A Blueprint for Social Cognitive Development

Author(s): Kristina R. Olson and Carol S. Dweck

Source: Perspectives on Psychological Science , May, 2008, Vol. 3, No. 3 (May, 2008), pp.
193-202
Published by: Sage Publications, Inc. on behalf of Association for Psychological Science

Stable URL: https://www.jstor.org/stable/40212244

JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide
range of content in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and
facilitate new forms of scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact support@jstor.org.

Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of the Terms & Conditions of Use, available at
https://about.jstor.org/terms

Sage Publications, Inc. and Association for Psychological Science are collaborating with JSTOR
to digitize, preserve and extend access to Perspectives on Psychological Science

This content downloaded from

99.199.13.191 on Tue, 28 May 2024 17:16:10 +00:00
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
 PERSPECTIVES ON PSYCHOLOGICAL SCIENCE

A Blueprint for Social Co

Development
Kristina R. Olson1 and Carol S. Dweck2

harvard University and 2 Stanford University

ABSTRACT - The field of social cognitive development housed in the same departments, and even within the same ar-
(SCD) has historically failed to emerge as a dominant eas, there may be little collaboration between the researchers
approach in developmental psychology. We take this op- involved in these two lines of work.) In the valley between them
portunity to articulate the assumptions, goals, and con- sits SCD. In this article, we explain why researchers should
tributions of SCD with the aim of invigorating research venture into that territory and show how this will generate dis-
from this perspective. We begin by describing the current tinct, important knowledge while enriching traditional research
landscape of social and cognitive development, suggesting in both social and cognitive development. As we will suggest,
what they have and have not given us. We then outline SCD also provides a bridge to other areas of psychology in-
major goals of the social cognitive developmental ap- cluding social psychology, cognitive psychology, and neu-
roscience.
proach and walk through examples of successful SCD re-
search. Finally, we examine the unique potential of the At its core, SCD is a field concerned with how mental repre-
social cognitive approach to cross-fertilize social and sentations and mental processes relevant to social development
cognitive development (as well as related fields such as change across development. It also involves the study of how
social psychology and neuroscience) and to answer new these mental representations and processes may mediate or
questions about development. moderate the impact of particular antecedents (e.g., parental
input) on children's outcomes (e.g., well-being). In this article,
we describe what makes SCD unique, but we start by sketching,
Over the last 50 years, psychology has become divided into more in greatly simplified form, the fields of social development and
and more specific subfields. Cognitive psychology is separate cognitive development as they currently exist, suggesting how
from social psychology, which is separate from clinical and each might benefit from a social cognitive developmental ap-
developmental psychology. Even within areas, there is often proach. As with any summary such as this, there are research
further separation as represented by our many journal clubs, lab programs that do not fit our general characterizations. Despite
groups, and brown bags. Yet recently, the pendulum has begun to this limitation, we intend our summary to serve as a springboard
swing back, with more research programs and journals devoted for our later points.
to the explicit crossing of traditional boundaries, such as the new In addition, we emphasize that we are not arguing that one of
work emerging in social cognitive and affective neuroscience. these fields is superior to the other or that either field should be
One advantage of these new intersecting fields is that they unite replaced by SCD. Rather, we would suggest that each of these
diverse psychologists around common methods, research fields has set out to answer a particular set of questions and has
questions, and terminology, thus producing not only new evolved a sophisticated set of methods and statistical techniques
knowledge, but new knowledge that is accessible to more psy- to address those questions. We do argue, however, that the
chologists. In this article, we argue for the importance of another methods of each field have limited the kinds of questions it can
such integrative field: social cognitive development (SCD). answer and that only by the full inclusion of a social cognitive
At present, developmental psychologists live at the edges of a developmental approach can we begin to attain a complete
great divide. On one side are cognitive developmentalists, and picture of development.
on the other social developmentalists, each going about their Following our descriptions of the fields of social and cognitive
research with differing methods and goals. (Despite often being development, we set forth the SCD approach, including four
research goals. We then provide examples of fruitful SCD re-
search to date, examples of current research topics within social
Address correspondence to Kristina R. Olson, who is now at De-
and cognitive development that are prime for the adoption of a
partment of Psychology, Yale University, Box 208205, New Haven,
CT 06520-8205; e-mail: kristina.olson@yale.edu. more thorough social cognitive developmental approach, and

Volume 3- Number 3 Copyright © 2008 Association for Psychological Science 193

This content downloaded from

99.199.13.191 on Tue, 28 May 2024 17:16:10 +00:00
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
 Social Cognitive Development

points of contact between research in SCD and other areas of taking a more social cognitive developmental perspective,
psychology. demonstrate how parenting can affect children's perceptions
of competence and how those perceptions go on to impact
SOCIAL DEVELOPMENT achievement.
Other important examples of the critical role of children's
mental representation
Much of the study of social development at the beginning of the in social development are found in
21st century focuses on antecedents (e.g., parentalstudies of the effects of domestic violence (e.g., Grych, Jouriles,
practices,
Swank,
social or cultural contexts) of child outcomes (e.g., McDonald,
social, psy- & Norwood, 2000) and sexual abuse (Fei-
chological, and academic well-being; Damon, Sigel, & Ren-
ring, Taska, & Lewis, 2002). These studies show that the attri-
butions children
ninger, 1998). Social developmentalists often undertake large- learn as a result of these negative events play a
key role
scale, correlational studies that typically occur in field in their subsequent well-being. Those who adopt neg-
settings,
ative input
taking advantage of the natural variations in social attributions
or about the self (tending more toward self-
context to determine how these factors affect children's well-
blame) or negative attributions about others (tending to impute
hostilerelations,
being. They study a range of outcomes including social intent to others' actions) fare more poorly than those who
do not develop
identity, emotion- and self-regulation, and achievement, as wellthese negative attributional tendencies. Thus, it
is when we examine
as the effects of parental, academic, or cultural influences on the mental representations that children
these developmental outcomes. Because many variables
bring toof in-
subsequent events that we gain a better understanding
of the impactor
terest, such as parental abuse, divorce, school experience, of antecedents on subsequent child outcomes.
culture, cannot be manipulated, these researchers apply sta-
tistical techniques to patterns of change over time to infer
COGNITIVE DEVELOPMENT
causation.

This field represents an enormously valuable tradition inIn contrast to social development, much of the current work in
cognitive development investigates how cognition operates in
terms of the research questions it addresses, with their emphasis
on outcomes that are central to children's lives. However, cur-
infants and children and when specific cognitive abilities arise.
Researchers in this field are interested in young children's basi
rent research often pays too little attention to the role of mental
representations or underlying social cognitive processes thatcognitive skills, including how children understand and repre
may lead particular groups of children with similar experiencessent numbers, space, objects, events, and other people. Thi
to function better than others. We too rarely gain knowledge
approach relies on tightly controlled laboratory studies, whic
focus on the mental representations children form and the
about what children are taking away from a socialization expe-
rience in the form of beliefs, attitudes, or attributions, and how
cognitive processes they engage in as they confront precisely
they may bring these mental representations to bear in new
specified objects and events.
situations in the future. Until the role of mental representations We believe that the cognitive developmental approach can
and processes are recognized and understood, we cannot fully
contribute to the emerging field of SCD through its use of con
understand the social phenomena of interest or the development
trolled studies, its analysis of mental processes, and its focus o
of these phenomena. mental representations. Continuing in their research traditions
some researchers in cognitive development have begun inves
An example of traditional social development research is the
study of the relationship between maternal depression andtigating social variables. For example, there is much current
children's school performance or behavior (Anderson & Ham-
research on theory of mind and perspective-taking and on th
men, 1993; Chronis et al., 2007; Forehand, Long, Brody, & perception of agency, animacy, and intention that focuses on
Fauber, 1986; Goodman, Brogan, Lynch, & Fielding, 1993;
examining young children's understanding of the social worl
Petterson & Albers, 2001; Wright, George, Burke, Gelfand, (Gergely,
& Nadasdy, & Csibra, 1995; Gopnik & Wellman, 1992;
Johnson, Booth, & O'Hearn, 2001; Kuhlmeier, Wynn, & Bloom
Teti, 2000). Although such a topic is interesting and the results
2003; Leslie, Friedman, & German, 2004; Moll & Tomasello,
are provocative, studies on this topic often fail to capture the
2006; Woodward, 1998).
precise process by which children's school performance is in-
fluenced by (and influences) maternal depression, in large part However, although cognitive developmentalists have begun
showing an interest in social phenomena, they have been les
because researchers have often failed to examine the mediating
social-cognitive variables or processes. The reader leaves
concerned with what children's emerging cognitive skills, socia
without understanding how parental depression influencesunderstanding, and social representations might mean for their
children's school performance. Adding a social cognitive de-
social, psychological, and academic well-being in the world
velopmental approach would introduce questions about the at-
outside the laboratory. Specifically, researchers in this traditio
titudes, beliefs, or attributions children take away from
have generally been less interested in (a) how children may
experiences with maternal depression that contribute to poor
differ from each other in their representations, processing, and
outcomes. For example, Pomerantz, Grolnick, and Price (2005),
understandings, (b) why children may differ from each other, o

194 Volume 3- Number 3

This content downloaded from

99.199.13.191 on Tue, 28 May 2024 17:16:10 +00:00
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
 Kristina R. Olson and Carol S. Dweck

velopment. Like social development, SCD cares deeply about

why they might form different representations, develop different
the social antecedents of children's representations, as well as
processing strategies, and arrive at different understandings,
and (c) what implications these differences might havethe
forconsequences of those representations for children's social,
psychological,
children's well-being. For example, work on understanding in- and academic well-being. It is important to note
tentions and goals during infancy has not yet begun asking
that our conception of the field of SCD and our discussion of SCD
throughout this article concerns the field of SCD and should not
questions about what this understanding or the lack of under-
be or
standing means for the child. How does one's environment confused with a specific theory such as Bandura's (1986)
context influence the development of intentional or goal-di-
social cognitive theory.
In terms of its methodological approach, SCD, like cognitive
rected understanding? Does learning to understand goals earlier
development and adult work on social cognition, is concerned
affect one's later life in meaningful ways? As described below,
these are the kinds of questions an SCD perspective could an- analyzing or distilling specific mechanisms, processes, and
with
mental representations and then testing the impact of individual
swer, giving us a deeper understanding of these phenomena.
variables in the laboratory. However, like social development,
SCD is concerned with how those variables function in the real
WHAT IS SCD AND WHY STUDY IT?
world as well. Whereas laboratory studies isolate variables,
manipulate them, and test causation directly, field studies test
SCD is not new and does not originate with us (e.g., Aboud,
hypotheses in ecologically valid ways to determine how the
1988; Bigler & Liben, 1990; Bussey & Bandura, 1999; Dweck &
variables act within real social contexts. Thus, SCD benefits
Elliott, 1983; Gergely et al., 1995; Jacobs, Lanza, Osgood, Ec-
from adopting aspects of both approaches and ultimately gives
cles, & Wigfield, 2002; Karafantis & Levy, 2004; Killen &
us that which neither field contributes individually - an un-
Stangor, 2001; Martin, Ruble, & Szkrybalo, 2002; Tomasello,
derstanding of normative and idiographic SCD with attention to
Carpenter, Call, Behne, & Moll, 2005; Wimmer & Perner, 1983;
mental processes and representations in lab and field settings.
Woodward, 1998). Over the years, several prominent SCD the-
In sum, SCD - focusing on the relationship between ante-
ories and books have emerged, and although some have made a
cedents, mental representations, and outcomes - combines
conscious attempt to encourage collaboration across the tradi-
features of both the cognitive and the social development ap-
tional boundaries of social development, cognitive develop-
proaches. With this in mind, we articulate four goals that have
ment, and social psychology (Bandura, 1986; Colby & Kohlberg,
previously remained implicit in SCD research. These goals can
1987; Higgins, Ruble, & Hartup, 1983), they have failed to
serve as a framework for future research programs in SCD and
capture large enough audiences to make SCD one of the domi-
will help the field gain both a broader and deeper understanding
nant approaches in developmental psychology. For this reason,
of socially relevant processes.
we hope this article will serve as a call to current social and
cognitive development researchers, to researchers at the
1. Identify and measure a social cognitive mental representation
boundary of this field such as social and personality psycholo-
or process that is believed to be important in development.
gists, and to young psychologists in the process of forming their
Sometimes investigators may begin with an interest in a
professional identities.
particular mental representation or process, and sometimes
SCD, as we have noted, is the study of the relationship be-
they might begin with an outcome and form hypotheses about
tween antecedents (e.g., parental practices, social or cultural
the mental representations that foster that outcome. In either
contexts), the resulting mental representations1 (e.g., attitudes,
case, specification and measurement of the mental repre-
beliefs, and attributions), and the ensuing child outcomes (e.g.,
sentation or cognitive process is a major goal. In addition,
children's social, psychological, and academic well-being) over
understanding how that mental representation changes
the course of development. It is also the study of the normative
across and affects development is a crucial aspect of studying
development of mental representations/processes and their
SCD.
impact on social outcomes. So, for example, if we know that most
2. Manipulate the mental representation, and observe its impact
or all children undergo a change in their cognitive processes or
on outcomes of interest over development. Once a mental
mental representations at a particular point, we can study the
representation is isolated, it is important for researchers,
ramifications of that change for how children function in the
when appropriate, to manipulate that mental representation
social world.
to show how that manipulation changes important aspects of
Like cognitive development, SCD is the study of children's
children's personal or social functioning. This manipulation
processing and understanding of the (social) world across de-
can sometimes take place in the real world, as when we ask
whether changing children's beliefs or attributions can
lrThroughout this article, we discuss how children process and mentally
represent their experiences, and therefore we emphasize the input children change their aggression or achievement in natural settings,
receive. However, it is important to note that, as other researchers have pointed
or it can take place in a laboratory setting, where we can
out (e.g., Bell, 1979), it is the children's own actions that shape the input they
receive, and this should not be seen as a one-way relationship. experimentally manipulate these representations and pro-

Volume 3- Number 3 195

This content downloaded from

99.199.13.191 on Tue, 28 May 2024 17:16:10 +00:00
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
 Social Cognitive Development

cesses through intervention or training studies and observe hostility in ambiguous action, feel anger in response
their impact on behaviors that represent personal and social to those actions, and endorse hostile reactions in response to
functioning. Researchers also need to pay close attention to ambiguous actions. In addition, hostile attributions appear to
whether developmental changes in mental representations mediate increases in aggression over time (Zelli, Dodge, Loch-
and processes result in changes in behaviors or outcomes. man, & Laird, 1999) primarily by creating greater accessibility
3. Investigate the antecedents of the mental representation of aggressive responses.
or process of interest. Research from a social cognitive devel- Dodge and his colleagues have also examined the develop-
opmental perspective should examine the impact of mental antecedents of the hostile attributional bias (Goal 3).
both real-world antecedents, such as parental input, and For example, it was shown that several types of nega-
laboratory-based antecedents, such as exposure to patterns tive childhood experiences, such as physical abuse (Dodge,
of input or feedback that might simulate parental input, on Pettit, Bates, & Valente, 1995), harsh discipline (Weiss,
mental representations. In this way, it can also help us un- Dodge, Bates, & Pettit, 1992), and peer rejection (Dodge et al.,
derstand when (under what circumstances and at what points 2003) resulted in increases in the tendency toward hostile
in development) particular experiences might affect social attributions, supporting the idea that harsh treatment can shape
cognitive processes and mental representations and when the mental representations that children carry with them to
they might not. future situations.

4. Compare how the mental representation operates in the labo- Finally, Hudley, and Graham (1993) showed that changing
ratory and in the real world. To ensure that one is modeling aggressive children's attributional tendencies had the effect of
real-life processes in the laboratory, it is important to un- reducing their aggressive retaliation both in the laboratory and
derstand how the mental representations operate both within the classroom (Goal 2), supporting the idea that social-cognitive
a controlled setting and within the dynamic social world and variables not only play a key causal role in social behavior, but
to explain any resulting differences. that they also provide a guide to effective intervention.
Many developmental questions remain. For example, at what
These goals are merely that, and, as will be discussed, may be
age do children begin to process information from the environ-
harder to fulfill in some areas than others.
ment in a way that promotes hostile attributions? Do tempera-
mental factors predispose some children to develop hostile
Examples of Current SCD Research attributions more readily than others? Despite unanswered
We turn now to a few examples of work that has benefited from a questions, this example nicely illustrates the importance of an
social cognitive developmental approach. For each area of re- SCD approach. Although knowing that negative childhood ex-
search, we briefly summarize the literature, specify what has periences lead to aggression in children is interesting, it is only
been gained by employing a social cognitive developmental through Dodge's social cognitive approach, and in particular the
approach, and explain how this research program has met many examination of specific mental representations, that we are able
of the goals we have laid out above. These examples are not an to better understand how this process works.
exclusive list; rather, they are clear examples selected to dem-
onstrate how social cognitive development contributes above Achievement Motivation

and beyond traditional social or cognitive approaches. Before the social cognitive developmental approach, achieve-
ment motivation was viewed as a trait. Some children were be-
Aggression lieved to have a large amount and some were believed to have a
The work conducted by Dodge and his colleagues stands as an small amount, but where achievement motivation came from and
example of successful SCD research. Dodge and Frame (1982) how it operated remained largely a mystery. However, research
identified and measured a key social cognitive mediator of ag- within SCD has now shown that mental representations play a
gression: children's hostile attributional bias - a tendency to central role in achievement motivation, and has given us insight
attribute hostile intent to another under circumstances of am- into how achievement motivation operates, how environments
biguous provocation (Goal 1). They found that rapid and inap- may foster it, and how interventions may change it.
propriate aggressive retaliation in the face of an ambiguous More specifically, researchers have identified children's self-
provocation stemmed substantially from the aggressive child's theories, particularly their theories about their intelligence, as
hostile attributional bias. After showing that the hostile key factors in achievement motivation processes (Goal 1; Butler,
attributional bias was a predictor of aggression in a laboratory 2000; Dweck & Leggett, 1988; Pomerantz & Ruble, 1997).
setting (Dodge & Frame, 1982), researchers then showed that First, they have found that children who represent intelligence
this bias was a cause of aggression in the real world as well as a fixed quality rather than a malleable one have
(Goal 4). For example, Graham, Hudley, and Williams (1992) different goals (to look smart vs. to learn), make different
found that students identified by teachers and peers as aggres- attributions for their setbacks (lack of ability vs. lack
sive were more likely than nonaggressive peers to perceive of effort), and therefore show different reactions to difficulty

196 Volume 3- Number 3

This content downloaded from

99.199.13.191 on Tue, 28 May 2024 17:16:10 +00:00
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
 Kristina R. Olson and Carol S. Dweck

(helpless vs. mastery-oriented; corresponding with Goalthese representations to better understand how experiences
2; see
Dweck, 1999). operate to produce their outcomes.
Next, research has examined the developmental course (Cain
As another example, researchers cannot manipulate gender,
& Dweck, 1995; Heyman & Dweck, 1998; see Dweck, 2002,
norfor
would it seem wise to tamper with the development of
a review) and the antecedents of children's theories of intelli-
children's gender identity. However, researchers are making
great progress in understanding children's developing repre-
gence (Goal 3; Kamins & Dweck, 1999; Kempner & Pomerantz,
2003; Mueller & Dweck, 1998). As an example of the former,
sentations of gender in early childhood and how these repre-
sentations affect children's behavior.
Heyman, Dweck, and Cain (1992) and Heyman and Dweck
Before the social cognitive developmental approach to gen-
(1998) demonstrated that these patterns of achievement moti-
der, it was assumed that sex-typed behavior was influenced
vation are rooted in young children's theories about their
solelyof
goodness (fixed vs. malleable) - being that goodness is a focus by a child's history of reinforcement and social learning.
socialization at that age. As an example of the latter, experi-
However, cognitive developmental theorists (Kohlberg, 1966)
mental laboratory studies have shown that when adults and social cognitive developmental theorists (Martin & Little,
praise
1990;to
children for their intelligence (person praise) - as opposed Martin & Ruble, 2004) began to suggest that sex-typed
praising them for their effort or strategy (process praise) behavior
- they was notably influenced by children's self-representa-
tions - that is, by their categorization of themselves as a girl or a
foster the fixed-intelligence theory with its goals, attributions,
boy (corresponding
and response to difficulty (Kamins & Dweck, 1999; Mueller & with Goal 1). This meant that self-repre-
sentations
Dweck, 1998). Moreover, this antecedent process has been could have motivational properties, and that chil-
shown to operate in the real world - parents who deliver dren's
person gender-related motivation was not simply a result of the
praise rather than process praise have children who adoptcontingencies
the programmed by socialization agents.
There is now wide agreement that categorizing the self ac-
fixed versus malleable theory of intelligence (Goal 4; Kempner
& Pomerantz, 2003). cording to gender ushers in an upsurge in children's sex-typed
behavior
Finally, this social-cognitive variable has been shown to op- (Martin et al., 2002). By measuring children's beliefs
erate in the real world. Blackwell, Trzesniewski, and Dweck
about gender and mapping them on to sex-typed behavior, re-
(2007) have shown that children's theories of intelligence searchers
pre- have been able to show a link between the two (Goal 2;
Fagot & Leinbach, 1989; Martin & Little, 1990). Moreover, it
dict their grade trajectory over time (see also Stipek & Gralinski,
appears that sex-typed behavior increases with first use of
1996), and that an intervention that changes children's theories
gender
of intelligence alters their motivation and achievement (Goals 2 labels (Zosuls, Ruble, Tamis-LeMonda, Haddad, &
Greulich, 2006), with the onset of gender self-labeling (Zosuls et
and 4; see also Good, Aronson, & Inzlicht, 2003; cf. Aronson,
al.,cog-
Fried, & Good, 2002). Thus, the identification of a social 2006), and with changes in gender self-representation from
nitive variable opened the door to a fuller understanding of oneself as a boy or girl to realizing that one's sex is
identifying
the origin and workings of achievement motivation in stable
a way over time (Martin & Little, 1990).
In addition to monitoring the development of gender self-
that was not done prior to the social cognitive developmental
approach. representations, researchers have examined their environmen-
Future research on achievement motivation can continue in tal antecedents (Goal 3). For example, Fagot and Leinbach
using these four goals: for example, asking what other factors (1989) found that parents of early gender self-labelers paid more
determine whether children develop a fixed versus malleable attention (positive or negative) when their children played with
theory of intelligence and whether different manipulations of sex-typed toys, perhaps communicating that gender is an im-
these theories are more or less effective at different points in portant dimension. In addition, in an experimental study, Bigler
development. Much research in adult social cognition has found (1995) demonstrated that when teachers made functional use of
that similar beliefs play a role in adults' functioning, for ex- gender categories, children's gender stereotypes increased.
ample, in achievement settings (Hong, Chiu, Lin, Wan, & Bigler has also conducted research aimed at the issue of the
Dweck, 1999) and relationships (Beer, 2002). Future research "manipulation" of gender categories. Although, of course, gen-
could investigate the ways in which these processes may func- der per se cannot be manipulated, Bigler has borrowed methods
tion differently in children and adults, as well as the ways in from social psychology (e.g., Sherif, Harvey, White, Hood, &
which childhood beliefs do or do not predict adult ones. Sherif, 1961) and attempted to mimic categories like gender by
creating novel groups and exploring which factors are necessary
Gender for the development of biased attitudes and discrimination.
Not all antecedents, social-cognitive variables, or outcomes are To further this goal, Bigler has manipulated factors such
amenable to experimental manipulation. For example, abuse as teacher's functional use of category labels, the majority or
and divorce are not possible or ethical to manipulate. Yet, if minority status of a group, and the previous social status (high
researchers can distill the mental representations that result vs. low status) of the group (Bigler, Brown, & Markell, 2001;
from these real-world experiences, they can focus on studying Brown & Bigler, 2002). She conducts these studies in the context

1Q7 ±:7<
Volume 3- Number 3 ±:7<

This content downloaded from

99.199.13.191 on Tue, 28 May 2024 17:16:10 +00:00
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
 Social Cognitive Development

of actual summer school programs, meeting our fourth goal of This work nicely demonstrates that young children have an
examining these processes in the real world. Thus, even when a internal representation of the way parents and children interact,
variable cannot be manipulated in the laboratory, social-cog- and it has therefore tested a theoretical claim of central im-
nitive variables can be pinpointed, their effects monitored, and portance to social development by employing a key method of
their antecedents identified. cognitive development research. In this way, we hope that re-
searchers in other areas of social and cognitive development will
Using a Social Cognitive Developmental Approach begin to see possible connections between their work and cur-
in New Areas rent work in the other field.

Our hope is that, in addition to the SCD work currently being

Another way to integrate the ideas of social development with
those of cognitive development is to combine research questions
done within the confines of either social or cognitive develop-
and theories from both fields. For example, cognitive develop-
ment, additional research in SCD can be conducted by building
mental work on goals and intention can be broadened, perhaps
bridges between these two fields, as well as between SCD and
such fields as neuroscience and social cognition. Below, we
in combination with other work on theory of mind, to ask how
children represent people and their motivations, ideas, emo-
describe recent, current, and future research that integrates
social and cognitive development or connects SCD with other
tions, and knowledge. Following the goals we laid out above, we
can then ask how differences in understanding goals or inten-
fields. The studies mentioned are, again, by no means exhaus-
tive, but they are examples that we believe capture the spirittions
of affect children's social, psychological, and academic well-
our proposal. being across development.
One way in which social and cognitive development can begin In a related vein, bridges are being built between cognitive
speaking to one another is to integrate methods from one area developmental work on the impact of language that expresses
with research questions of another area. For example, social generic kinds (e.g., "birds fly," which implies universal and
developmentalists in the area of attachment have long proposed, enduring qualities) and social development work on how such
following Bowlby (1958), that infants form internal working usages can affect the development of gender stereotypes (Gel-
models of relationships based on their early experiences with man, Taylor, & Nguyen, 2004) or self-perceptions (Cimpian,
caretakers. Yet little has been done to specify or measure these Arce, Markman, & Dweck, 2007). This work asks whether
representations of relationships in young children. Indeed, children's understanding of generic kinds, originally studied in
mental representations are difficult to capture in young children nonsocial contexts, might have important implications for social
because of their limited response repertoire. However, new work understanding and social development.
by Johnson and colleagues has applied a traditional cognitive Finally, work in cognitive development on statistical learning
development method (measuring young infants' looking time) to suggests that children can represent the statistical properties of
this traditional social development question to examine whether language input (Saffran, Aslin, & Newport, 1996) and
securely and insecurely attached infants have different internal visual input (Kirkham, Slemmer, & Johnson, 2002). It would be
working models of attachment (Johnson, Dweck, & Chen, 2007). fascinating to know whether children similarly represent
This study involved exposing young infants to a video in which a the statistical properties of their social input. The research
large sphere (the parental icon) moved up a hill and away from a on internal working models of relationships may suggest
smaller sphere (the child icon), who remained the bottom of a that they do, but adopting the paradigms from language
hill. (These abstract forms were used to test for a more gener- and cognitive development may allow us to track the
alized relationship representation that went beyond the infants' more precise ways in which infants process and represent social
particular relationship with their caretaker.) As the parental input.
icon moved away, the child bounced, pulsed, and began to wail. Even in areas of social and cognitive development that do not
This event was shown repeatedly until children became bored have a clear partner on the other side of the valley, there is much
and showed sharply reduced looking time. Then, on the test room for researchers to adopt an SCD approach. For example
trials, the infant was shown the parent either returning to the social development work on self-regulation has focused on what
child or continuing to move away. The data indicated that the we are calling antecedents and outcomes, and it could benefit
securely attached infants looked longer (showed violated ex- from a better understanding of the role of children's mental
pectations) when the parent continued to move away from the representations. Indeed, as shown by the classic work of Mischel
child than they did when the parent returned to the child. On the and his colleagues (e.g., Mischel, Ebbeson, & Raskoff Zeiss,
basis of much infant cognitive development work, we can sug- 1972), children's ability to delay gratification can be dramati-
gest that these infants had expected the parental icon to return cally affected by the manner in which they represent the desired
to the crying child and were surprised (i.e., showed renewed object. This may lead us to ask how socialization practices
interest) when it did not. In contrast, the insecurely attached known to affect self-regulation (e.g., high discipline or low
infants showed no such expectation and in fact tended to look maternal warmth; Colman, Hardy, Albert, Raffaelli, & Crockett,
slightly longer when the parent returned to the crying child. 2006) may affect the representational processes children recruit

198 Volume 3- Number 3

This content downloaded from

99.199.13.191 on Tue, 28 May 2024 17:16:10 +00:00
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
 Kristina R. Olson and Carol S. Dweck

to aid their self-regulation. Such a question is one that social

could examine what factors besides autism spectrum disorders
cognitive developmentalists might well pursue. predict early or late theory-of-mind development, how manip-
On the cognitive development side, one theory that has had
ulations of theory of mind processes (e.g., teaching an aspect of
little impact on social development but that could have a theory
large of mind and monitoring its consequences) might
impact on SCD is that of core knowledge. This is a thesisimpact
put individuals' social functioning, and how theory of mind
is involved in social functioning outside the laboratory
forth by Spelke and colleagues (Spelke, 2003; Spelke & Kinzler,
2007) that some human cognitive capacities are innate andenvironment.

domain-specific, including core knowledge of objects, actions,

SCD not only involves building bridges between social and
space, and number. Such a thesis is extremely relevant tocognitive
SCD, development, but it also allows researchers interested
as researchers can begin to ask what social cognitive abilities
in the development of social representations and processes to
might be early emerging and domain-specific. There is emerging
find connections with other areas of psychology. For example,
work with infants and toddlers suggesting the possibilitySCD
that
researchers could quite easily connect with current work in
very young children might have core knowledge of morality as social cognition; they could ask about the development of
adult
evidenced by what looks like early concepts of moral goodness
processes and mental representations that are already well
and badness. The early evidence includes infants' and toddlers'
documented in adults, or they could ask how early developing
attributions of goodness and badness to helpful agents versus
social cognitive representations might change or remain stable
harmful ones, their preference to accept a toy from a safe into
adultadulthood. There is some research on attitudes that is al-
versus a harmful one, and their close visual attention to harmful
ready beginning to make these links (Dunham, Baron, & Banaji,
agents over helpful ones (Hamlin, Wynn, & Bloom, 2007;2006;
Nu- Olson, Banaji, Dweck, & Spelke, 2006; Rutland, Came-
ron, Milne, & McGeorge, 2005). In addition, some researchers
rock, Jacob, Margules, & Dupoux, 2008). If these findings
studying judgment and decision-making are beginning to build
continue to hold and are supported by additional findings with
theoretical and empirical connections with SCD research (e.g.,
even younger infants, they might pose the idea of innate or early-
Epley,
emerging social cognitive mechanisms and processes that are in Morewedge, & Keysar, 2004). For example, Royzman,
Cassidy, and Baron (2003) argue that common judgment and
place even before the antecedents traditionally studied by social
developmentalists. decision-making "curse of knowledge" biases are building on
the same types of perspective-taking problems we see in young
Finally, although the theory-of-mind research program within
cognitive development has, in our opinion, come close to
children's developing theory of mind (similar arguments have
been
meeting the four goals outlined above, we believe more can be made by Susan Birch and colleagues; e.g., Birch &
Bernstein, 2007). Other connections can readily be made with
done to meet these goals. For example, research has specified
the social cognitive representations associated with different
work on representations of self that contribute to identity and
aspects of theory of mind (Goal 1), showing, for example, self-esteem,
that representations of social norms, or representations
autism causes a deficit in the shared-attention mechanismof(i.e.,
others that contribute to interpersonal or intergroup attitudes
and behaviors.
the mechanism that represents the fact that the self and another
In addition, after documenting the mental representations and
person are attending to the same stimulus) and that this has
mental processes that affect behavior, researchers can begin to
downstream social consequences for such things as how people
use additional techniques, such as neuroscience techniques, to
with autism interact with others (Goals 2 and 3; see Baron-Co-
examine these representations and processes. This field is just
hen, 2001, for a review). In addition, researchers have demon-
strated that even after training autistic children on mentalbeginning
state to bloom, as evidenced by work studying theory-of-
mind
understanding, children with autism still fail other tasks, such as development using functional magnetic resonance imag-
inginin children and adults (Kobayashi, Glover, & Temple, 2007;
conversational ability and the use of mental state terms
speech, which are thought to be downstream consequencesSaxe,
of 2006; Saxe, Carey, & Kanwisher, 2004) and by work ex-
theory-of-mind failures (Hadwin, Baron-Cohen, Howlin, & amining
Hill, emotion understanding in children with and without
1997). Although there is much good empirical researchautism
and (Dapretto et al., 2006). In the past, it would have been
difficult
theorizing - for example, asking at what age children begin to to connect social development work with emerging
neuroscience
demonstrate theory of mind (a controversy still brewing, see work because the processes involved were not
specified in a manner that is amenable to neuroscientific as-
Leslie, 2005; Onishi & Baillergeon, 2005; Ruffman & Perner,
2005; Wellman, Cross, & Watson, 2001) or what mechanism
might underlie theory of mind (Gallese & Goldman, 1998; Go-
2The phrase "the curse of knowledge" refers to a set of situations in which
pnik & Wellman, 1992; Saxe, 2005) - less research has been
people have knowledge that leads them to make inaccurate evaluations. For
done on the input or experiences that foster theory of mind example,
or on the false consensus effect refers to a bias in which people tend to
believe that their opinion on an issue is more common than it actually is, and
the impact of individual differences. For example, how might
the hindsight bias involves situations in which people experience events and
earlier or later theory-of-mind development affect subsequent
then believe that those events were more predictable or inevitable than they
social outcomes within the normal range? Thus, additional actually
work were (what can be thought of as the "I knew it all along" effect).

Volume 3- Number 3 199

This content downloaded from

99.199.13.191 on Tue, 28 May 2024 17:16:10 +00:00
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
 Social Cognitive Development

sessment. With advances in the measurement of mental repre- Blackwell, L, Trzesniewski, K., & Dweck, C.S. (2007). Implicit the-
sentations and processes, this bridge between SCD and neu- ories of intelligence predict achievement across an adolescent
transition: A longitudinal study and an intervention. Child De-
roscience can more readily be made.
velopment, 78, 246-263.
In summary, we have called attention to the promising op-
Bowlby, J. (1958). The nature of the child's ties to his mother. Inter-
portunities awaiting us in the field of SCD. We have proposed a
national Journal of Psychoanalysis, 39, 350.
series of goals for this approach, provided examples of current Brown, C.S., & Bigler, R.S. (2002). Effects of minority status in the
work in this field, and suggested some areas that are prime for classroom on children's intergroup attitudes. Journal of Experi-
the introduction of social cognitive developmental research. mental Child Psychology, 83, 77-110.
Most important, we look forward to the many new research Bussey, K., & Bandura, A. (1999). Social cognitive theory of gender
development and differentiation. Psychological Review, 106,
questions that will inevitably arise from this field as it grows and
676-713.
matures.
Butler, R. (2000). What learners want to know: The role of achieve-
ment goals in shaping information seeking, learning and interest.
In C. Sansone & J.M. Harackiewicz (Eds.), Intrinsic and extrinsic
Acknowledgments - The authors wish to thank Mahzarin
motivation: The search for optimal motivation and performance
Banaji, Lauren Hay, Allison Master, Diane Ruble, Elizabeth
(pp. 161-194). San Diego, CA: Academic Press.
Cain,
Spelke, Kali Trzesniewski, Davie Yoon, and members K.M., & Dweck, C.S. (1995). The relation between motivational
of Har-
patterns and achievement cognitions through the elementary
vard's Social Cognitive Development Research Workshop for
school years. Merrill-Palmer Quarterly, 41, 25-52.
comments on earlier drafts of this article and the Beinecke
Chronis, A.M., Lahey, B.B., Pelham, W.E., Jr., Williams, S.H., Ba-
Fellowship and National Science Foundation for financial sup- umann, B.L., Kipp, H., et al. (2007). Maternal depression and
port (Graduate Research Fellowship to Kristina R. Olson and early positive parenting predict future conduct problems in young
National Science Foundation Grant # BCS-02-1725 to Carol S. children with Attention-Deficit/Hyperactivity Disorder. Develop-
mental Psychology, 43, 70-^82.
Dweck).
Cimpian, A., Arce, H., Markman, E.M., & Dweck, C.S. (2007). Subtle
linguistic cues impact children's motivation. Psychological Sci-
REFERENCES
ence, 18, 314-316.
Colby, A., & Kohlberg, L. (1987). The measurement of moral judgment:
Vol. 1. Theoretical foundations and research validation. New York:
Aboud, F. (1988). Children and prejudice. New York: Basil Blackwell.
Cambridge University Press.
Anderson, C.A., & Hammen, C.L. (1993). Psychosocial outcomes of
Colman, R.A., Hardy, S.A., Albert, M., Raffaelli, M., & Crockett, L.
children of unipolar depressed, bipolar, medically ill, and normal
(2006). Early predictors of self-regulation in middle childhood.
women: A longitudinal study. Journal of Consulting and Clinical
Infant and Child Development, 15, 421-437.
Psychology, 61, 448-454.
Damon, W, Sigel, I.E., & Renninger, K.A. (1998). Handbook of child
Aronson, J., Fried, C.B., & Good, C. (2002). Reducing the effects of
psychology. Hoboken, NJ: Wiley & Sons.
stereotype threat on African American college students by
Dapretto, M., Davies, M.S., Pfeifer, J.H., Scott, A.A., Sigman, M.,
shaping theories of intelligence. Journal of Experimental Social
Bookheimer, S.Y., & Iacoboni, M. (2006). Understanding emo-
Psychology, 38, 113-125.
tions in others: Mirror neuron dysfunction in children with autism
Bandura, A. (1986). Social foundations of thought and action: A social
cognitive theory. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prenticespectrum
Hall. disorders. Nature Neuroscience, 9, 28-30.
Baron-Cohen, S. (2001). Theory of mind and autism:Dodge, K.A., &
A review. InFrame,
L.M. C.L. (1982). Social cognitive biases and
deficits in aggressive boys. Child Development, 53, 620-635.
Glidden (Ed.), International review of research in mental retar-
Dodge,
dation: Vol. 23. Autism (pp. 169-184). San Diego, CA:K.A., Lansford, J.E., Burks, V.S., Bates, J.E., Pettit, G.S.,
Academic
Press. Fontaine, R., & Price, J.M. (2003). Peer rejection and social
information-processing
Beer, J.S. (2002). Implicit self-theories of shyness. Journal of Per- factors in the development of aggressive
sonality and Social Psychology, 83, 1009-1024. behavior problems in children. Child Development, 74, 374-393.
Dodge, K.A.,
Bell, R.Q. (1979). Parent, child, and reciprocal influences. Pettit, G.S., Bates, J.E., & Valente, E. (1995). Social
American
Psychologist, 34, 821-826. information-processing patterns partially mediate the effect of
early physical en-
Bigler, R.S. (1995). The role of classification skill in moderating abuse on later conduct problems. Journal of Ab-
normal Psychology,
vironmental influences on children's gender stereotyping: A study 104, 632-643.
Dunham,
of the functional use of gender in the classroom. ChildY., Baron, A.S., & Banaji, M.R. (2006). From American city
Develop-
ment, 66, 1072-1087. to Japanese village: A cross-cultural investigation of implicit race
Bigler, R.S., Brown, C.S., & Markell, M. (2001). Whenattitudes.
groups are ChildnotDevelopment, 77, 1268-1281.
Dweck, C.S. of
created equal: Effects of group status on the formation (1999). Self-theories: Their role in motivation, personality,
inter-
and 1151-1162.
group attitudes in children. Child Development, 72, development. New York: Psychology Press.
Dweck, C.S.
Bigler, R.S., & Liben, L.S. (1990). The role of attitudes and (2002). The development of ability conceptions. In A.
inter-
Wigfield & J.S.
ventions in gender-schematic processing. Child Development, 61,Eccles (Eds.), Development of achievement moti-
1440-1452. vation (pp. 57-88). San Diego, CA: Academic Press.
Birch, S.A.J., & Bernstein, D.M. (2007). What can children Dweck,
tell us C.S., & Elliott, E.S. (1983). Achievement motivation. In P.
Mussen & E.M. Hetherington (Eds.), Handbook of child psy-
about hindsight bias: A fundamental constraint on perspective-
taking? Social Cognition, 25, 9&-113. chology (pp. 643-691). New York: Wiley.

200 Volume 3- Number 3

This content downloaded from

99.199.13.191 on Tue, 28 May 2024 17:16:10 +00:00
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
 Kristina R. Olson and Carol S. Dweck

Dweck, C.S., & Leggett, E.L. (1988). A social-cognitive approach to J.E., Lanza, S., Osgood, D.W., Eccles, J.S., & Wigfield, A.
Jacobs,
motivation and personality. Psychological Review, 95, 256-273.(2002). Changes in children's self-competence and values: Gen-
Epley, N., Morewedge, C.K., & Keysar, B. (2004). Perspective taking
der and domain differences across grades one through twelve.
Child Development, 73, 509-527.
in children and adults: Equivalent egocentrism but differential
correction. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 40, 760-
Johnson, S.C., Booth, A., & O'Hearn, K. (2001). Inferring the goals of a
768. nonhuman agent. Cognitive Development, 16, 637-656.
Fagot, B.I., & Leinbach, M.D. (1989). The young child's gender
Johnson, S.C., Dweck, C.S., & Chen, F.S. (2007). Evidence for infants'
schema: Environmental input, internal organization. Child De-
internal working models of attachment. Psychological Science, 18,
velopment, 60, 663-672. 501-502.

Feiring, C, Taska, L., & Lewis, M. (2002). Adjustment following Kamins, M.L., & Dweck, C.S. (1999). Person versus process praise and
sexual abuse discovery: The role of shame and attributional style.criticism: Implications for contingent self-worth and coping.
Developmental Psychology, 38, 79-92. Developmental Psychology, 35, 835-847.
Forehand, R., Long, N., Brody, G.H., & Fauber, R. (1986).Karafantis,
Home D.M., & Levy, S.R. (2004). The role of children's lay the-
predictors of young adolescents' school behavior and academicories about the malleability of human attributes in beliefs about
performance. Child Development, 57, 1528-1533. and volunteering for disadvantaged groups. Child Development,
Gallese, V., & Goldman, A. (1998). Mirror neurons and the simula-75, 236-250.
Kempner,
tion theory of mind-reading. Trends in Cognitive Sciences, 2, S., & Pomerantz, E.M. (2003, April). Mothers9 responses to
493-501. children's academic success: The moderating role of gender. Paper
Gelman, S.A., Taylor, M.G., & Nguyen, S.P. (2004). Mother-childpresented at the meeting of the Society for Research on Child
Development Meeting, Tampa, FL.
conversations about gender. Monographs of the Society for Re-
search in Child Development, 69, vii-127. Killen, M., & Stangor, C. (2001). Children's social reasoning about
inclusion and exclusion in gender and race peer group contexts.
Gergely, G., Nadasdy, Z., & Csibra, G. (1995). Taking the intentional
stance at 12 months of age. Cognition, 56, 165-193. Child Development, 72, 174-186.
Kirkham, N.Z., Slemmer, J.A., & Johnson, S.P. (2002). Visual statis-
Good, C, Aronson, J., & Inzlicht, M. (2003). Improving adolescents'
standardized test performance: An intervention to reduce the tical learning in infancy: Evidence for a domain general learning
effects of stereotype threat. Journal of Applied Developmentalmechanism. Cognition. 83. 35-42.
Psychology, 24, 645-662. Kobayashi, C, Glover, G.H., & Temple, E. (2007). Children's and
adults' neural bases of verbal and nonverbal "theory of mind."
Goodman, S.H., Brogan, D., Lynch, M.E., & Fielding, B. (1993). Social
and emotional competence in children of depressed mothers.Neuropsychologia, 45, 1522-1532.
Child Development, 64, 516-531. Kohlberg, L. (1966). A cognitive-developmental analysis of children's
Gopnik, A., & Wellman, H.M. (1992). Why the children's theorysex
ofrole concepts and attitudes. In E. Maccoby (Ed.), The de-
mind really is a theory. Mind & Language, 7, 145-171. velopment of sex differences (pp. 82-173). Stanford, CA: Stanford
University Press.
Graham, S., Hudley, C, & Williams, E. (1992). Attributional and
Kuhlmeier, V.A., Wynn, K., & Bloom, P. (2003). Attribution of dis-
emotional determinants of aggression among African-American
positional states by 12-month-olds. Psychological Science, 14,
and Latino young adolescents. Developmental Psychology, 28,
731-740. 402-408.
Leslie, A.M. (2005). Developmental parallels in understanding minds
Grych, J.H., Jouriles, E.N., Swank, PR., McDonald, R., & Norwood,
W.D. (2000). Patterns of adjustment among children of batteredand bodies. Trends in Cognitive Sciences, 9, 459-462.
women. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 68, Leslie,
84- A.M., Friedman, 0., & German, T.P. (2004). Core mecha-
94. nisms in "theory of mind." Trends in Cognitive Sciences, 8, 529-
Hadwin, J., Baron-Cohen, S., Howlin, P., & Hill, K. (1997). Does 533.
Martin, C.L., & Little, J.K. (1990). The relation of gender under-
teaching theory of mind have an effect on the ability to develop
conversation in children with autism? Journal of Autism and standing to children's sex-typed preferences and gender stereo-
Developmental Disorders, 27, 519-537. types. Child Development, 61, 1427-1439.
Hamlin, K., Wynn, K., & Bloom, P. (2007). Social evaluation inMartin,
pre- C.L., & Ruble, D. (2004). Children's search for gender cues:
verbal infants. Nature, 450, 557-559. Cognitive perspectives on gender development. Current Direc-
tions in Psychological Science, 13, 67-70.
Heyman, G.D., & Dweck, C.S. (1998). Children's thinking about traits:
Martin, C.L., Ruble, D.N., & Szkrybalo, J. (2002). Cognitive theories
Implications for judgments of the self and others. Child Devel-
opment, 69, 391^103. of early gender development. Psychological Bulletin, 128,
903-933.
Heyman, G.D., Dweck, C.S., & Cain, K.M. (1992). Young children's
Mischel,
vulnerability to self-blame and helplessness: Relationship to W, Ebbesen, E.B., & Raskoff Zeiss, A. (1972). Cognitive and
beliefs about goodness. Child Development, 63, 401-415. attentional mechanisms in delay of gratification. Journal of Per-
sonality and Social Psychology, 21, 204r-218.
Higgins, E.T., Ruble, D.N., & Hartup, W.W. (Eds.). (1983). Social
Moll, H., & Tomasello, M. (2006). Level 1 perspective-taking at 24
cognition and social development: A sociocultural perspective.
Cambridge, United Kingdom: Cambridge University Press. months of age. British Journal of Developmental Psychology, 24,
603-613.
Hong, Y.Y., Chiu, C, Lin, D., Wan, W, & Dweck, C.S. (1999). Implicit
Mueller,
theories, attributions, and coping: A meaning system approach. CM., & Dweck, C.S. (1998). Praise for intelligence can un-
Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 77, 588-599. dermine children's motivation and performance. Journal of
Hudley, C, & Graham, S. (1993). An attributional intervention to Personality and Social Psychology, 75, 33-52.
Nurock, V., Jacob, P., Margules, S., & Dupoux, E. (2008). A precursor of
reduce peer-directed aggression among African-American boys.
Child Development, 64, 124-138. moral judgments in infants. Manuscript in preparation.

Volume 3- Number 3 201

This content downloaded from

99.199.13.191 on Tue, 28 May 2024 17:16:10 +00:00
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms
 Social Cognitive Development

Olson, K.R., Banaji, M.R., Dweck, C.S., & Spelke, E.S. Spelke, E.S. (2003). Core knowledge. In N. Kanwisher & J. Duncan
(2006). Children's biased evaluations of lucky versus unlucky(Eds.), Attention and performance: Vol. 20. Functional neuro-
people and their social groups. Psychological Science, 17, imaging of visual cognition (pp. 29-56). Oxford, United King-
845-846. dom: Oxford University Press.
Spelke,
Onishi, K.H., & Baillargeon, R. (2005). Do 15-month-old infants un- E.S., & Kinzler, K.D. (2007). Core knowledge. Developmental
derstand false beliefs? Science, 308, 255-258. Science, 10, 89-96.
Stipek, D., & Gralinski, J. (1996). Children's beliefs about intelligence
Petterson, S.M., & Albers, A.B. (2001). Effects of poverty and maternal
and school performance. Journal of Educational Psychology, 88,
depression on early child development. Child Development, 72,
1794-1813. 397^07.

Pomerantz, E.M., Grolnick, W.S., & Price, C.E. (2005). The role of ML, Carpenter, M., Call, J., Behne, T., & Moll, H. (200
Tomasello,
parents in how children approach achievement: A dynamicUnderstanding
pro- and sharing intentions: The origins of cultura
cognition.
cess perspective. In A.J. Elliot & C.S. Dweck (Eds.), Handbook of Behavioral and Brain Sciences, 28, 675-735.
competence and motivation (pp. 229-278). New York:Weiss, B., Dodge, K.A., Bates, J.E., & Pettit, G.S. (1992). Some c
Guilford
Publications. sequences of early harsh discipline: Child aggression and
maladaptive
Pomerantz, E.M., & Ruble, D.N. (1997). Distinguishing multiple di- social information processing style. Child Develo
ment, 63, 1321-1335.
mensions of conceptions of ability: Implications for self-evalua-
tion. Child Development, 68, 1165-1180. Wellman, H.M., Cross, D., & Watson, J. (2001). Meta-analysis of
Royzman, E.B., Cassidy, K.W., & Baron, J. (2003). "I know, you theory-of-mind
know": development: The truth about false belief. Child
Development, 72, 655-684.
Epistemic egocentrism in children and adults. Review of General
Psychology, 7, 38-65. Wimmer, H., & Perner, J. (1983). Beliefs about beliefs: Representation
andfalse
Ruffman, T., & Perner, J. (2005). Do infants really understand constraining function of wrong beliefs in young children's
belief? Trends in Cognitive Sciences, 9, 462-463. understanding of deception. Cognition, 13, 103-128.
Woodward,
Rutland, A., Cameron, L, Milne, A., & McGeorge, P. (2005). SocialA.L. (1998). Infants selectively encode the goal object of
an actor's
norms and self-presentation: Children's implicit and explicit in- reach. Cognition, 69, 1-34.
tergroup attitudes. Child Development, 76, 451-466. Wright, C.A., George, T.P., Burke, R., Gelfand, D.M., & Teti, D.M.
(2000). Early maternal depression and children's adjustment to
Saffran, J.R., Aslin, R.N., & Newport, E.L. (1996). Statistical learning
by 8-month-old infants. Science, 274, 1926-1928. school. Child Study Journal, 30, 153-168.
Zelli,Trends
Saxe, R. (2005). Against simulation: The argument from error. A., Dodge, K.A., Lochman, J.E., & Laird, R.D. (1999). The
in Cognitive Sciences, 9, 174-179. distinction between beliefs legitimizing aggression and deviant
processing of social cues: Testing measurement validity and the
Saxe, R. (2006). Why and how to study theory of mind with fMRI.
Brain Research, 1079, 57-65. hypothesis that biased processing mediates the effects of beliefs
Saxe, R., Carey, S., & Kanwisher, N. (2004). Understanding on aggression. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 77,
other
minds. Linking developmental psychology and functional 150-166.
ne-
uroimaging. Annual Review of Psychology, 55, 87-124.Zosuls, K.M., Ruble, D.N., Tamis-LeMonda, C.S., Haddad, M.E., &
Greulich,
Sherif, M., Harvey, O.J., White, B.J., Hood, W.R., & Sherif, C.W. F.K. (2006). Understanding the relation between gender
(1961). Intergroup conflict and cooperation: The Robberslabels
Caveand sex-typing: A longitudinal analysis of language and
play in infants. Unpublished manuscript, New York University.
experiment. Norman: University of Oklahoma Book Exchange.

202 Volume 3- Number 3

This content downloaded from

99.199.13.191 on Tue, 28 May 2024 17:16:10 +00:00
All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms