10.1037/0033-295X.98.2.224

Psychological

Review,

98(2),

224-253.

doi:

Mayer, B., Trommdorff, G., Kağitçibaşi, C., & Mishra, R. C. (2012). Family models of independence / interdependece and their intergenerational similarity in Germany, Turkey

and

India.

Family

Science,

3(1),

64-74.

doi:

10.1080/19424620.2011.671503 Milyavskaya, M., Gingras, I., Mageau, G. A., Koestner, R., Gagnon, H., Fang, J., & Boiche, J. (2009). Balance across contexts: Importance of balanced need satisfaction across various life domains. Personality and Social Psychology, 38, 1031-1045. doi: 10.1177/0146167209337036 Rogoff, B., & Chavajay, P. (1995). What’s become of research on the cultural basis of cognitive development? American Psycholist, 50, 859–877. doi: 10.1037/0003066X.50.10.859 Ryan, R. M., & Deci, E. L. (2000). Self-determination theory and the facilitation of intrinsic motivation, social development and well-being. American Psychologist, 55(1), 68-78. doi: 10.1037/0003-066X.55.1.68 Seidl-de-Moura, M. L, Bandeira, T. T. A., De Marca, R. G., Pessôa, L. F., Mendes, D. M. L. F., Vieira, M. L., & Korbarg, A. P. R. (2012). Self-recognition and selfregulation: The relationship with socialization trajectories and children sex. The Spanish

Journal

of

Psychology,

15(2),

604-612.

doi:

10.5209/rev_SJOP.2012.v15.n2.38871 Seidl-de-Moura, M. L, Mendes, D. M. L. F., Pessôa, L. F., & Marca, R. G. C. (2011). Regulação dos estados de vigília de bebês (um e cinco meses) em contextos diádicos mãe-bebê [Regulation in the baby’s states of consciousness (one and five months) in mother-infant dyadic context]. Psicologia em Pesquisa, 5(1), 51-60. Seidl-de-Moura, M. L., & Ribas, A. F. P. (2004). Evidências sobre características de bebês recém-nascidos: Um convite a reflexões teóricas [Evidence on characteristics

of newborn babies: An invitation to theoretical reflections]. In M L Seidl-de-Moura (Org.). O bebê do século XXI e a psicologia do desenvolvimento. [The baby of the twenty-first century and the developmental psychology] (pp. 21-60). São Paulo: Casa do Psicólogo. Seidl-de-Moura, M. L., & Ribas, A. F. P. (2009). Evolução e desenvolvimento humano [Evolution and human development]. In M. E. Yamamoto & E. Otta (Orgs.). Psicologia evolucionista [Evolutionary Psychology]. (pp. 77-85). Rio de Janeiro: Guanabara Coogan. Seidl-de-Moura, M. L., Ziviani, C., Fioravanti-Bastos, A. C., & Carvalho, R. V. C. (2013). Adaptação brasileira das escalas de self autônomo, relacionado e autônomorelacionado de Ç. Kağitçibaşi [Brazilian adaptation of Ç. Kağitçibaşi’s scales of autonomous, related and autonomous-related self]. Avaliação Psicológica, 12, 193201. Sheldon, K. M., & Niemiec, C. P. (2006). It’s not just the amount that counts: Balanced need satisfaction also affects well-being. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 91, 331-341. doi: 10.1037/0022-3514.91.2.331 Triandis, H. C. (1995). Individualism and collectivism. Boulder, CO: Westview.