Browsing by Author "Rosabal Coto, Mariano"

Now showing 1 - 3 of 3
  • No Thumbnail Available
    Item
    Bringing the Real World Into Developmental Science: A Commentary on Weber, Fernald, and Diop (2017)
    (WILEY, 2018) Morelli, Gilda; Bard, Kim; Chaudhary, Nandita; Gottlieb, Alma; Keller, Heidi; Murray García, Marjorie Neva; Quinn, Naomi; Rosabal Coto, Mariano; Scheidecker, Gabriel; Takada, Akira; Vicedo, Marga
    This article examines the parent intervention program evaluated by Weber et al. (2017) and argues that there are scientific and ethical problems with such intervention efforts in applied developmental science. Scientifically, these programs rely on data from a small and narrow sample of the world's population; assume the existence of fixed developmental pathways; and pit scientific knowledge against indigenous knowledge. The authors question the critical role of talk as solely providing the rich cognitive stimulation important to school success, and the critical role of primary caregivers as teachers of children's verbal competency. Ethically, these programs do not sufficiently explore how an intervention in one aspect of child care will affect the community's culturally organized patterns of child care.
  • Thumbnail Image
    Item
    Ethical challenges of parenting interventions in low- to middle-income countries
    (2018) Morelli, Gilda; Quinn, Naomi; Chaudhary, Nandita; Vicedo, Marga; Rosabal Coto, Mariano; Keller, Heidi; Murray García, Marjorie Neva; Gottlieb, Alma; Scheidecker, Gabriel; Takada, Akira
  • No Thumbnail Available
    Item
    The Myth of Universal Sensitive Responsiveness: Comment on Mesman et al. (2017)
    (2018) Keller, Heidi; Bard, Kim; Morelli, Gilda A.; Chaudhary, Nandita; Vicedo, Marga; Rosabal Coto, Mariano; Scheidecker, Gabriel; Murray García, Marjorie Neva; Gottlieb, Alma
    This article considers claims of Mesman et al. (2017) that sensitive responsiveness as defined by Ainsworth, while not uniformly expressed across cultural contexts, is universal. Evidence presented demonstrates that none of the components of sensitive responsiveness (i.e., which partner takes the lead, whose point of view is primary, and the turn-taking structure of interactions) or warmth are universal. Mesman and colleagues’ proposal that sensitive responsiveness is “providing for infant needs” is critiqued. Constructs concerning caregiver quality must be embedded within a nexus of cultural logic, including caregiving practices, based on ecologically valid childrearing values and beliefs. Sensitive responsiveness, as defined by Mesman and attachment theorists, is not universal. Attachment theory and cultural or cross-cultural psychology are not built on common ground.