Professional Documents
Culture Documents
0012-1649/97/53,00
Developmental Psychology
1997, Vol. 33, No. 2, 228-240
This document is copyrighted by the American Psychological Association or one of its allied publishers.
This article is intended solely for the personal use of the individual user and is not to be disseminated broadly.
University of Iowa
This research extends longitudinally findings on child temperament as a moderator of the impact of
socialization on conscience development, reported previously for contemporaneous data at toddler
age. Children's temperament and maternal socialization at Time 1 (n = 103, aged 2 - 3 years) were
considered predictors of future conscience, assessed using new observational and narrative measures.
The moderation model was supported for predicting conscience at Time 2 (n = 99, age 4), and, to
a lesser extent, at Time 3 (n = 90, age 5). For children fearful as toddlers, maternal gentlt discipline,
presumably capitalizing on the optimal level of anxious arousal, promoted conscience at Time 2.
For children fearless as toddlers, perhaps insufficiently aroused by gentle discipline, alternative
socialization mechanisms, presumably capitalizing on mother-child positive orientation (secure attachment, maternal responsiveness), promoted conscience at Times 2 and 3. Developmental interplay
of temperament and socialization in emerging morality is discussed.
Research on the emergence of internalized regulators of conduct has made a remarkable comeback in developmental psychology. Conscience and internalization have resumed the center
stage among the critical issues of socialization (Grusec & Goodnow, 1994; Grusec & Kuczynski, in press). Moreover, the interests of many scholars have shifted to toddlerhood and early
childhood, now increasingly recognized as the critical context
for the origins of morality (Kochanska, 1993; Kochanska &
Thompson, in press).
One of the recent directions in research on early conscience
involves attempts to integrate two powerful sets of influences
children's temperament and parental socializationas significant contributors to the developing internalization (Derryberry & Reed, 1994; Kochanska, 1991, 1993, 1995; Rothbart &
Ahadi, 1994; Rothbart, Ahadi, & Hershey, 1994). This article
represents a consecutive step in the testing of a theoretical model
of the interplay of temperament and socialization (Kochanska,
1993). The model proposed that temperament and socialization
My work was supported by grants from the National Science Foundation (DBS-9209559 and SBR-95I0863), the MacArthur Foundation,
and the University of Iowa {Faculty Scholar Award).
1 am grateful to numerous graduate and undergraduate students and
staff for their tremendous contributions to data collection and coding,
particularly Maya Carnahan, Juli Fratzke, Amy Koenig, and Kim Vandegeest, and to Nazan Aksan, Amy Boutott, Margi Goldman, Michele
Guyton, Darcie Padavich, Meggan Schulze, and Kim Thomas, who contributed to the specific data sets described in this article. I also thank
Byron Egeland, Nancy Eisenberg, Susan Goldberg, Jerome Kagan, Gertrude Nunner-Winkler, Mary Rothbart, and Everett Waters for their expert
advice and for sharing research materials and instruments. The mothers
and children in the Toddler Study deserve continuing recognition for
their enthusiastic commitment.
Correspondence concerning this article should be addressed to Grazyna Kochanska, Department of Psychology, University of Iowa, Iowa
City, Iowa 52242. Electronic mail may be sent via Internet to grazynakochanska@uiowa.edu.
228
This document is copyrighted by the American Psychological Association or one of its allied publishers.
This article is intended solely for the personal use of the individual user and is not to be disseminated broadly.
229
a more mutually positive relationship with their mothers. Children's conscience was captured using both maternal reports and
observational measures. The findings, based on the contemporaneous data at toddler age, strongly supported the model (Kochanska, 1995). There were main effects of fearfiilness: The
relatively fearful toddlers, compared with the fearless ones, were
indeed more internalized on two behavioral conscience measures (committed compliance with mother, postulated in this
study as an early form of internalization, and the internalization
of maternal prohibition to touch the attractive objects assessed
during her absence). There were also the posited interaction
effects: for the relatively fearful toddlers, maternal gentle discipline; for the relatively fearless toddlers, security of attachment
to mother predicted conscience development.
The research reported in this article had several goals. First,
it provides a necessary (and explicitly projected in Kochanska's
1995 article) longitudinal extension of the previous toddler-age
findings. Although the early data were strong and persuasive,
their value was inevitably restricted by the exclusive reliance
on the measures that were essentially contemporaneous, as all
were collected within a few weeks at toddler age. Thus, forthcoming longitudinal analyses that would test the model by examining predictions from toddler age to future conscience development were pledged as a critical, and developmentally much
stronger, test of the theory (Kochanska, 1995, p. 613). To accomplish this goal, the measures of conscience were subsequently obtained from the same children at two later assessments, at age 3.5 to 4.5 years (Time 2) and again at age 4.5 to
5.5 years (Time 3).
Second, to provide a broader test of the theory, new conscience measures were used. Tb that effect, new paradigms were
designed. At both Time 2 and Time 3, children were observed
in several laboratory paradigms that created a strong temptation
to break the rules set by the experimenter ("cheating games").
Also at each assessment, children responded to a series of hypothetical narratives focused on moral issues. To assure that those
measures were developmentally appropriate and yet comparable,
at Time 2 we used interactive play narratives employing dolls
and props (Kochanska et al., 1996), and at Time 3 we used
stories and vignettes adapted from past sociocognitive research
(Eisenberg-Berg & Hand, 1979; Nunner-Winkler, 1993).
Third, another measure of the presumed mother-child positive, mutually binding, responsive orientation at toddler age was
generated in addition to the security of attachment score used
in the earlier report. Because secure attachment focuses primarily on the child's side of the relationship, a new observational
measure was generated that captured maternal responsiveness
to child (i.e., the mother's side of or contribution to the relationship). To that effect, the videotaped mother-child naturalistic
interactions at toddler age were coded using the established
classic set of responsiveness ratings (Ainsworth, Bell, & Stayton, 1971).
As in the past, robust measurement was the explicit methodological goal. To that effect, most constructs are the result of
aggregation across multiple observational contexts, several analogous paradigms, or repeated probes (e.g., events in fearfulness
assessment, projective narratives, or hypothetical dilemmas in
conscience measurement). Because the interim reports from
this study that focused on other issues have been published (e.g..
230
KOCHANSKA
This document is copyrighted by the American Psychological Association or one of its allied publishers.
This article is intended solely for the personal use of the individual user and is not to be disseminated broadly.
Overview
The data come from the longitudinal study on conscience development. Children and mothers were assessed on three separate occasions
approximately 14 months apart. At Time 1, there were a home and lab
session, each 2.5 hr; at Time 2, a lab session, 3-3.5 hr; and at Time
3, a lab session, 1.5 hr. Children and mothers were observed in multiple
naturalistic yet standard contexts and in many laboratory paradigms.
The entire sessions were videotaped (using a camcorder at home and a
professional video setup behind a one-way mirror in the lab). Five
different experimenters conducted the sessions at Time 1 (the same one
for home and lab session for each child), two at Time 2, and two at
Time 3. The experimenter always established good rapport with mother
and child prior to a session. Behavioral data were coded from the videotapes by multiple teams of coders, using typically between 15 and 20%
of cases for reliability.
Sample
At Time 1, 103 normally developing toddlers (51 girls, 52 boys; M
= 32.86 months old, SD = 4.09 months), at Time 2, 99 children (49
girls, 50 boys; Af = 46.02 months old, SD = 2.62 months), and at Time
3, 90 children (43 girls, 47 boys; M = 60.52 months old, SD = 3.60
months) participated. The attrition was caused in most cases by families
moving out of the area, particularly between Times 2 and 3 (only two
assessments had been originally planned; the third one was added when
additional funding became available). Mothers initially responded to
advertisements in the community (a midwestem area including a college
town, a small city, and rural localities). The families represented a
relatively broad socioeconomic range in terms of education (high school
only, 12%;postgraduate,31%)andincome(<$15,000, 13%; >$45,000,
38%). Mothers were mostly Caucasian (80%), 7% were minorities, and
13% did not state their ethnicity.
Maternal Reports
Mothers filled out the Child Behavior Questionnaire, a well-established, Likert-type temperament instrument (Rothbart et al., 1994).
Three scales were combined to reflect mother-reported fearfulness score
(a = .63): shyness (13 items), fearfulness (12 items), and discomfort
(13 items).
Mothers' Responsiveness
Maternal responsiveness to child was coded using three 9-point scales
assessing its components (sensitivity -insensitivity, acceptance-rejection, and cooperation-interference; Ainsworth et al., 1971; Goldberg,
Lojasek, Gartner, & Corter, 1989). Two mother-child interaction contexts were rated: "the kitchen scene," a 30-min interaction during the
home session in which the mother and child prepared and ate a meal
and then baked muffins together using supplies provided by the experimenter, and a 10-min free play with various toys during the lab session.
Sensitivity reflected the degree of the mother's awareness of and attunement to the child's signals; acceptance reflected her warmth and
genuine interest in and enjoyment of the child; and cooperation reflected
the degree of the mother's respect for the child's autonomy.
Coding. To increase robustness, each 5-min segment of the videotaped interactions was rated on all three scales. The ratings were then
averaged across both contexts. Reliability between two coders (alphas)
were .99 for sensitivity, .98 for acceptance, and .99 for cooperation.
Data aggregation. All three scales were highly intercorrelated, a
common result (Goldberg et al., 1989). They were therefore aggregated
into one responsiveness score ( a = .93).
This document is copyrighted by the American Psychological Association or one of its allied publishers.
This article is intended solely for the personal use of the individual user and is not to be disseminated broadly.
231
This document is copyrighted by the American Psychological Association or one of its allied publishers.
This article is intended solely for the personal use of the individual user and is not to be disseminated broadly.
232
KOCHANSKA
second fish) were also coded, in seconds (180 s if never). The child's
behavior was coded for each of 60 3-s intervals to capture acts that were
rule-eompatible (looking at the covered jars), and those that violated the
rules (examining or searching in an uncovered jar, returning a fish to
jar, taking out an illegal fish from jar, and the numbers of uncovered
jars and fish returned to jars). The total occurrences of each code were
then tallied.
Reliability. Reliability for the discrete codes, kappa, was .83. For
the latencies, 92% were identical or within 1 s, 4% within 3 s, and 4%
differed by 4 s or more.
Data aggregation. As at Time 2, all latencies were standardized and
averaged (a = .68). I also standardized and averaged the frequencies
of the acts violating the rule of not looking (examining an uncovered
jar, searching for fish in an uncovered jar, the number of jars seen, a =
.81), those violating the rule of not retrieving the fish (returning fish to
ajar, taking an illegalother than firstfish from ajar, and the number
offish returned to jars, a = .75), and the frequencies of rule-compatible
behavior. Finally, I created an overall Time 3 cheating game intemalization score by aggregating the latencies' composite, behavior compatible
with rules, and (reversed) rule violation composites (a = .63). The
Time 2 and Time 3 cheating games intemalization scores were correlated
(r = .40, p < .001).
from another child's pocket vs. not touch it, drink one's soda vs. give
it to a thirsty child, keep an unfairly won prize vs. share it with the
competitor, refuse to help another child on a task vs. help at the cost of
one's own performance). The experimenter asked the child what the
protagonist should do. The solutions were coded as antisocial, moral,
or compromise (the latter not further used in the analyses).
Coding of responses to Nunner-Winkler stories was done from videotapes. Because in these stories the child's solutions were not challenged,
for each story, each solution received a score of 0 (absent) or 1 (present). For each code, the scores were then tallied across all four stories.
Reliability (kappas) were .94 for antisocial solutions and .95 for moral
solutions.
Data aggregation. The solutions across two sets of stories correlated: selfish with antisocial ( r = .28, p < .01) and prosocial with moral
(r = .32, p < .0025). They were then aggregated into, respectively, a
general selfish-antisocial solution score and prosocial-moral solution
score.
There was some longitudinal stability between the Time 2 antisocial
themes and the Time 3 selfish-antisocial solution scores (r = .28, p <
.01). The Time 2 prosocial-moral themes and Time 3 prosocial-moral
solution scores, however, were not related (r = .03).
Solutions in
During the lab session, eight stories were presented to the child,
including color vignettes illustrating the depicted events. They were
adapted, with some changes, from two previously published batteries,
by Eisenberg-Berg and Hand (1979) and Nunner-Winkler (1993). There
were two versions (for boys and girls) for each set.
Eistnberg stories. Four stories (the set for younger children) were
used, each illustrated by a picture and presenting a conflict between the
protagonist's desires or interests and those of others in need (' 'Flood,''
keep vs. give food to hungry victims; "Bully," ignore vs. intervene on
behalf of another child; "Birthday," attend a party vs. get help for an
injured child; and "Swimmer," practice swimming to win a competition
vs. coach handicapped children). The experimenter then asked the child
what the protagonist should do and why; she subsequently challenged
his or her decision (if the child chose a selfish act, the experimenter
pointed out the needs of others; if she or he chose a prosocial act, the
experimenter pointed out the protagonist's loss or harm), and asked the
child again to make the final choice as to what the protagonist should
do and why.
Coding of responses to Eisenberg stories was done from the videotapes. The child's solutions to the conflicts were coded as selfish, prosocial, or, on occasion, as compromise. The selfish decisions were those
that favored the protagonist's needs or wishes; the prosocial ones favored
those of others. The compromise was scored when the child insisted on
some form of integrating both parties' needs, despite the fact that the
experimenter strongly discouraged such choices, as directed by the instructions (this solution was not used in the analyses). To create more
sensitive scores, for each story, each solution was rated on a 4-point scale
(0 ~ absent in story; 1 = first choice but changed when challenged, not
final; 2 = second [changed] choice, retained as final; 3 = first choice,
unchanged despite challenge [retained as final]). For each code, the
scores were then tallied across all four stories.
Reliability between two coders was established separately for the
selfish and prosocial codes. Both kappas were .96 (with scores 0 - 3
treated as the separate levels of each code).
Nunner-Winkler (1993) stories. Four stories, each illustrated by several vignettes depicting the event, were presented to the child, also
during the lab session. Each story portrayed the conflict between the
protagonist's desires or wishes and those of another child (steal candy
Results
Preliminary Analyses
Gender and Developmental Effects
In a multivariate analysis of variance (MANONA), I explored
gender as the between-subjects factor, treating the Time 1 predictors (fearfulness, attachment security, maternal responsiveness, and gentle discipline) as the dependent variables, and
covarying age. The multivariate effect of gender was not significant, F(A, 97) = 1.68; the only univariate effect was for gentle
discipline, F ( l , 100) = 5.62, p < .05, used more often by
mothers of girls (M = .35, SD = 1.50) than boys (M = - . 3 4 ,
SD = 1.78).
In two MANOVAs, for Time 2 and Time 3 data, I examined
gender differences in the conscience measures, covarying children's age. At Time 2, the multivariate effect of gender was
significant, F ( 3 , 94) = 4.97, p < .005. Girls scored higher on
the prosocial-moral theme (girls, M = .81, SD = .24; boys, M
.63, SD = .27) and tended to score lower on the antisocial
theme (girls, M = .42, SD - .22; boys, M = .52, SD = .35).
At Time 3, the multivariate effect of gender was again significant, F(3, 85) = 5.45, p < .005. Girls were more internalized
Table 1
Overview of Descriptive Data
This document is copyrighted by the American Psychological Association or one of its allied publishers.
This article is intended solely for the personal use of the individual user and is not to be disseminated broadly.
Measure
Predictor variables (Time 1, n - 103)
Child fearfulness*
Maternal gentle discipline deemphasizing power*
Attachment security
Maternal responsiveness to child
Child conscience (Time 2, n = 99)
Internalization in cheating games"
Antisocial themes in narratives
Prosocial-moral themes in narratives
Overall conscience8
Child conscience (Time 3, n = 90)
Internalization in cheating game"
Selfish-antisocial solutions in stories
Prosocial-moral solutions in stories
Overall conscience"
233
SD
0.00
0.00
0.41
6.25
0.70
1.68
0.31
1.22
0.00
0.47
0.72
0.00
0.56
0.29
0.27
0.59
0.00
6.90
8.21
0.00
0.58
4.43
4.08
0.70
This document is copyrighted by the American Psychological Association or one of its allied publishers.
This article is intended solely for the personal use of the individual user and is not to be disseminated broadly.
234
KOCHANSKA
Fearful
Children
235
Table 2
Children's Attachment Security, Mothers' Responsiveness, and Discipline Deemphasizing Power at Time 1 as Predictors of
Conscience at Time 2 and Time 3 in Children Differing in Fearfulness: Hierarchical Multiple Regressions
Step and Predictors
R2
F
'change
4.69*
<1
Age at Time 2
Step 2
1.96
This document is copyrighted by the American Psychological Association or one of its allied publishers.
This article is intended solely for the personal use of the individual user and is not to be disseminated broadly.
Sex
<1
Age at Time 2
Attachment security at Time 1
Maternal responsiveness at Time 1
Step 3
9.50***
<1
.10
2.48f
.26
5.02***
-.30
.03
-.20
.06
.42
.07
.27
Sex
1.66
Age at Time 2
Attachment security at Time 1
Maternal responsiveness at Time 1
Maternal discipline deemphasizing power at Time 1
Children high in fearfulness (n - 49; 24 girls, 25 boys), Overall F(5, 43) - 9.29****
Step 1
Sex
Age at Time 2
Step 2
<1
9.07***
<1
<1
.04
.41
.05
.09
.41
15.26****
22.48****
-.45
13.12****
19.77****
-.44
Age at Time 2
Attachment security at Time 1
Maternal responsiveness at Time 1
Step 3
<1
<1
Sex
Age at Time 2
Attachment security at Time 1
Maternal responsiveness at Time 1
Maternal discipline deemphasizing power at Time 1
6.13**
14.03****
<1
<1
9.50***
16.16****
.54
.41
Sex
<1
-.19
<1
.54
-.01
.02
.52
9.50***
.06
1.49
.20
3.78*
.22
1.01
.24
6.14***
-.30
.44
-.05
-.02
.37
Age at Time 3
Attachment security at Time 1
Maternal responsiveness at Time I
Step 3
Sex
Age at Time 3
Attachment security at Time 1
Maternal responsiveness at Time 1
Maternal discipline deemphasizing power at Time 1
Children high in fearfulness (n = 41; 18 girls, 23 boys), Overall F(5, 35) = 2..85**
Step 1
Sex
Age at Time 3
Step 2
Sex
Age at Time 3
Attachment security at Time 1
Maternal responsiveness at Time
Step 3
Sex
Age at Time 3
Attachment security at Time 1
Maternal responsiveness at Time 1
Maternal discipline deemphasizing power at Time 1
t / > < .10. *p < .05. * * p < . 0 2 5 .
1.38
1.72
.17
.19
2.28
:l
1.02
6.06**
.22
.08
.14
.37
2.64
cl
1.16
6.62**
1.01
.24
.11
.15
.39
.14
11.86****
.10
.49
9 70***
1.68
.01
.46
.21
.05
6.51**
1.57
.05
.41
.20
-.06
.12
.28
<1
.29
<1
236
KOCHANSKA
Table 3
Correlations Between Children's Attachment Security, Mothers' Responsiveness, and Discipline Deemphasizing Power at Time 1
and Children's Conscience at Time 2 and Time 3 for Fearless and Fearful Children
Time 1 (n = 103)
Maternal
responsiveness
Attachment
security
This document is copyrighted by the American Psychological Association or one of its allied publishers.
This article is intended solely for the personal use of the individual user and is not to be disseminated broadly.
Conscience measure
Time 2 (n = 99)
Internalization (cheating games)
Antisocial themes (narratives)
Prosocial-moral themes (narratives)
Conscience composite
Time 3 ( = 90)
Internalization (cheating game)
Selfish-antisocial solutions (stories)
Prosocial-moral solutions (stories)
Conscience composite
Note, Age of children covaried.
t/> < .10. *p < .05. **p < .025.
Maternal discipline
deemphasizing power
Fearless
Fearful
Fearless
Fearful
.17
-36**
.38***
4-7*****
.16
.07
-27t
-.14
.20
.10
.00
.00
-.19
-.18
.06
.06
.13
-.10
.11
.16
-.27t
40***
.33**
-.16
.09
.21
-.08
-.25
.32*
.23
.02
-.28f
.32*
.29*
-.08
.04
.03
-.03
.08
.02
-.14
.06
27t
.02
.01
.08
Fearless
Fearful
Discussion
This study provides further support for the theoretical model
of the interplay of temperament and socialization in conscience
development. It replicates a preliminary study of a smaller sample (Kochanska, 1991) and extends longitudinally the earlier
account of the toddler-age contemporaneous data from the current investigation. Together, both the contemporaneous and longitudinal findings provide provocative evidence regarding multiple forms of interaction among child temperament, development,
and socialization in early morality. If replicated in yet another
sample, this approach may help elucidate some of the central
questions of socialization. I am currently pursuing such an effort
with a new group of families.
237
Table 4
Comparison of Conscience Development in Groups Representing Theoretical Good and
Poor Fit Between Temperament and Socialization
This document is copyrighted by the American Psychological Association or one of its allied publishers.
This article is intended solely for the personal use of the individual user and is not to be disseminated broadly.
Group description
Group 1 (Fearless children, attachment security
high, mother responsiveness high)
Group 2 (Fearless children, attachment security
low, mother responsiveness low)
Group 3 (Fearful children, mother discipline
high on deemphasizing power)
Group 4 (Fearful children, mother discipline
low on deemphasizing power)
Group 5 (Fearless children, attachment security
high, mother responsiveness low or
attachment security low, mother
responsiveness high)
Note.
Conscience at
Time 2
Conscience at
Time 3
SD
SD
SD
.39
.64
.37
.56
.38
.46
-.13
.50
ifl
.73
-.25
.49
.19
.59
.12
.70
.19
.55
Poor
-.28
.55
-.07
.59
-.16
.45
Mixed
-.12
.49
-.10
.75
-.12
48
Theoretical
fit
Good
Poor
Good
.JO
Conscience across
Time 2 <& 3
Sample sizes for Groups 1 - 5 are, respectively, 14, 12, 27, 22, and 24 at Time 2 (total = 99); 14, 12, 24, 17, and 23 at Time 3 (total = 90).
This document is copyrighted by the American Psychological Association or one of its allied publishers.
This article is intended solely for the personal use of the individual user and is not to be disseminated broadly.
238
KOCHANSKA
Fowles, 1994); if their parents skillfully capitalize on that tendency by using subtle and gentle discipline, those children will
develop strong internalized regulators of conduct. On the other
hand, some children are temperamentally fearless and do not
respond with sufficient discomfort to subtle discipline. For them,
different experiences appear effectively to promote internalization. If their parents capitalize on positive motivation originating
within the mutually responsive and positive parent-child orientation, such fearless children are likely to develop an equally
well-internalized conscience. An exciting question for future
research is whether there are temperamental factors that may
contribute to such positive motivation in addition to those derived from the relationship with a parent. For example, the role
of the child's temperamental positive emotionality and the associated motivational systempossibly particularly strong in
fearless children (Derryberry & Reed, 1994; Fowles, 1994)
remains poorly understood and deserves research attention.
This document is copyrighted by the American Psychological Association or one of its allied publishers.
This article is intended solely for the personal use of the individual user and is not to be disseminated broadly.
References
Ainsworth, M. D. S., Bell, S. M. V, & Stayton, D. J. (1971). Individual
differences in strange-situation behavior of one-year-olds. In H. R.
Schaffer (Ed.), The origins of human social relations (pp. 17-57).
London: Academic Press.
Asendorpf, J. B., & Nunner-Winkler, G. (1992). Children's moral motive
strength and temperamental inhibition reduce their egoistic behavior
in real moral conflicts. Child Development, 63, 1223-1235.
Bretherton, I., Oppenheim, D., & Prentiss, C. (1990). MacArthur storystem battery. Unpublished manuscript.
Buchsbaum, H. K., & Emde, R. N. (1990). Play narratives in 36-monthold children: Early moral development and family relationships. Psychoanalytic Study of the Child, 45, 129-155.
Cicchetti, D. (1993). Developmental psychopathology: Reactions, reflections, projections. Developmental Review, 13, 471-502.
Crockenberg, S. (1986). Are temperamental differences in babies associated with predictable differences in care giving? In J. V. Lemer &
R. M. Lerner (Eds.), Temperament and social interaction during infancy and childhood (pp. 53-73). San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
Damasio, A. R., Tranel, D., & Damasio, H. (1991). Somatic markers
and the guidance of behavior: Theory and preliminary testing. In H. S.
Levin, H. M. Eisenberg, & A. L. Benton (Eds.), Frontal lobe Junction
and dysfunction (pp. 217-229). New \brk: Oxford University Press.
Derryberry, D., & Reed, M. A. (1994). Temperament and the self-organization of personality. Development and Psychopathology, 6, 6 5 3 676.
Dienstbier, R. A. (1984). The role of emotion in moral socialization. In
C. Izard, J. Kagan, & R. B. Zajonc (Eds.), Emotions, cognitions, and
behaviors (pp. 484-513). New York: Cambridge University Press.
Eisenberg-Berg, N., & Hand, M. (1979). The relationship of preschoolers' reasoning about prosocial moral conflicts to prosocial behavior.
Child Development, 50, 356-363.
Fowles, D. C. (1988). Psychophysiology and psychopathology: A motivational approach. Psychophysiology, 25, 373-391.
Fowles, D. C. (1994). A motivational theory of psychopathology. In
W. Spaulding (Ed.), Nebraska Symposium on Motivation; Vol. 41.
Integrated views of motivation and emotion (pp. 181-228). Lincoln:
University of Nebraska Press.
239
This document is copyrighted by the American Psychological Association or one of its allied publishers.
This article is intended solely for the personal use of the individual user and is not to be disseminated broadly.
240
KOCHANSKA
Tranel, D. (1994). "Acquired sociopadiy": The development of sociopathic behavior following focal brain damage. In D. C. Fowles, P.
Sutloer, & S. H. Goodman (Eds.), Experimental personality & psychopathology research (pp. 286-311). New "fork: Springer.
Vaughn, B. E., Stevenson-Hinde, J., Waters, E., Kotsaftis, A., Lefever,
G. B., Shouldice, A., Trudel, M., & Belsky, J. (1992). Attachment
security and temperament in infancy and early childhood: Some conceptual clarifications. Developmental Psychology, 28, 463-473.
Wachs, T. D., & Gandour, M. (1983). Temperament, environment, and
six month cognitive-intellectual development: A test of the organismic
specificity hypothesis. International Journal of Behavioral Develop-
ment, 6, 135-152.
Waters, E. (1987). Attachment Behavior Qset (Revision 3.0). Unpublished instrument. State University of New "Vbrk at Stony Brook, Department of Psychology.