Applying the Cultural Approach to Cognitive Development

Home , Culture theory

JOURNAL OF COGNITION AND DEVELOPMENT, 12(2):121–133 Copyright # 2011 Taylor & Francis Group, LLC ISSN: 1524-8372 print=1532-7647 online DOI: 10.1080/15248372.2011.563481

TOOLS OF THE TRADE

Mary Gauvain, Heidi Beebe, and Shuheng Zhao University of California at Riverside

Cognitive development is a cultural process. More experienced cultural members and the practices, institutions, and artifacts of the culture provide support and guidance for children as they develop knowledge and thinking skills. In this article, the authors describe the value that is added to our understanding of cognitive development when cultural contributions are taken into account. They discuss theoretical and practical issues of cultural research with the aim of encouraging researchers to consider culture more centrally in their own work.

Developmental psychologists have long striven to discover universal features of intellectual growth. Despite many decades of research, a clear understanding of such properties has yet to emerge. A main obstacle is the conventional method of research. Although it is known that the repre- sentativeness of a sample can impede the interpretation and generalization of results, research on cognitive development has nonetheless been overre- presented by one group—middle-class children of European American ancestry. This sampling approach not only threatens external validity, but it introduces a standard of development, based on untested assumptions of universality, to gauge the development of children who grow up in circumstances that depart substantially from the original tested group. This practice also has theoretical ramifications. In most contemporary theories,

Correspondence should be sent to Mary Gauvain, Department of Psychology, University of California at Riverside, 900 University Ave., Psychology Building 2133, Riverside, CA 92521, USA. E-mail: [email protected]

121 122 GAUVAIN, BEEBE, AND ZHAO the child and the social and environmental context co-construct cognitive development (Miller, 2011). This suggests that for theory to advance, it is imperative that researchers include diverse samples and attend to the various contexts that support cognitive growth. In this article, we discuss a remedy in the form of a cultural approach. Natural contextual variation in human development offers the opportunity to investigate systematic relations between social and environmental con- ditions and cognitive development. To elaborate on this view, we describe insights from research on cognitive development in cultural context, which has increased appreciation of human cognition in its various forms. It has also led researchers to focus less on universals and more on how cognitive competencies are expressed in particular cultural contexts (Munroe & Gauvain, 2010).

WHAT IS A CULTURAL APPROACH TO COGNITIVE DEVELOPMENT?

This approach is concerned with how experience in culture affects thinking and its development. It is based on sociocultural theory that contends that culture is the species-specific medium of psychological development (Cole, 1996). Through its institutions, practices, artifacts, and symbols, culture is inextricably entwined with human phylogenesis or evolution (Cole & Hatano, 2007). In ontogenesis or development throughout the life course, culture is evident in the patterns of behavior and understanding that are passed across generations through social and experiential means. The imparting and adoption of cultural behaviors and understandings occur in the process of socialization (Gauvain & Parke, 2010).

Cultural Means That Support and Direct Cognitive Development Children live in a wide range of cultural contexts—a diversity that attests to the adaptability and creativity of the human species (Bjorklund & Pellegrini, 2002). Culture contributes to cognitive development by providing children with structured, meaningful, and motivating opportunities to acquire, practice, refine, and extend their understanding and skills (Rogoff, 2003). There are three interrelated ways that culture contributes to cognitive development: social processes that support and guide learning, participation in everyday activities, and symbolic and material artifacts that support and extend thinking. These contributions exist across cultures (and therefore are universal processes), but their frequency and manner vary substantially. The outcome is a mature individual in whom the culturally specific nature of CULTURAL APPROACH TO COGNITIVE DEVELOPMENT 123 experience is an integral part of how the person thinks and acts. In the fol- lowing sections, we describe these contributions. Keep in mind that the cultural nature of cognitive development can be studied comparatively (across cultures) as well as within a cultural setting. Culture is the medium through which cognitive development occurs, and therefore, culture is present in all aspects of human cognition (Cole, 1996).

Social processes that support and guide learning. During social interaction, adults and more experienced peers make cultural ways of thinking and acting available to children. Many social-psychological processes are involved, including attention regulation, observation, imitation, demon- stration, instruction, collaboration in the zone of proximal development, scaffolding, and guided participation (Bandura, 1986; Rogoff, 1990; Vygotsky, 1978; Wood & Middleton, 1975). These processes include inex- perienced cultural members as they interact with or observe the behaviors of more experienced cultural members (e.g., in guided participation adults support children’s learning during an activity [e.g., making a cake] by directing children’s attention and involvement [e.g., mother measures the ingredients and encourages the child to pour them into the mixing bowl]). During social learning experiences, much of the information transmitted to children is cultural; that is, it concerns the knowledge, behaviors, and ways of solving problems that are valued in the community (Goodnow, 1990). This research has been influenced by the ideas of Vygotsky (1987), who argued that social interaction transforms the child’s innate cognitive abilities, such as involuntary memory, into complex, higher-order cognitive functions, such as intentional memory, that are tailored to the needs and interests of the culture. Consider attention. Human babies have innate perceptual biases that make them more watchful of human beings relative to other (especially inanimate) stimuli. Other people build on these biases and support the development of attention and learning through the processes of intersubjectivity (Trevarthen, 1980), joint attention (Bakeman & Adamson, 1984), and social referencing (Campos & Stenberg, 1981). Sociocultural experiences, often defined by caregiving routines and kin relations, teach children what to attend to as well as how to deploy attention. Chavajay and Rogoff (1999) observed that 14- to 20-month-olds living in a Mayan community in Guatemala attended to two events simul- taneously, whereas same-age children in the United States alternated their attention between events. Close examination revealed that mothers in these communities modeled and encouraged different uses of attention in children. 124 GAUVAIN, BEEBE, AND ZHAO

Participation in everyday activities. Many forms of participation support and guide cognitive development and these, too, reflect culture. From early in life, children participate in routines, rituals, and institutions that provide examples of mature cultural behaviors to observe and practice (Goodnow, Miller, & Kessel, 1995). Because these experiences are repeated, they offer multiple opportunities for learning. Children usually participate in these activities alongside more experienced cultural members, who provide guidance for learning. It is significant that this participation occurs during goal-directed activities. As discussed in activity theory (Wertsch, 1981), the means and goals of everyday activities are, in large measure, defined and organized by culture. Research illustrates the connection between cultural participation, everyday practices, and the development of cognitive skills. Parental expectations about development reflect cultural values and influence how parents interact with children and interpret their behaviors (Sigel, McGillicuddy-DeLisi, & Goodnow, 1992). We found that parental support for the development of planning reflects parental expectations regarding when children develop these skills (Gauvain & Perez, 2005). Children whose parents had older age-related expectations, which were more common among Latino than European American parents, had less opportunity than their peers to practice planning outside of school.

Symbolic and material artifacts that support and extend cognitive development. Everyday activities often incorporate cultural artifacts or tools that support and extend thinking, including symbol systems such as language, numeracy, and literacy, as well as material artifacts such as technology (Olson & Cole, 2006). Children learn to use cultural tools to mediate thinking, which, in turn, helps them solve problems and engage with the world in ways consistent with their culture. Because these tools are transmitted across generations, they preserve the practices and values of the culture in tangible form. One way to understand the connections between cultural artifacts and human thinking is to examine how variation in artifacts transforms cognitive development. Miller, Smith, Zhu, and Zhang (1995) found that the linguistic symbols used for numbers in Chinese and English affected the development of counting skills. In Chinese, there is a more consistent ‘‘base-10’’ naming system for the values between 11 and 20 than the system used in English. In Mandarin Chinese, the number 11 is called ‘‘ten-one,’’ whereas in English the names eleven and twelve seem to bear no relation to one and two, and the names for 13 through 19 place unit values before the tens values and modify the names of both (thir-teen, fif-teen). The researchers found that in learning the numbers 1 to 10, Chinese and English CULTURAL APPROACH TO COGNITIVE DEVELOPMENT 125 children did not differ, but as children learned to count in the teens, U.S. children had greater difficulty.

UNIQUE CONTRIBUTIONS AND PRACTICAL MATTERS OF CULTURAL RESEARCH

Examining the cultural basis of cognitive development is a value-added approach; that is, the questions asked and the data introduced do not dupli- cate other research. For instance, Piaget argued that cognition may advance when peers of near-equal cognitive status engage in conflict about their different understandings (Tudge & Rogoff, 1989). Although research supports this idea, this contribution differs across cultures. Whereas some cultures promote competition among children, others emphasize cooperation and group harmony. In a study comparing two groups of New Zealand children, Pakehas of European descent and Polynesians of Maori and Pacific Island descent, Mackie (1980, 1983) found that nonconserving Polynesian children benefitted less from social interaction with a near-peer than Pakehas children because the former were less likely to engage in the kind of verbal dis- cussion that is critical to cognitive growth. Here we see how a cultural approach was used to separate processes that are confounded in a single cultural setting. Examining the cultural basis of cognitive development does not require brand new methods. Most cultural research draws on standard contemporary methods. However, to conduct cultural research, it is essential to be sensitive to the complex and significant role of culture in human evolution and behavior (Bjorklund & Pellegrini, 2002) and to have extensive knowledge of the culture(s) under study. Sociocultural theory is useful here in that it attends to the ways in which culture, through its institutions, artifacts, and social settings, provides support and direction for cognitive growth (Go¨ncu¨ & Gauvain, in press). The fact that cultures vary widely in the institutions, artifacts, and settings that facilitate cognitive development provides a natural way of studying cognitive flexibility and potential. Extending this view into empirical research requires careful consideration of aspects of culture that are relevant to the topic under study. Ideally, the choice of topic and of culture should be theory driven (Cohen, 2007). As a case in point, notice how the research by Chavajay and Rogoff (1999), described earlier, advanced understanding of a basic cognitive developmental question (i.e., the parameters of attention in very young children) by examining this process in cultures where attention is deployed differently. As a result, their inquiry advanced theory by showing how a universal characteristic of cognitive development is adapted via social means to a 126 GAUVAIN, BEEBE, AND ZHAO cultural practice—an insight that could not have been obtained by within- culture analysis. Once an investigator decides to include culture in research, other important issues remain. Perhaps the most challenging is defining culture itself. In general terms, culture is ‘‘the shared way of life of a group of people’’ (Berry, Poortinga, Segall, & Dasen, 2006, p. 9). Many contemporary definitions also emphasize that these shared elements are passed across generations and reflect the adaptations of human beings to the environment (Triandis, 2007). Among anthropologists, culture is largely defined as a feature of society that is inter- nalized by its members as ‘‘a conceptual structure or system of ideas’’ (as sta- ted by Geertz in Shweder, 1984, p. 8). Cole (1996) defines culture as the medium and context of human development that connects the macro features ‘‘of society and its institutions and the micro level of individual human thoughts and actions’’ (p. 143). From this vast literature, researchers can devise a working definition to generate hypotheses that hone in on the cultural contributions to cognitive development in a specific area. For instance, Cole’s (1996) definition points to cultural artifacts, both material and symbolic, as the critical loci where culture and the developing mind shape one another. Researchers studying culture also need to appreciate that their research will exclude many elements of culture. Examining culture is like examining any complex process, such as human biology. Researchers accept that there are many ways of approaching human biology; some investigators focus on biochemical processes (e.g., cortisol levels), and others focus on structure (e.g., regions of the brain). This complexity has not stopped researchers from examining relations between the biological system and cognitive development. Researchers select the aspect(s) of biology that seem likely to contribute to the cognitive processes under study, and they provide a clear and compelling rationale for this focus. Similar tactics are necessary in studying culture and cognitive development.

Rationale for Selecting a Particular Topic and Cultural Setting So how does a researcher decide when to include culture, and then, how is a culture selected? The answer to the first question is simple. Examination of the cultural contributions to any area of cognitive development is worth- while. Culture is the species-specific habitat of human beings, and psychological development is embedded in this habitat. Therefore, it is good scientific practice to ask how culture contributes to any aspect of cognitive development. Even in cases where culture may seem to play a minimal role, this conclusion should be based on empirical evidence, not assertion. The selection of cultural settings for research is more difficult, and it has both ideal and practical dimensions (Van de Vijver, Hofer, & Chasiotis, CULTURAL APPROACH TO COGNITIVE DEVELOPMENT 127

2010). Cultures should be chosen because the aspect of development under study is predicted, by theory, to vary in systematic ways in the cultures (Cohen, 2007), as demonstrated in Miller et al. (1995), discussed earlier. Although a random sample of cultures could be useful, such research is difficult, if not impossible. Thus, practical matters dictate that cultural research, like research on cognitive development more generally, often relies on convenience sampling. Researchers draw on populations to which they have or can gain access, which makes it critical that the selection of cultures is guided by theory. It is also important to recognize that behaviors that appear similar across cultures may not have the same meaning or value in different settings, and even when aligned, the behaviors may have different consequences for development. For example, learning about numbers may unfold similarly across cultures, but in some cases, it may be foundational for future learning as comparisons in China, Japan, and the United States have shown (Stevenson & Stigler, 1992). In other settings, it may be a skill that is applied in some activities and not others as demonstrated in research on mathematical abilities in young street vendors in Brazil (Carraher, Schliemann, & Carraher, 1988). It is also important to realize that a similar developmental outcome may exist in two cultures, but the means by which the cultures reach this goal can differ. For instance, socialization in all cultures is directed toward mature competence, yet how mature competence is defined and obtained varies across cultures. In this sense, socialization practices differ behavio- rally, but they are functionally equivalent (Goldschmidt, 1966).

Culture as a Research Variable Research participants are usually identified by the culture to which they belong. That is, culture is treated as a category or label and not as the complex and dynamic social-psychological process that it is. Many faulty assumptions about culture underlie this practice. For instance, in some stu- dies, culture is used as an independent variable, but culture is not—nor can it be—an independent variable. In experimental research, independent variables are manipulated and randomly assigned to groups, neither of which is possible for culture. Problems also ensue when culture is used as an independent variable in quasiexperimental and naturalistic research, which Beatrice Whiting (1975) discussed as the problem of the packaged variable. For Whiting (1975), social scientists concentrate on dependent variables, which are considered the main objects of study. Independent variables are often chosen to represent important dimensions of human experience such as age, gender, social class, and culture. Yet none of these dimensions is well understood, at least not in a psychological sense. This is because they are 128 GAUVAIN, BEEBE, AND ZHAO not psychological variables at all, but social categories, and as such, they represent a set (or package) of psychological experiences. Consider gender. Male–female differences are found on many cognitive measures, but what do they mean? These differences, save for very few that remain unresolved, do not reflect biological differences (Hyde, 2005). Rather, they reflect differences on some dependent measure that pertains to living one’s life as a male or female at a particular point in history in a particular cultural setting. In like manner, culture is a packaged variable. It contains experiences that may indeed relate to cognitive outcomes. But finding a relation between culture and a cognitive measure does not represent the end of scientific inquiry—it is the beginning. Much work remains to determine how an individual’s participation in culture maps onto the cognitive performance in question. To do this, Whiting (1975) recommends that researchers collect detailed descriptions of the living and learning environments of a culture, an approach that has been developed in activity-setting analysis (Farver, 1999). Whiting also recommends that researchers remember that cultural processes and practices are connected to each other—which is another facet of ‘‘the culture package.’’ Culture contains many different behaviors and ways of understanding, and it connects these components in an overarching system.

Culture and Individual Differences So far, we have discussed how a culture is selected for study. Now we turn to how participants within a culture are selected. As in most research, it is important to select participants as randomly as possible. Yet this can be difficult to accomplish even in a familiar culture such as the United States, where many participants are drawn from university and college communities that differ on many dimensions from communities without such institutions. Given the difficulty in obtaining a random sample, it is important to describe thoroughly research participants and the limits to generalization due to sampling. The selection of research participants invariably raises the question of individual differences. How might individual differences affect research on culture and cognitive development? Cognitive development occurs during socialization, and from the beginning of life, children demonstrate great interest in learning how to become competent members of their community (Gauvain, in press). Individual differences including a child’s age, interests, capabilities, and other aspects of psychological functioning, such as emo- tionality, contribute to socialization and provide complexity that is vital to the maintenance of culture (D’Andrade, 1984). An internal and ongoing source of individual variation increases the likelihood that some cultural CULTURAL APPROACH TO COGNITIVE DEVELOPMENT 129 members will have unique and novel ways of understanding and solving problems. Consider personality. Personality provides individual variation in responsiveness to the environment, such as emotional reactivity and how individuals define and approach goals. Such variation may lead to innova- tive ways of addressing unseen circumstances that can help maintain culture over time. Does the reverse hold; that is, does culture contribute to personality? It may, for instance, by setting the boundaries for the expression of personality. This does not mean that personalities outside the expected range do not exist, but rather that they are less likely and that when they do occur, the culture may mark them in some way. Individual variation in culture is important theoretically and empirically. In theoretical terms, it underscores the active contributions of members in shaping culture, and as a result, it challenges deterministic views. In empirical terms, it reminds us that individual variation is the norm, not the excep- tion. Although it can be difficult to strike a balance between describing a culture as a whole and recognizing individual variation, it is nonetheless important in that both describe a culture.

Practical Matters There are many practical matters in taking a cultural approach to cognitive development, including the value of collaborating with people in the cultural setting. Although collaboration is not essential to carrying out cultural research, working with collaborators from, or familiar with, the local area where the research is to be conducted can be helpful both theoretically and practically. Theoretically, a local collaborator can provide necessary insight into local beliefs and practices that can impact cognitive development and help guide appropriate selection of a sample. On a practical level, a local collaborator can provide access to an institution or location for potential participants. For instance, if one is interested in cultural variation in how children learn mathematics in school, a local collaborator who is associated with schools in the area is invaluable. Local collaborators may also have knowledge of rules and regulations for conducting research in that location. In some cases, the rules may be governmental, but in other cases, rules may be social (e.g., eye contact from a youth to an elder is inappropriate). Finding a collaborator can be difficult. Nongovernmental organizations (NGOs) and government organizations that work in the community can be good resources, especially if their work is related to the research question (e.g., an NGO that provides teachers for schools). Local universities may also provide assistance, as collaborations can emerge from interactions with scholars from around the world who conduct similar research. Contacts 130 GAUVAIN, BEEBE, AND ZHAO developed through professional societies, such as the International Society for the Study of Behavioral Development, are ideal for such purposes. A collaboration that enables researchers to bring together their unique expertise will enrich the research. To accomplish this goal, researchers have to avoid ethnocentrism and be willing to learn about how development occurs in their respective communities. Neither culture can be viewed as the model or norm of development. Rather, each culture must be seen as representing cognitive development as it exists, that is, as a process that sim- ultaneously embodies common species-specific properties along with unique adaptations that are culturally informed (Cole & Hatano, 2007). Once collaborators are found, there are other practical matters. All developmental researchers are familiar with the requirements of conducting research with human participants as articulated by the Institutional Review Board (IRB). The IRB will want to know if their requirements, along with those of the communities under study, have been met. It is important to find out these requirements and secure approval for the research. Local collaborators can be helpful in this regard. Ethical issues are similar to those that apply in all human psychological research with children. There are ethics boards and councils that govern research conducted in other countries that need to be contacted so their requirements can be met. The Online Readings in Culture and Psychology (http://orpc.iaccp.org) developed at Western Washington University in association with the International Association for Cross-Cultural Psychology has readings on research methods and ethics along with a full range of relevant topics.

CONCLUDING THOUGHTS

This article touches on many issues that are important in applying a cultural approach to cognitive development. Although these issues may seem daunt- ing, we encourage researchers to explore this approach. There is a wealth of literature on the topic, and we recommend several sources to jumpstart your efforts. We have mainly discussed this topic from a scientific point of view, while arguing on theoretical grounds for its importance and pointing out some of the methodological issues that lie therein. We have not touched on the sociological and humanistic motives behind this approach. The contributions of this research can reach beyond the academy by helping us understand human development and experience in the ‘‘global’’ 21st century. What role can and will the science of cognitive development play in understanding this process? In our view, we have much to contribute and we close on this topic by quoting what Michael Cole (2006) said on the occasion of receiving the American Psychological Association Award CULTURAL APPROACH TO COGNITIVE DEVELOPMENT 131 for Distinguished Contributions to the International Advancement of Psychology:

Cross-cultural researchers have become far more aware of the pitfalls in this research, and professional international interactions have increased enor- mously. However, there are also good reasons to be concerned that progress in making psychology a truly international enterprise is failing to keep up with the pace of globalization and with the increased danger that international mis- understanding will result in a cataclysmic conflict that will dwarf the world wars of the 20th century .... Psychologists cannot solve the world’s myriad problems. However, through taking cultural variations seriously and engaging psychologists, members of other professions, and lay people from different societies in the effort to address critical problems confronting all of human- kind, they may be able to contribute to the solution of common problems that must be addressed if humanity is to survive. (pp. 915–916)

REFERENCES

Bakeman, R., & Adamson, L. B. (1984). Coordinating attention to people and objects in mother–infant and peer–infant interaction. Child Development, 55, 1278–1289. Bandura, A. (1986). Social foundations of thought and action: A social cognitive theory. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall. Berry, J. W., Poortinga, U. H., Segall, M. H., & Dasen, P. R. (2006). Cross-cultural psychology: Research and applications (2nd ed.). Cambridge, England: Cambridge University Press. Bjorklund, D. F., & Pellegrini, A. D. (2002). The origins of human nature: Evolutionary developmental psychology. Washington, DC: American Psychological Association. Campos, J. J., & Stenberg, C. R. (1981). Perception, appraisal, and emotion: The onset of social referencing. In M. E. Lamb & L. R. Sherrod (Eds.), Infant social cognition: Empirical and theoretical considerations (pp. 273–314). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum. Carraher, T. N., Schliemann, A. D., & Carraher, D. W. (1988). Mathematical concepts in everyday life. New Directions for Child Development, 41, 71–87. Chavajay, P., & Rogoff, B. (1999). Cultural variation in the management of attention by children and their caregivers. Child Development, 35, 1079–1090. Cohen, D. (2007). Methods in cultural psychology. In S. Kitayama & D. Cohen (Eds.), Handbook of cultural psychology (pp. 196–236). New York, NY: Guilford. Cole, M. (1996). Cultural psychology: A once and future discipline. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press. Cole, M. (2006). Internationalism in psychology: We need it now more than ever. American Psychologist, 61, 904–917. Cole, M., & Hatano, G. (2007). Cultural-historical activity theory: Integrating phylogeny, cultural history, and ontogenesis in cultural psychology. In S. Kitayama & D. Cohen (Eds.), Handbook of cultural psychology (pp. 109–135). New York, NY: Guilford. D’Andrade, R. G. (1984). Cultural meaning systems. In R. A. Shweder & R. A. LeVine (Eds.), Culture theory: Essays on mind, self, and emotion (pp. 88–119). Cambridge, United Kingdom: Cambridge University Press. 132 GAUVAIN, BEEBE, AND ZHAO

Farver, J. M. (1999). Activity setting analysis: A model for examining the role of culture in development. In A. Go¨ncu¨ (Ed.), Children’s engagement in the world: Sociocultural perspectives (pp. 99–127). Cambridge, United Kingdom: Cambridge University Press. Gauvain, M. (in press). Sociocultural contexts of development. In P. D. Zelazo (Ed.), Oxford handbook of developmental psychology. New York, NY: Oxford University Press. Gauvain, M., & Parke, R. D. (2010). Socialization. In M. Bornstein (Ed.), Handbook of cross-cultural developmental science (pp. 239–258). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum. Gauvain, M., & Perez, S. M. (2005). Parent–child participation in planning children’s activities outside of school in European American and Latino families. Child Development, 76, 371–383. Goldschmidt, W. (1966). Comparative functionalism: An essay in anthropological theory. Berkeley, CA: University of California Press. Go¨ncu¨, A., & Gauvain, M. (in press). Sociocultural approaches to educational psychology: Theory, research, and application. In K. Harris, S. Graham, & T. Urdan (Eds.), Handbook of educational psychology. Washington, DC: American Psychological Association. Goodnow, J. J. (1990). The socialization of cognition: What’s involved? In J. W. Stigler, R. A. Shweder, & G. Herdt (Eds.), Cultural psychology: Essays on comparative human development (pp. 259–286). Cambridge, United Kingdom: Cambridge University Press. Goodnow, J. J., Miller, P. J., & Kessel, F. (1995). Cultural practices as contexts for development. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass. Hyde, J. S. (2005). The gender similarities hypothesis. American Psychologist, 60, 581–592. Mackie, D. (1980). A cross-cultural study of intra- and interindividual conflicts of centrations. European Journal of Social Psychology, 10, 311–318. Mackie, D. (1983). The effect of social interaction on conservation of spatial relations. Journal of Cross-Cultural Psychology, 14, 131–151. Miller, K. F., Smith, C. M., Zhu, J., & Zhang, H. (1995). Preschool origins of cross-national differences in mathematical competence: The role of number-naming systems. Psychological Science, 6, 56–60. Miller, P. H. (2011). Theories of developmental psychology (5th ed.). New York, NY: Worth. Munroe, R. L., & Gauvain, M. (2010). Cross-cultural study of children’s learning and socialization: A short history. In D. F. Lancy, J. Bock, & S. Gaskins (Eds.), Anthropological perspectives on learning in childhood (pp. 35–63). Lanham, MD: Alta Mira Press. Olson, D. R., & Cole, M. (2006). Technology, literacy, and the evolution of society: Implications of the work of Jack Goody. Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum. Rogoff, B. (1990). Apprenticeship in thinking: Cognitive development in social context. New York, NY: Oxford University Press. Rogoff, B. (2003). The cultural nature of human development. Oxford, United Kingdom: Oxford University Press. Shweder, R. A. (1984). Preview: A colloquy of cultural theorists. In R. A. Shweder & R. A. LeVine (Eds.), Culture theory: Essays on mind, self, and emotion (pp. 1–24). Cambridge, England: Cambridge University Press. Sigel, I. E., McGillicuddy-DeLisi, A. V., & Goodnow, J. J. (1992). Parental belief systems: The psychological consequences for children (2nd ed.). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum. Stevenson, H. W., & Stigler, J. W. (1992). The learning gap. New York, NY: Summit Books. Trevarthen, C. (1980). The foundations of intersubjectivity: Development of interpersonal and cooperative understanding in infants. In D. R. Olson (Ed.), The social foundations of language and thought (pp. 316–342). New York, NY: Norton. Triandis, H. C. (2007). Culture and psychology: A history of the study of their relationship. In S. Kitayama & D. Cohen (Eds.), Handbook of cultural psychology (pp. 59–76). New York, NY: Guilford. CULTURAL APPROACH TO COGNITIVE DEVELOPMENT 133

Tudge, J. R. H., & Rogoff, B. (1989). Peer influences on cognitive development: Piagetian and Vygotskian perspectives. In M. Bornstein & J. Bruner (Eds.), Interaction in human development (pp. 17–40). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum. Van de Vijver, F. J. R., Hofer, J., & Chasiotis, A. (2010). Methodology. In M. H. Bornstein (Ed.), Handbook of cultural developmental science (pp. 21–37). New York, NY: Psychology Press. Vygotsky, L. S. (1978). Mind in society: The development of higher psychological functions. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press. Vygotksy, L. S. (1987). The collected works of L. S. Vygotsky: Problems of general psychology (Vol. 1). New York, NY: Plenum. Wertsch, J. V. (1981). The concept of activity in Soviet psychology. Armonk, NY: Sharpe. Whiting, B. (1975). Problems of cross-cultural research: Age as a packaged variable. In K. F. Reigel & J. A. Meacham (Eds.), The developing individual in a changing world: Vol. 1. Histori- cal and cultural issues (pp. 303–309). The Hague, Netherlands: Mouton. Wood, D. J., & Middleton, D. (1975). A study of assisted problem solving. British Journal of Psychology, 66, 181–191.