Studies of child socialisation have been carried out in a variety of perspectives.

While in the earlier

decades, concern for personality and other socio-emotional aspects of behaviour has characterised much
of socialisation research, in recent years, the focus has shifted to the analysis of the effect of socialisation
features on children’s cognitive development. Data obtained from observation and interviews are being
supplemented by those collected in more contrived situations. The present article reports an empirical
study with rural boys and girls of 8–12 years of age. Children were assessed in terms of a number of
socialisation variables (e.g., parental control, helping, feedback) in a specially designed parent–child
interaction situation. Socialisation variables involved in these assessments were found to be related to
the development of psychological differentiation among children. The findings have been interpreted
in the context of the existing models, linking socialisation to cognitive development of children.

Psychological Differentiation in
Relation to Some Socialisation
Variables: A Study with
Rural Children
R.C. MISHRA∗
Department of Psychology
Banaras Hindu University, Varanasi

D.V. SINGH
Department of Psychology
Banaras Hindu University, Varanasi

This article focuses on the effect of certain socialisation variables on the

development of cognition. Cognition refers to every process by which in-
dividuals obtain knowledge about themselves and their environment, and

Address correspondence regarding this article to Professor R.C.Mishra, Department of Psy-

chology, Banaras Hindu University, Varanasi-221 005. rcmishra_2000@yahoo.com
∗I am grateful to the Netherlands Institute for Advanced Study (NIAS) for providing me with
the opportunity, as its Fellow-in-Residence, to work on this article.
Psychology and Developing Societies 20, 2 (2008): 241–256
SAGE Publications Los Angeles/London/New Delhi/Singapore
DOI: 10.1177/097133360802000206

Downloaded from pds.sagepub.com at Brunel University London on May 26, 2015

242 / R.C. MISHRA and D.V. SINGH

utilise it to solve their problems. It consists of processes such as recognition,

labelling, analysis, categorisation, thinking, reasoning and planning (Mishra,
1997). Socialisation is concerned with the relation of individuals to their
environment. Several influences, from other individuals or groups, interact
with biological factors to give a particular kind of mould to children as well
as adults (Keller, 2005). Thus, in its most basic form, socialisation refers to
the “…totality of modifications produced in the individuals’ relationships
with their environment (material, social, mental) as a result of interaction
with others” (Camilleri & Malewska-Peyre, 1997, p. 43). These modifications
influence all that individuals receive and express, both globally as well as at the
level of basic psychological processes (e.g., perception, cognition, emotion).
Theorists who share a cultural viewpoint of development consider social-
isation as a major influence on human behaviour (Rogoff, 2003). While part
of the cultural transmission may take place unconsciously, research provides
evidence for deliberate transmission of social and cultural elements (e.g.,
knowledge, skills, dispositions, values) among children during the course
of their development (Nunes, 2005). Internalisation of these elements is
considered important for effective functioning of a child in a given social
or cultural context (Karpov, 2005). In this sense, socialisation appears to be
functional or adaptive. These aspects of socialisation have been emphasised not
only in anthropological and sociological approaches but also in psychological
approaches (e.g., of Piaget, Vygotsky, Witkin) to human development. It is
believed that in the absence of socialisation, there will be hindrances in the
development of individuals as fully functioning human beings.
Much of the early work on socialisation reveals that in various societies
and cultures, children generally grow up as competent and effective members
(Whiting & Whiting, 1975). The normative aspects of groups are so
intricately embedded in their child-rearing practices that the socialisation
process apparently seems to be automatic or unintentional. Thus, children
born and brought up in a particular social or cultural group learn the skills,
attitudes, dispositions and values shared by its members either through the
processes of imitation and identification, or through participation in cultural
activities (e.g., playing, cooking, dancing), use of cultural artifacts available
with groups (e.g., books, media) and other means of learning (Rogoff,
2003). At the same time, there is also a prescriptive dimension of socialisa-
tion, which links it to the concept of education. It is concerned with actions

Psychology and Developing Societies 20, 2 (2008): 241–256

Downloaded from pds.sagepub.com at Brunel University London on May 26, 2015

 Psychological Differentiation in Relation to Some Socialisation Variables / 243

that are intentional and deliberate (Nunes, 2005). This aspect has achieved
great significance in recent years, particularly in the context of social and
cultural changes taking place in all societies. While traditional, small and less
complex societies were characterised by the consensus of the entire group
on “collective models” of behaviour, the groups in modern societies have
become more numerous and fluid. There are many signs of independence
from the models that govern the larger society. Thus, today we do not deal
with simple “subsystems” in a larger cultural context. This has brought about
certain concerns about the study of human development in the context of
social or cultural variables (Kagitcibasi, 1989). In comprehending socialisation
today, therefore, one finds a clear movement from “microscopic socialization”
to a broader “framework of socialization” (Camilleri, 1989) in which several
distal variables are also accommodated.
The relationship between socialisation and cognition needs to be exam-
ined in the context of these new concerns. It may be noted that influence
of socialisation on cognitive development represents a more recent concern
in research as well as the theory of human development. Sinha and Mishra
(1999) have reviewed and summarised the relationship between socialisation
and cognition. They have pointed out that transmission of social and cultural
elements (knowledge, skills, dispositions, values, etc.) lies at the heart of child
socialisation. These elements may be acquired through: (i) children’s direct
experiences with different stimuli in the environment; (ii) child-rearing
practices, which encourage or discourage certain activities on the part of
children; and (iii) children’s active participation in the process of learning to
achieve the goals set by parents, teachers or significant others in consonance
with broader cultural goals. Sinha and Mishra (1999) have identified three
interrelated models that seem to govern the relationship between socialisation
and cognitive development. These have been referred to as deprivation/en-
richment model, child-rearing model and contextual model respectively.
Studies guided by these models have brought out the implication of children’s
experiences in the environment; roles and activities performed by them in
day-to-day life; and degree of their participation in socio-culturally patterned
learning situations for the nature, extent and direction of development of
cognitive skills, abilities or competencies (Sinha & Mishra, 1999).
Research on cognition over the last two decades has used a number of
concepts that have direct relationship with child socialisation variables. The

Psychology and Developing Societies 20, 2 (2008): 241–256

Downloaded from pds.sagepub.com at Brunel University London on May 26, 2015

244 / R.C. MISHRA and D.V. SINGH

notions of “everyday cognition” (Rogoff & Lave, 1984); “practical intelligence”

(Sternberg & Wagner, 1986); “indigenous cognition” (Berry et al., 1988);
and “cognitive apprenticeship” (Rogoff, 1990), used with regard to the
characterisation of cognitive life of individuals in different socio-cultural
settings, seem to have their roots in socialisation emphases placed on
children during the course of their development. There is enough evidence
to suggest that people in different cultures hold different notions of cognitive
competence (Berry, 1984; Berry & Bennett, 1991; Dasen, 1984; Serpell,
1989, 1993), and that societies have diverse cognitive goals, which may
not be common to all (Berry, 1988; Keller, 2005). Studies of socialisation–
cognition relationship carried out in relatively recent years have partly shared
these concerns. Hence, many of them have attempted an analysis of the
broader ecological and cultural context (in which the entire process of child
socialisation is nested) for an understanding of human development (Cole,
2005; Kagitcibasi, 1996; Saraswathi, 1999).
Another set of studies relating cognitive development to socialisation has
focussed on parent–child interactions, considering it as a major source and a
prime mover of cognitive development (Meadows, 1996). Researchers have
made detailed observation of adults (especially mothers) working with their
children (usually pre-schoolers) on tasks such as pattern drawing (Hess &
Shipman, 1965); assembling a puzzle (Mc Naughton & Leyland, 1990);
constructing an object to match a model (Wertsch, 1991); reading a book
(Pellegrini et al., 1990); number tasks (Bryant, 1995; Saxe et al., 1987);
tower or pyramid construction (Berry et al., 1986; Mishra et al., 1996); and
other sort of games and problems (Freund, 1990). Both the content and
sequence of contingencies between the participants have been examined. In
general, the findings indicate better performance by children on a later test
if the adults had provided some “scaffolding” than when the interaction had
been more of one-sided nature.
In a recent study, Mishra (2005) observed 3–6 year old children and their
mothers as they assembled plastic blocks one upon another to build a tower-
like structure. Mothers were asked to teach the children how to build the
tower. Later, the children were assessed on their independent performance.
The tower building task was little difficult, in the sense that children of 3–6
years could not complete it by themselves but could succeed if appropriate
support was given. It was found that mothers varied in the degree and quality

Psychology and Developing Societies 20, 2 (2008): 241–256

Downloaded from pds.sagepub.com at Brunel University London on May 26, 2015

 Psychological Differentiation in Relation to Some Socialisation Variables / 245

of supportive instructions. Their style of teaching significantly affected

children’s learning of the task. In general, it was found that mothers whose
children performed best when left to do the task alone tended to use two
rules to guide children’s behaviour:

1. If the child did not succeed with a given level of help, then alone,
more help was given.
2. If the child achieved success at a given level, the mothers offered
little help; they allowed more responsibility to the child to work on
the task.

There were other differences in the teaching style of mothers, which

significantly influenced children’s later independent performance. For
example, children whose mothers provided more specific directions in
the learning phase performed the task better than those whose mothers
gave less specific directions. Similarly, children whose mothers encouraged
self-initiative during learning performed the task better than those whose
mothers encouraged less self-initiative. Similar contents and sequences have
been reported in other studies also (e.g., Meadows, 1996). They reveal that
mother–child pairs differ considerably in the quality of their interactions.
Effective learning takes place in situations where there is child-contingent
sequencing of behaviour.
Studies making use of construction problems such as those mentioned
ealier have utilised the same tasks for the assessment of mother–child inter-
action and children’s performance. Other studies, on the other hand, have
used separate tasks for making assessment of these domains. For example,
Berry et al. (1986) and Mishra et al. (1996) used Tower Building and House
Building Tasks (HBT) respectively to analyse the pattern of parent–child
interaction, whereas for the assessment of cognitive performance, tests meas-
uring psychological differentiation in visual, tactual and auditory domains
were given. These studies reveal that the nature of help and feedback given
by parents influences childrens’ performance on tests of psychological dif-
ferentiation. Since both these studies were carried out with native or tribal
people who operate largely at a subsistence level, it is difficult to generalise
the findings to other settings where patterns of socialisation are likely to be
more complex.

Psychology and Developing Societies 20, 2 (2008): 241–256

Downloaded from pds.sagepub.com at Brunel University London on May 26, 2015

246 / R.C. MISHRA and D.V. SINGH

Methodology

Objectives

In the following pages, we report a study that bridges this gap. The aim was:
(i) to analyse socialisation variables on the basis of observation of parents
and children in a situation in which they had an opportunity to work
together; and (ii) to examine differences in psychological differentiation
(field dependence–independence) of children in relation to these variables.
The children worked on a House Building Task (Mishra et al., 1996) and
the parents were asked to observe them. All children were administered the
Story–Pictorial Embedded Figures Test (SPEFT) (Sinha, 1984), which
measures the level of psychological differentiation. It was expected that
House Building Task would provide the parents with a situation in which
they would not only direct, guide and correct children but also engage in
other behaviours (e.g., use of negative utterances or domination of the child)
that might be linked with their SPEFT performance.
In terms of the predictions of psychological differentiation theory
(especially field dependence–field independence [FD-FI] approach), the
following hypotheses were proposed with respect to the role of socialisation
variables:

1. Children whose parents use more utterances (i.e., give more infor-
mation) during task performance would show a lower level of differ-
entiation than those whose parents use less utterances.
2. Children whose parents use more specific utterances (i.e., give more
specific information) during task performance would show a higher
level of differentiation than those whose parents use less specific
utterances.
3. Children whose parents use more positive utterances during the task
performance would be psychologically more differentiated than those
whose parents use less positive utterances.
4. Children whose parents use less negative utterances during task
performance would be psychologically more differentiated than those
whose parents use more negative utterances.
5. Children whose parents render less help in task performance would be
relatively more differentiated than those whose parents render more
help.

Psychology and Developing Societies 20, 2 (2008): 241–256

Downloaded from pds.sagepub.com at Brunel University London on May 26, 2015

 Psychological Differentiation in Relation to Some Socialisation Variables / 247

6. Children who exhibit more help-seeking behaviour during task per-

formance would be less differentiated than those who exhibit less
help-seeking behaviour.

Sample

The study was carried out with 120 children (aged 8–12 years) and their
parents. The sample was drawn from rural areas of Varanasi, in India. All
children were attending school, and were fairly similar with respect to the
socio-economic status of their parents. Boys and girls were equally represented
in the sample. The mean age of children was 10.8 years and of parents, 32.4
years. The mean years of education of children was 5.6 years and of parents,
11.3 years.

Interaction Task and the Cognitive Test

A HBT developed by Mishra et al. (1996) was used for studying parent–child
interaction pattern. It consisted of 24 colored blocks of hard plastic. The
top of the blocks was flat, whereas the bottom was hollow, which made their
arrangement slightly difficult. The child was asked to build a house in the
presence of one of the parents (father) by arranging blocks one upon another.
The parents were asked to watch the child’s construction. They were neither
asked to help the child nor were they prevented from doing so. As the child
worked on the task, a record was made of all that happened there, for example,
how the child worked, how the parents instructed and guided, what they
uttered, how and how much did they help the child in building the house.
Two assistants recorded, on the spot, the verbal and nonverbal (e.g., gestures,
looking to parents or researcher) behaviour of parents and children. They also
rated, on the spot, all global utterances and gestures (e.g., hm, hm or ouhn,
ouhn, which indicated either approval or disapproval of an act) as positive
or negative. The aspects of interaction specifically observed and recorded on
the HBT were:

(1) Number of utterances by parents.

(2) Number of specific (related to house building) utterances by parents.
(3) Number of positive utterances by parents.
(4) Number of negative utterances by parents.

Psychology and Developing Societies 20, 2 (2008): 241–256

Downloaded from pds.sagepub.com at Brunel University London on May 26, 2015

248 / R.C. MISHRA and D.V. SINGH

(5) Amount of help given (number of blocks handled) by parents.

(6) Frequency of child’s looking to parents.
(7) Frequency of child’s looking to researcher.

Inter-rater reliability on these measures was fairly high (values of correlation

ranged from 0.87 to 0.98).
For the assessment of cognitive performance, the SPEFT (Sinha, 1984)
was used. This test consists of 11 sets of card (three practice and eight test
sets). Each set comprises of a simple card and a complex card. The latter
contains a familiar setting in which the stimuli of simple card are embedded.
The test was developed using the rationale of Witkin’s EFT. However, to make
it more involving, a simple story is added, which describes the situation for
hiding the objects. On the whole test, 41 stimuli are to be correctly located
by a child. The score range is 0–41. A higher score indicates higher level of
differentiation.

Analysis and Results

In the first step, the mean scores of boys and girls with respect to different
interaction variables were compared (Table 1). While none of the t ratios was
found to be significant, these results need to be taken with caution due to
high variability in scores, at least on some of the measures. Since there were
no significant differences between boys and girls on any interaction variable,
the scores of these samples were pooled in later analyses.

Table 1
Mean Scores of Boys and Girls on Interaction Variables

Boys Girls
Interaction Variables Mean S.D. Mean S.D. t-Ratio
Parent’s Utterances 3.50 1.74 3.60 1.25 0.33 ns
Specific Utterances 2.98 1.33 3.03 1.23 0.16 ns
Positive Utterances 3.20 1.46 3.18 1.20 0.22 ns
Negative Utterances 0.32 0.18 0.42 0.49 1.36 ns
Parental Help 0.86 1.04 1.26 0.99 1.97 ns
Looking to Parents 1.10 0.73 1.14 0.66 0.29 ns
Looking to Researcher 0.86 0.63 1.04 0.66 1.38 ns
Note: ns = Not Significant.

Psychology and Developing Societies 20, 2 (2008): 241–256

Downloaded from pds.sagepub.com at Brunel University London on May 26, 2015

 Psychological Differentiation in Relation to Some Socialisation Variables / 249

Table 2 presents the inter-correlation of interaction variables. It may be

observed that all interaction variables were correlated positively with each
other, though in varying degrees. Parental utterances were significantly
correlated with specific utterances, positive utterances, negative utterances and
parental help. Parents’ specific utterances were significantly correlated with
positive utterances and parental help. The interesting aspect of interaction
pattern is a significantly positive correlation between positive and negative
utterances, showing encouraging and discouraging behaviour on the part of
parents at the same time. The variable of parental help was also significantly
correlated with “looking to parents”.
In order to test the various hypotheses developed with regard to relationship
between interaction variables and level of psychological differentiation,
children were divided into two groups on each interaction variable, using
the median score of the group as split point. The mean SPEFT scores of
these children were compared. Since data required grouping and regrouping
of scores in terms of interaction variables, one-way Analysis of Variance
(ANOVA) was used to test the significance of differences. These comparisons
are presented in Table 3. Differences in SPEFT scores were significant with
respect to overall parental utterances, specific utterances, positive utterances,
parental help and looking to parents (an indicator of children’s help-seeking
behaviour). Differences with respect to negative utterances and looking to
researcher were not significant. The overall picture suggested higher scores on
the SPEFT to be linked with less parental utterances, less positive utterances,
more specific utterances, less parental help and less help-seeking behaviour
of children (looking to parents).

Discussion

The findings of the study generally support the hypotheses, except those
proposed with respect to the role of positive and negative utterances. Since
the very beginning, research on psychological differentiation has identified
a number of socialisation variables, which are claimed to clearly distinguish
the parents of field dependent (FD) and field independent (FI) children
(Witkin et al., 1962). For example, mothers of FI children were found to
encourage early separation and autonomy of children than the mothers of
FD children. Maternal commands, helping behaviour and teaching styles

Psychology and Developing Societies 20, 2 (2008): 241–256

Downloaded from pds.sagepub.com at Brunel University London on May 26, 2015

 Table 2
Inter-correlation among Interaction Variables

Parent’s Specific Positive Negative Parental Looking Looking

Interaction Variables Utterances Utterances Utterances Utterances Help Parents Researcher
Parent’s Utterances 0.89∗ 0.95∗ 0.47∗ 0.34∗ 0.15 0.06
Specific Utternaces 0.93∗ 0.17 0.41∗ 0.09 0.04
Positive Utterances 0.20∗ 0.39∗ 0.16 0.07
Negative Utterances 0.01 0.07 0.02
Parental Help 0.35∗ 0.12
Looking to Parents 0.12
Looking to Researcher
Note: ∗Significant rs 0.05 and above.

Downloaded from pds.sagepub.com at Brunel University London on May 26, 2015

 Psychological Differentiation in Relation to Some Socialisation Variables / 251

Table 3
Interaction Variables and SPEFT Performance

Interaction Variables N Mean Scores SPEFT F ratio

Less Parental Utterances 30 38.87 37.70∗∗
More Parental Utterances 70 35.67
Less Specific Utterances 38 35.84 6.08∗∗
More Specific Utterances 62 37.11
Less Positive Utterances 66 37.61 18.30∗∗
More Positive Utterances 34 34.19
Less Negative Utterances 66 36.85 2.00
More Negative Utterances 34 36.20
Less Parental Help 41 38.07 35.56∗∗
More Parental Help 59 35.63
Less Looking to Parents 28 38.39 68.76∗∗
More Looking to Parents 72 35.94
Less Looking to Researcher 78 37.08 2.31
More Looking to Researcher 22 36.50
Note: ∗∗p < 0.01.

were found to be significantly associated with the cognitive style of children

(Witkin et al., 1962).
These studies with mothers have been considered methodologically
less sound as they focus largely on the mother-reported attributes of child
socialisation. The present study makes a significant departure from such
studies by exploring the parental styles of teaching, monitoring and helping
in a relatively controlled situation. The results do not provide evidence of
difference between boys and girls with respect to parental interaction variables
examined in this study.
Researchers have often reported differences with respect to socialisation
of boys and girls, particularly in the rural agricultural societies (Saraswathi &
Pai, 1999). The findings of this study do not suggest significant difference
in the interaction pattern of parents with boys and girls, at least, in the
controlled experimental situation. While the role of setting (experimental
context) cannot be ruled out as an explanation for this lack of difference, a
more probable reason may be the increasing acceptance of girls by parents with
the spread of education in rural society, and a lack of differential treatment of
boys and girls, at least, during the age of childhood. In our discussion with
villagers, we could hear sayings like “ladaka ladaki ek samaan” (boys and girls
are equal) not only in families where parents were educated and employed

Psychology and Developing Societies 20, 2 (2008): 241–256

Downloaded from pds.sagepub.com at Brunel University London on May 26, 2015

252 / R.C. MISHRA and D.V. SINGH

but also in families where parents were uneducated and were engaged in full
time agriculture.
Studies of the girl child in various parts of the country reveal considerable
differences in parental treatment of girls as compared to that of boys. For
example, studies suggest that girls are served less amount of food than boys;
their food is also less nutritious; they are assigned many strenuous activities
related to home work and there are more restrictions on the behaviour of
girls than boys (Anandalakshmi, 1994). These observations suggest that,
as children, girls are relatively less liked and more controlled in the Indian
family and society.
Contrary to these descriptions, our observations in villages (where the
study was carried out) revealed that there was no major difference in the
handling of girls and boys, especially before the onset of adolescence. Girls
were sent to schools, they were given attention by parents to complete
homework and they were also encouraged to do well in school. They were
assigned some work related to home, but then the boys were also given a
number of responsibilities such as running errands, looking after animals and
helping parents in agricultural activities. It is likely that our setting (being
closer to the city of Varanasi) was not typically rural and that it was partly
influenced by social and cultural changes taking place in the city. Since other
studies were carried out either at remote locations or with underprivileged
groups of the Indian society, these differences may be held responsible for
the contradiction in findings.
As far as the overall socialisation is concerned, the findings reveal that
parents do interact in different ways with children. For example, some par-
ents speak more, others speak less and some parents allow more freedom to
children for work, some demonstrate a more controlling behaviour. These
differences in interaction patterns of parents with children seem to be linked
with different cognitive outcomes. Our findings suggest that parental control,
help and teaching strategies play significant role in determining children’s
level of psychological differentiation.
While the effects of many interaction variables (parental utterances,
parental help and child’s help-seeking behaviour) were in the predicted dir-
ection, the effects of parents’ positive and negative utterances were contrary
to our expectation. Researchers have indicated that more positive utter-
ances by parents encourage greater differentiation, whereas more negative
utterances tend to discourage the development of differentiation (Berry
et al., 1986). Contrary to this, our findings indicated greater differentiation

Psychology and Developing Societies 20, 2 (2008): 241–256

Downloaded from pds.sagepub.com at Brunel University London on May 26, 2015

 Psychological Differentiation in Relation to Some Socialisation Variables / 253

for children whose parents used less positive utterances. On the other hand,
negative utterances did not influence children’s level of differentiation in
any significant manner.
Differences in cultural practices may be held responsible for results found
with respect to the effect of positive and negative utterances of parents. In the
Indian cultural milieu, the use of positive utterances is considered as “praise”
for children, which is believed to take them into problems. Therefore, parents
generally refrain from making positive utterances even if the child may have
really done very well. They often express their satisfaction in non-verbal ways.
For this cultural phenomenon, Anandalakshmi (1994) remarks:

A distinct observation concerning Indian child-rearing coming out of

cross-cultural studies is the near-absence of the use of praise in socializing
children…Praise is avoided for two types of reasons, one is to keep
the child away from being the object of envy, and to ward off the evil eye
(“nazar” in Hindi, “kann” in Tamil), which will be cast upon the high
achieving or beautiful child by any one around. The second major reason is
the fear of self-pride and egoism (ahankar) on the part of the child. There
is an internalized fear of “thinking too much of oneself ” that operates
across regions and social classes in India. Hence, praise is used sparingly
by parents. (Anandalakshmi, 1994, p. 77)

On the other hand, the use of negative utterances does not mean the with-
drawal of love from the child. It is often used as a correcting device for a
child’s behaviour. It becomes so mechanical due to frequent use that it loses
to have any significant effect on the child.
Learning theorists have indicated that punishment (including verbal
punishment) needs to be given to children with great caution in order to
have desirable outcomes. Unsystematic verbal reprimands do not produce
any effect because they fail to allow the child to make a distinction between
“to be done” and “not to be done”. Therefore, a lack of difference on the
SPEFT scores of children whose parents used more negative utterances from
those whose parents used less is not surprising. Similarly, the relationship of
less positive utterances with relatively a higher level of differentiation suggests
that children’s differentiation is not arrested by less positive utterances of
parents in the Indian cultural settings. Such utterances certainly constitute an
important mechanism of development of differentiation, but they do operate
in different ways from those observed in other cultural settings.

Psychology and Developing Societies 20, 2 (2008): 241–256

Downloaded from pds.sagepub.com at Brunel University London on May 26, 2015

254 / R.C. MISHRA and D.V. SINGH

With respect to help-seeking behaviour, the findings suggest that the

variable “looking to parents” was more strongly linked with children’s level
of differentiation than “looking to researcher”. It is highly likely on the part
of children to expect more help from parents than from a researcher who is
not so closely known. Apart from that, parents may also communicate many
things through gestures and language of eyes, especially when children work
in test situations in their presence. Lin (1988) points out that in eastern
cultures, the failure of children is often considered by parents as their own
failure and that brings shame to them. Thus, both physically as well as sym-
bolically, they often do things that can save children from meeting failure on
a task. Children who looked more to parents possibly found more guiding
cues to work on the HBT.
Studies on parent–child relationship generally suggest that parental inter-
action with children exercises considerable influence not only on cognitive
test performance of children but also on other aspects of behaviour (Heath,
1995). However, the mechanisms of these influences on children’s behaviour
are yet not precisely discovered. Variables like parental control and autonomy
not only restrict or expand the range of children’s experiences but they also
predispose them to be dependent on or independent of field forces. In the
context of socialisation, both can serve as mechanisms to generate higher or
lower level of psychological differentiation (Witkin & Goodenough, 1981).
The present study substantiates this conclusion based on data obtained in a
relatively contrived and short-lived situation.

REFERENCES

Anandalakshmi, S. (1994). The girl child and the family: An action research study. New Delhi:
Ministry of Human Resource Development.
Berry, J.W. (1984). Toward a universal psychology of cognitive competence. International
Journal of Psychology, 19, 335–361.
Berry, J.W. (1988). Cognitive values and cognitive competence among the bricoleurs. In
J.W. Berry, S.H. Irvine, & E.B. Hunt (Eds), Indigenous cognition: Functioning in cultural
context (pp. 9–20). Dordrecht: Nijhoff.
Berry, J.W., & Bennett, J.A. (1991). Cree syllabic literacy: Cultural context and psychological
consequences. Tilburg: Tilburg University Press.
Berry, J.W., van de Koppel, J.M.H., Senechal, C., Annis, R.C., Bahuchet, S., Cavalli-
Sforza, L.L., & Witkin, H.A. (1986). On the edge of the forest: Cultural adaptation and
cognitive development in Central Africa. Lisse: Swets & Zeitlinger.

Psychology and Developing Societies 20, 2 (2008): 241–256

Downloaded from pds.sagepub.com at Brunel University London on May 26, 2015

 Psychological Differentiation in Relation to Some Socialisation Variables / 255

Bryant, P.E. (1995). Children and arithmetic. Journal of Child Psychology and Psychiatry, 36,
3–32.
Camilleri, C. (1989). Reflexion d’ensemble sur la socialisation. In C. Clenet (Ed.), Socialisations
at cultures (pp. 433–445). Toulouse : Presse Universitaires du Mirail.
Camilleri, C., & Malewska-Peyre, H. (1997). Socialization and identity strategies. In
J.W. Berry, P.R. Dasen, & T.S. Saraswathi (Eds), Handbook of cross-cultural psychology,
Vol. 2 (pp. 41–67). Boston: Allyn & Bacon.
Cole, M. (2005). Cultural-historical activity theory in the family of socio-cultural ap-
proaches. Newsletter of the International Society for the Study of Behavioural Development,
47(1), 1–4.
Dasen, P.R. (1984). The cross-cultural study of intelligence: Piaget and the Baoule. International
Journal of Psychology, 19, 407–437.
Freund, L.S. (1990). Maternal regulation of children’s problem solving behaviour and its impact
on children’s performance. Child Development, 61, 113–126.
Heath, D.T. (1995). Parents’ socialization of children. In B.B. Ingoldsby, & S. Smith (Eds),
Families in perspective. New York: Guilford Press.
Hess, R.D., & Shipman, V.C. (1965). Early experience and the socialization of cognitive modes
of children. Child Development, 36, 869–886.
Kagitcibasi, C. (1989). Child rearing in Turkey: Implications for immigration and intervention.
In L. Eldering & J. Kloprogge (Eds), Different culture, same school (pp. 137–152). Lisse:
Swets & Zeitlinger.
Kagitcibasi, C. (1996). Family and human development across cultures: A view from the other
side. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
Karpov, Y.V. (2005). Psychological tools, internalization and mediation: The neoVygotskian
elaboration of Vygotsky’s notions. Newsletter of the International Society for the Study of
Behavioural Development, 47(1), 4–7.
Keller, H. (2005). Commentary: The dynamic interplay of culture and development. Newsletter
of the International Society for the Study of Behavioural Development, 47(1), 19–20.
Lin, Y.N. (1988). Family socio-economic background, parental involvement and students’
academic performance by elementary school children. Journal of Counselling, 11,
95–141.
Mc Naughton, S., & Leyland, J. (1990). The shifting focus of maternal tutoring across
different difficult levels on a problem solving task. British Journal of Developmental
Psychology, 8, 147–155.
Meadows, S. (1996). Parenting behaviour and children’s cognitive development. Hove: Psychology
Press.
Mishra, R.C. (1997). Cognition and cognitive development. In J.W. Berry, P.R. Dasen, &
T.S. Saraswathi (Eds), Handbook of cross-cultural psychology, Vol. 2 (pp. 143–175). Boston:
Allyn & Bacon.
Mishra, R.C. (2005). Effect of maternal teaching strategies on children’s cognitive performance.
Unpublished manuscript, Department of Psychology. Banaras Hindu University, India.
Mishra, R.C., Sinha, D., & Berry, J.W. (1996). Ecology, acculturation and psychological adapta-
tion: A study of Adivasis in Bihar. New Delhi: Sage.
Nunes, T. (2005). What we learn in school is: The socialization of cognition. Newsletter of the
International Society for the Study of Behavioural Development, 47(1), 10–12.

Psychology and Developing Societies 20, 2 (2008): 241–256

Downloaded from pds.sagepub.com at Brunel University London on May 26, 2015

256 / R.C. MISHRA and D.V. SINGH

Pellegrini, A.D., Perlmutter, J.C., Galada, L., & Brody, G.H. (1990). Joint reading between
black Head Start children and their mothers. Child Development, 61, 443–453.
Rogoff, B. (1990). Apprenticeship in thinking. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Rogoff, B. (2003). The cultural nature of human development. New York: Oxford University
Press.
Rogoff, B., & Lave, J. (1984). Everyday cognition: Its development in social context. Cambridge,
MA: Harvard University Press.
Saraswathi, T.S. (1999). Culture, socialization and human development: Theory, research and
applications in India. New Delhi: Sage.
Saraswathi, T.S., & Pai, S. (1996). Socialization in the Indian context. In H.S.R. Kao &
D. Sinha (Eds), Asian perspectives in psychology (pp. 74–92). New Delhi: Sage.
Saxe, G.B., Guberman, S.R., & Gearhart, M. (1987). Social processes in early number
development. Monograph of the Society for Research in Child Development, Vol. 52.
Chicago: Chicago University Press.
Serpell, R. (1989). Dimensions endogenes de l’ intelligence chez les A-chewa etautress peuples
africains. In J. Retschitzky, M. Bossel-Lagos, & P.R. Dasen (Eds), La researche interculturelle
(pp. 164–179). Paris: Harmattan.
Serpell, R. (1993). The significance of schooling: Life-journeys in an African society. Cambridge:
Cambridge University Press.
Sinha, D. (1984). Manual for Story-Pictorial E.F.T and Indo-African E.F.T. Varanasi: Rupa
Psychological Centre.
Sinha, D., & Mishra, R.C. (1999). Socialization and cognitive functioning. In T.S. Saraswathi
(Ed.), Culture, socialization and human development. New Delhi: Sage, pp. 167–187.
Sternberg, R.J., & Wagner, R.K. (1986). Practical intelligence: Nature and origin of competence
in the everyday world. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Wertsch, J.V. (1991). Voices of mind. London: Harvester.
Whiting, B.B., & Whiting, J.W.M. (1975). Children of six cultures. Cambridge, Mass.:
Harvard University Press.
Witkin, H.A., Dyk, R.B., Faterson, H.F., Goodenough, D.R., & Karp, S. (1962). Psycho-
logical differentiation: Studies of development. New York: John Wiley.
Witkin, H.A., & Goodenough, D.R. (1981). Cognitive style: Essence and origin. New York:
International University Press.

R.C. Mishra is Professor of Psychology at Banaras Hindu University, Varanasi. He is interested in

the study of eco-cultural influences on human development. He has contributed numerous research
papers to professional journals and chapters to edited books, both in India and abroad, in the fields
of cognition, acculturation, schooling, and cross-cultural studies.

D.V. Singh is Lecturer of Psychology at Ghan Shyam Postgraduate College, Soyepur, Varanasi. He is
interested in the study of socialization and its influence on children’s development.

Psychology and Developing Societies 20, 2 (2008): 241–256

Downloaded from pds.sagepub.com at Brunel University London on May 26, 2015