APPLIED DEVELOPMENTAL SCIENCE

2021, VOL. 25, NO. 1, 26–37

https://doi.org/10.1080/10888691.2020.1789351

Culture at work: European American and Taiwanese parental

socialization of children’s learning
Jin Lia and Heidi Fungb
a
Brown University; bAcademia Sinica

ABSTRACT
In this article, we highlight three assumptions about culture that guide our research: (1)
culture is lived but often implicitly; (2) philosophical origins illuminate cultural core values in
the here and now; and (3) cultures differ. We focus on learning both in European-heritage
and in Confucian-heritage cultures. To address the central question “how does the cultural
become the personal?” we take three steps. First, we explain the importance of each
assumption and the relations between them. Next, we trace the philosophical origins of
which establish the foundations of core cultural values for two sets of cultures, European-
heritage and Confucian-heritage cultures. We then present empirical research that illustrate
sociocultural learning models (SCLMs) in the two sets of cultures. Finally, we discuss the
notions of joint intentionality and intersubjectivity as the process by which parents draw on
a given SCLM to socialize their young, which is how the cultural becomes the personal. We
use discourse analysis of two segments of mother-child conversations, (one European
American and one Taiwanese), to demonstrate culture at work. Our detailed analysis reveals
the cultural embeddedness of daily living that otherwise remains implicit. We conclude with
applied implications of our theory and research for childrearing and human learning.

A cultureless human being would probably turn out to
be not an intrinsically talented though unfulfilled ape,
but a wholly mindless and consequently unworkable
monstrosity.
 Clifford Geertz
Geertz’ quote above is clear about what would happen
if humans were only biologically defined. Fortunately,
no human is ever cultureless because we simply can-
not come into existence without others and cannot
survive without others’ care. So long as any human
child survives, he or she necessarily has a social world
that relies on its cultural core to sustain the child’s
life. But Geertz’s statement is right on target regarding
what culture does to humans and how indispensable
culture is to our lives.
Why is culture so essential to our existence?
Undoubtedly, culture, as discussed by many, is the
largest and most complex system humans as a whole
have created (Gardiner & Kosmitzki, 2018). People
both create their cultures and are shaped by them.
While acknowledging this bidirectional process of cul-
ture and people, we focus in this article on culture’s
shaping process mainly because we study parental
socialization of young children.
Instead of joining the countless scholars who have
attempted, rather futilely, to give culture a precise def-
inition, we believe it is more productive to highlight
three basic assumptions about culture. These are not
new assumptions, but they have been made often, and
are helpful to our thinking. Further, we do not claim
that these three assumptions are the only ones that
can be made about culture; there are certainly many
more that can shed light on the notion of culture. But
for our purposes, these assumptions are the most rele-
vant to our conception of culture and to the empirical
research we present in this article.
Three assumptions about culture
First, culture is lived but often implicitly. As the larg-
est human-made system, culture is like the air we
breathe that is so common and taken-for-granted that
we simply do not think about it. Instead, we just
develop in it and live it. We are this way because we
do not need to do anything to be placed in our native
culture at birth. We are in it, not because of our

CONTACT Jin Li jin_li@brown.edu Brown University, Providence, RI, USA.

ß 2020 Taylor & Francis Group, LLC

desire and deliberate action, but because we are born
into it. One’s culture is one’s ontological reality, so to
speak (Li & Yamamoto, 2020). As such, we remain so
deeply embedded in our culture that we are often
unaware of its shaping power (and how we collectively
continue to change our culture), and we rarely, if at
all, question it (Gardiner & Kosmitzki, 2018). We
become metacognitve about our own culture when we
step outside of it, or by being constantly reminded of
it when living in an ethnically diverse context, or
when we study it academically. Although implicitly
and osmosis-like, humans learn their cultures most
successfully. No other learning (e.g. in school or other
skill) is this profound.
We emphasize the living process and the lived
experience of culture because this assumption may
not be sufficiently shared or used to guide research.
Culture in developmental and general psychological
research is often treated as a variable, and as such
researchers often control for it in order to isolate the
effects of “untainted” human thinking, feeling, and
behavior. This culture-as-a-variable-approach assumes
that the bare bones essence of human existence is
somehow truer and more worthy of research if the liv-
ing process and lived experience could be weeded out.
However, we disagree with this conception. We join
many culturally-minded scholars in claiming that the
living process and lived experience in culture are the
constitutive and definitional nature of human exist-
ence and thus need to be included in research on
human lives.
Further, the embeddedness of culture at work in
daily life has long been documented by anthropolo-
gists and cultural psychologists. Every time a
European American mother guides her child in turn-
taking at the playground, culture is at work, through
parenting, in teaching the child the fundamental idea
of fairness in the US. Likewise, every time a Chinese
mother asks her child to serve dinner to his grandpar-
ents first, culture is also at work in instilling the idea
of filial piety in China. Yet, within mainstream psych-
ology, how culture works in child development
remains understudied. Our own research has benefited
particularly from trying to uncover the implicit work-
ings of culture as manifest in the living process and
lived experience. This line of research yields insights
into child development that are difficult to obtain
without attention to the implicit workings of culture.
Our second assumption about culture is that the
philosophical origins of each culture illuminate its
core values in the here and now. The term philosoph-
ical origins here does not refer to formal philosophy
APPLIED DEVELOPMENTAL SCIENCE 27
as studied by academic philosophers (although the
formal kind also contributes importantly to a culture’s
philosophy), but rather folk philosophy that exists in
every human culture. It is a truism that currently liv-
ing people have a here-and-now existence. Yet, philo-
sophically, what appears to be here and now is not an
independent ontology solely born in the here and
now. Instead, current human existence is necessarily
and deeply rooted in the culture’s historical develop-
ment that continues to evolve. Any currently viable
culture has had a substantial history and consequently
has accumulated particular materials, tools, know-
ledge, wisdom, beliefs, preferences, and institutions,
among many other things that people deem valuable.
All these cultural artifacts form the basis of what
members know and believe (e.g. importance of mar-
riage), which informs how they actually do things
(e.g. running a family). The fact that, despite some
counter examples, people across cultures generally
hold dear and live by different values, norms, and
beliefs is testament to the philosophical origins of
their culture. Such value systems and their practices
are less based on individuals’ pure deliberate “picking
and choosing” (although that does happen to some
extent), but more on the values and norms they have
internalizedin their culture (Chirkov, 2020). This is
why Richard Shweder (2011) describes cultural influ-
ence as the “prescription” and the members as its will-
ing “executors.” Empirical research should not detach
itself from the origins of cultural values and study cul-
ture as a rootless phenomenon just here and now.
However, in much of mainstream psychology,
researchers in the lab tend to focus on their individual
participants, often neglecting to link what they
observe to their culture’s philosophical foundations. In
our view, this is a theoretical limitation. We argue
that understanding deep-seated values, norms, and
beliefs of a given culture brings at least three benefits.
First, given that most members are unaware of the
shaping power of their culture, understanding of their
culture’s philosophical origins helps the members
themselves gain insights into why they internalize par-
ticular values, norms, and beliefs, namely, those of
their own, but not those of unrelated other cultures.
This self-understanding enlightens and promotes
children’s cultural/ethnic identity development, which
is an important developmental process for any human
child. Second, it helps to explain why generation after
generation of a culture tend to hold similar values,
norms, and beliefs. For example, filial piety taught by
Confucius 2500 years ago is still taught and developed
similarly among present-day East Asians. Likewise,
28 J. LI AND H. FUNG
Christian teaching in European-heritage cultures today
still follows a similar tenet. They are unlikely to dis-
appear or to be intentionally eradicated in the name
of “helping” to reform ethnic children in a diverse
culture such as the US. Cultural value systems and
their practices must be understood for respecting but
not for denigrating cultural/ethnic communities across
the world. Third, knowledge of philosophical origins
fosters cross-cultural communication, appreciation,
and cooperation as a human aspiration.
Our third assumption about culture is that cultures
differ. Human diversity is a given. An important
source of diversity is culture. The extent to which dif-
ferent cultures are recognizably distinct testifies to the
tenacious nature of cultural differences, due to cul-
tures’ diverse historical developments, such as the U.S.
and China. Current globalization and deepening cul-
tural exchange notwithstanding, little commonality
remains between American and Chinese core values
(Li, 2012). Persistent cultural differences are about the
boundaries of a people that mark their group identity.
These core differences are less likely to be shared with
other cultures. Such variations call for our under-
standing because they lies at the heart of any culture’s
values, norms, and beliefs that people hold dear.
Only focusing on universally shared characteristics
of human lives such as biological and other basic
functions (e.g. the need for food and shelter) does not
address deep cultural differences that matter in child
development. Ignoring important cultural differences
can lead to serious consequences. For example, it is a
commonly held view in education policy and practice
that disadvantaged ethnic minority children and fami-
lies should be “reformed” to be like their mainstream
middle-class peers in order to “improve” their
achievement (Hoff et al., 2020; Stipek et al., 1998).
This conviction suggests the idea that culturally
informed ways of life could be discarded at one’s will.
But such thinking raises concerns. Aside from
whether such policy and practice have any moral and
technical merit, the conviction shows a clear lack of
understanding of how cultural values were developed,
why they persist, how children are socialized in inter-
nalizing them generation after generation, and how
values and norms might change. Why one desires to
reform cultural knowledge/beliefs and practice needs
to be examined honestly and thoroughly, and whether
any reform engenders true benefit or harm needs to
be ascertained before any reform policies are issued
and implemented (Ochs, 2019; Serpell, 2019).
These three assumptions form a coherent whole
that informs our research. In sum, cultures have
philosophical origins that emerged over their histor-
ical development and continue to be modified in
response to changing times. Each culture’s philosoph-
ical foundation illuminates currently upheld core val-
ues, norms, and beliefs. Cultural cores mark the
boundaries and underlie the group’s identity and
therefore hold the key to understanding cultural varia-
tions. Moreover, cultural cores are not some essential-
ist notions detached and remote from the living
process, but are practiced or enacted in daily life. This
is the only way any culture works and flourishes.
Learning as a domain for studying different
cultural influences
Resting on the three basic assumptions, we present
our notion of culture at work in a particular domain:
learning. The idea of domain conventionally refers to
areas of psychology and human development, such as
cognitive, social, and emotional that have been studied
more or less separately, although these domains
always interact with each other in human lives.
Within each of these major domains, there are many
subdomains and topics on which individual research-
ers conduct research (Lightfoot et al., 2018). We rec-
ognize that dividing human lives into domains reflects
the Western epistemological mode more than any uni-
versally agreed upon necessity. To be sure, one could
study human lives from many epistemological per-
spectives; domain of development, in our view, is one
of them. We use this idea loosely and find it helpful
in our effort to study cultural learning models as
informed by particular cultures’ philosophical founda-
tions that guide people’s learning and socialization
of children.
Learning is a fundamental human capacity and
activity. Every child learns, and the child’s learning
changes as he or she grows older. Research on child-
ren’s learning has traditionally focused on within-per-
son mental processes (e.g. memory capacity and
strategies), motivation, children’s metacognition of
their own conceptions of learning, and achievement
among other aspects of learning (Lightfoot et al.,
2018; Sobel et al., 2007).
Studying human learning capacity, activity, and
related mental processes within the person is import-
ant. However, human learning is not merely a matter
of these processes, but also fundamentally sociocul-
tural. Children mostly learn with the support of care-
givers, teachers, communities, tools, and symbols that
were created by other humans. These social agents
and tangible (e.g. tools) and intangible (symbols and

meanings) artifacts are not culture-neutral but cul-
ture-specific and value-laden. Hence, learning is
deeply subject to cultural influence (Li, 2012).
We use the term “sociocultural learning models”
that are informed by particular cultural philosophical
foundations to describe learning models from two dif-
ferent cultures: European-heritage cultures (EHCs)
and Confucian-heritage cultures (CHCs) that we have
studied. The latter remains influential in China and
some other East and Southeast Asian countries,
including Taiwan, the sociocultural group examined
in this study (see also Fung et al., 2004; Li et al.,
2014). Next, we explain how these models are enacted
by members in their learning. We focus on day-to-day
parental socialization in developing children’s learning
beliefs under the influence of their sociocultural learn-
ing models. To illustrate this process, we show, with
discourse analysis, two examples of European
American and Taiwanese mother-child conversations
about learning and detail how mothers draw on their
collective models to guide their children. In this pro-
cess, children internalize, according to their circum-
stances, needs, and preferences, the meanings from
their culture’s model, thus making these meanings
their own. We use the term internalize (and its mor-
phological variations of internalizing and internalized)
in accordance with the Vygotskian school of thought
that emphasizes the social origins of child develop-
ment. For some, the term may connote a passive pro-
cess of child development. Our usage of the term does
not refer to passivity at all. While acknowledging the
sociocultural origins of child development, the process
is active because the child interacts with his or her
social world to construct what the child knows,
believes, and feels. This process is ongoing as the child
grows older. By actively internalizing, the cultural
becomes the personal, which in turn renews (and may
also modify) their sociocultural model generation after
generation. We conclude the article with some impli-
cations for childrearing and learning.
EHC and CHC philosophical origins pertaining
to learning
We use European American and Taiwanese culture as
two significantly different cases to illustrate how each
culture’s philosophical origins influence learning.
European American culture is part of the European
heritage whose philosophical foundation dates back to
Greek antiquity. Greek thinkers began contemplating
the physical world “out there” and developed theories
about the origin, composition, and functioning of the
APPLIED DEVELOPMENTAL SCIENCE 29
universe. This initial approach to the physical world
has been expanded throughout Western history to all
domains of the human world (e.g. political, social,
religious, and psychological). This fascination with the
physical world led the Greeks to discover mathematics
and deductive reasoning that they used to arrive at
reliable, invariant knowledge, thus establishing cer-
tainty as the only acceptable criterion of knowledge.
This view has had profound influence on Western
thinking. In this intellectual endeavor, the human
mind assumed the prime role in carrying out inquiry
(Russell, 1975). Almost all Western thinkers conjec-
tured about and dissected human mental processes
and functioning to understand the world (e.g. analyz-
ing what is knowable and what is not by the mind).
The most prized function of the mind promoted by
the Greeks is critical thinking as epitomized by
Socrates’ adage: “the unexamined life is not worth liv-
ing” (Plato, 1981, p. 41). This very questioning and
doubting legacy remains of high value and practice in
political, legal, and social life in European-heritage
cultures (Hecht, 2003). Arguably, the most salient out-
come of the European-heritage intellectual tradition is
its unmatched scientific achievement, which is still
forcefully expanding across the globe with no sight of
abating. It has become a way of life, and certainly, the
predominant ethos of education. To summarize this
intellectual tradition, Li (2012) outlined four central
themes in Western learning: (1) knowing the world,
(2) certainty of knowledge, (3) mental processes, and
(4) critical thinking.
The CHC learning tradition started out with a very
different philosophical outlook that does not contem-
plate the external world, but the human self. This
philosophical view was advanced by Confucius him-
self, dating back to the same time as Greek antiquity,
but inheriting a long and rich prior culture. Instead of
focusing on what is or is not ontologically and epis-
temologically valid for the human mind to compre-
hend, Confucius was concerned with the fundamental
question: how can a person become a full human?
Humans are born as a biological form, but they are
not full humans yet. Full humanity requires social and
moral development beyond biologically endowed cap-
acity. Upon birth, the child enters the web of social
relationships. To Confucius and subsequent
Confucians and Neo-Confucians, there is no other
ontology but human relationality. Thus, to become a
full human, the child needs to learn not only the spe-
cifics of his or her cultural heritage, but more import-
antly, how to realize his or her full humanity in
relation to others. This social and moral learning is
30 J. LI AND H. FUNG
the path to true human excellence for each child to
achieve (Li, 2012). Confucius’ teaching has been
deeply inspirational to people of CHCs. The goal of
learning is lifelong social/moral self-cultivation.
Parents and teachers nurture children in developing
the learning virtues of personal sincerity and commit-
ment, self-exertion, diligence, endurance of hardship,
perseverance, concentration, humility, and respect for/
receptivity to teaching authority (Li, 2001). As chil-
dren mature, they assume increasing responsibility to
serve the community known as “taking the world
upon oneself” (e.g. contribute back to society). The
standard of measuring one’s achievement is not one’s
words (self-expression) but deeds (practice). To sum-
marize the CHC learning tradition, Li (2012) also
identified four themes: (1) cultivate self, (2) take the
world upon oneself, (3) develop learning virtues, and
(4) practice, rather than merely express, what one
has learned.
EA and CHC sociocultural learning models to
be enacted
Whereas philosophical origins can be found in cul-
tural artifacts such as recorded history (e.g. books and
archives), sociocultural learning models are psycho-
logical processes. The latter are derived from empirical
research based on currently living people’s under-
standing and endorsement of learning concepts,
affects, and behavior. We proceed with two perennial
questions: (1) How does the cultural become the per-
sonal (and by implication, how are different values
internalized by children)? (2) How do the EA and
CHC cultures’ core learning values differ? Empirical
evidence suggests the existence of the two learning
models that currently characterize EHCs culture and
CHCs. Starting in the 1980s, research has documented
large differences in learning orientations among learn-
ers between these cultures. In general, while Western
people view ability as a necessity for learning, those in
CHCs emphasize effort (Hau & Salili, 1990; Hess &
Azuma, 1991; Holloway, 1988; Stevenson & Stigler,
1992; Watkins & Biggs, 1996, 2001). Building on this
research, Li (2001, 2002, 2003) collected daily lexica in
both English and Chinese that refer to learning as
well as ideal learner images from EA and Chinese col-
lege students (in China). Data analyses revealed two
cultural learning models (CLMs). That is, the EA
model indeed tilts heavily to mental functions, ability,
competence, and understanding the world as learning
purposes. Regarding the learning process, students
ideally seek active engagement, critical thinking,
inquiry, and self-expression. The gauge for successful
learning includes understanding the essentials of a
subject, achieving personal insights and creativity, and
being one’s best. For effective learning, students dem-
onstrate curiosity/interest and intrinsic motivation,
and challenge existing knowledge and authorities.
When learning well, students feel more pride in them-
selves among other positive emotions. However, when
learning poorly, students experience boredom, frustra-
tion, and low self-esteem. Because of the emphasis on
mental processes, Li used the term “mind-orientation”
to refer to this European-heritage learning model,
which has also been found in other European-heritage
cultures (van Egmond, 2011).
The CHC learning orientation has also received
empirical support (Li, 2001, 2003, 2012). Although it
too values knowledge mastery for oneself, it stresses
the social and moral aspects of knowledge more.
Further, this model prioritizes learning virtues to fos-
ter in children. Such learning aims at achieving
breadth and depth of knowledge, application to real-
life practice, contribution to society, and the unity of
knowledge and morality. This model emphasizes
learning affects such as commitment, passion, and
respect for teachers. When learning well, students are
urged to watch out for arrogance, and to exercise
humility instead, so as to strive continuously to self
improve (Li, 2016). For poor learning, students feel
sadness, but even stronger shame/guilt with regard to
their parents (for letting them down). Given the stress
on learning virtues, Li used the term “virtue oriented”
to refer to the CHC model. Research has consistently
verified this model not only among East Asians in
their native cultures, but also their diaspora across the
world (Li, 2012; Yamomoto & Satoh, 2019).
Social nature of enactment
Whereas these models were labeled as CLMs in previ-
ous publications, they have recently been recast as
sociocultural learning models (SCLMs) in order to
highlight the requisite social processes by which any
learning model continues to thrive and to evolve (Li
& Yamamoto, 2020). This seemingly trivial change is
not trivial at all because this nomenclature directs our
attention to the key to culture at work. Li’s previous
theory of CLMs articulated the cultural, but she did
not clarify how any CLM continues despite her team’s
research documenting this very social process of cul-
tural continuity (Li & Fung, 2014; Li et al., 2014; Li &
Yamamoto, 2020). Li and Yamamoto (2020) drew on
Chirkov’s (2020) theory of sociocultural models,

which elaborates how a public model becomes inter-
nalized by individual members of a culture.
Individuals appropriate, through the socialization of
their caregivers and other agents (e.g. teachers), from
their SCLMs to construct their own learning beliefs,
based on their needs, preferences, and circumstances.
Such personal beliefs, not the abstract CLMs, are the
only ones that guide individuals’ learning.
The key notion Chirkov introduced is enactment.
According to this approach, publicly held models con-
tain meanings that are encoded in their languages,
expressions, aphorisms, adages, and metaphors that
are used in daily life (Quinn, 2005). As such, a given
model does not just sit there aloof, passively waiting
for members to use it. Instead, it operates with what
D’Andrade (1992) calls “directive force:” Once created,
members have access to the model and use its mean-
ings to think, feel, interact with each other, as well as
to learn and to achieve. To be sure, not all members
have equal access to their full SCLM due to different
socioeconomic or other circumstances. Some members
may not actively appropriate their SCLM, and some
may even reject them. Nonetheless, so long as they
are raised in their culture (and speaking its lan-
guage(s)), they have been shaped by that culture’s val-
ues, norms, and beliefs in spite of their different
access to, reflections on, and evaluation of the shaping
process. Moreover, those who initially reject their
SCLM still have access to them if they wish to accept
them and learn accordingly (e.g. adolescents may
reject their SCLMs, but they may return to them once
becoming parents) (Li, 2001, 2003, Yamamoto et al.,
2016). Likewise, most members also recognize and
adopt the culturally held image of the ideal learner to
develop their own learning beliefs (Li, 2002, 2012). In
sum, this looping process begins with the collective
creation of the model (dates back historically and is
continuously modified), is enacted by most members
constantly under the model’s directive force, as well as
altered in response to challenges. As a result of this
social process of enactment, a given CLM is renewed,
strengthened, or modified, thus the new term SCLM.
From the cultural to the personal: the two models
being enacted
Chirkov’s approach to enactment stresses a further
human interactive process with two deeply inter-
twined aspects: intentionality and intersubjectivity
(Lightfoot et al., 2018). Ideas about these two aspects
of enactment are not new but are important for illu-
minating how SCLMs operate. That is, they illuminate
APPLIED DEVELOPMENTAL SCIENCE 31
lived experience, our first assumption about culture.
In psychology and child development, some scholars
distinguish three levels of intentionality and intersub-
jectivity: primary, joint, and collective (Ammaniti &
Gallese, 2014; D’Andrade, 1992; Tomasello, 2014,
2018; Trevarthen, 1998). Whereas the primary level
deals with infant-caregiver interactions, the collective
level pertains to how a SCLM operates at the societal
level (e.g. education policy). For our purposes, the
joint process is most relevant to understanding how
the enactment of SCLMs takes place via parental
socialization of children in constructing their personal
beliefs about learning.
The processes of joint intentionality and
intersubjectivity
Early on, infants and their caregivers engage in the
processes of joint intentionality and intersubjectivity
immediately. When one party expresses an intention,
(e.g. the child wants attention), the other responds (e.g.
the mother gives attention), thus the term intentional-
ity. The maternal response is motivated by her under-
standing of her child’s need. The exchange between her
child’s expressed need and the maternal act rests on
their mutual sensitivity to each other. That is, both par-
ties adapt their own subjective control to the subjectiv-
ity of the other, thus the term intersubjectivity
(Ammaniti & Gallese, 2014; Stern, 1985; Trevarthen,
1998). When the two parties engage in joint activities
(e.g. they vocalize in response to each other), particu-
larly when the caregiver brings the external world into
their exchange (e.g. naming an object or playing with a
toy), their intentionality and intersubjectivity achieve
joint purposes. As the child develops further, this pro-
cess becomes more complex (Fogel, 1993). Joint inten-
tionality and intersubjectivity work together in tandem
to propel child development. They underlie the rela-
tional foundation without which children would not
develop, let alone learn and acquire culture (Tomasello,
2014, 2018). Similarly, the processes of joint intention-
ality and intersubjectivity apply to parental socialization
of children in the enactment of their SCLMs. This very
process is the internalization where the cultural
becomes the personal.
EA and Taiwanese maternal socialization in
real time
We used a well-established empirical method for
studying children’s memory development due to the
open-ended nature of the data (e.g. Van Abbema &
32 J. LI AND H. FUNG
Bauer, 2005): mother-child conversations about learn-
ing. Based on our three assumptions about culture, we
reasoned that this kind of data should allow us to
examine culture at work better than closed-ended data
because the data represent a specimen of daily living.
We did not formulate any specific hypotheses about
what we would find, but instead looked at the data to
make sense of the enactment process of particular cul-
tures’ SCLMs.
We recruited 102 European American and 116
Taiwanese mothers with children 6–10 years of age,
and balanced for gender, for a larger study. We asked
each mother to talk to her child about two learning
incidents that had happened, one showing a good
learning attitude or behavior and the other showing a
poor learning attitude or behavior. The mothers could
take the mother-child conversations in any direction
that they wished. All mother-child conversations were
audio-recorded and transcribed verbatim for analysis
(Li et al., 2014). To note, these were not real parental
socialization episodes, but simulated recall followed by
mother-child conversations. However, these data were
collected in real time as the mother engaged her child
in discussing an actual learning incident. Thus, we
maintain that these data implicitly reflect lived cul-
tural experiences that lend themselves to analysis.
Below we present two poor learning excerpts, one
from a European American and one from a
Taiwanese mother-child conversation. We chose these
two examples because both mothers tried to address
their boys’ (both at 9 years of age) inadequate
Table 1. Example 1: a European American MCC.
T Mother’s Turn
1 So … let’s talk about math and story problems … .
….
3 … .let’s pretend … ; these are … ten story problems here to do.
What do you feel like usually?
5 You don’t want to do it? And, why don’t you want to do it?
7 … . What’s hard about it?
9 … You know how you like kinda use your fingers and count? You
can’t just right away count it, right? Okay … Jack has 8 marbles,
and Suzie has 2 more than Jack, something like that. There are
no numbers there for you to count, right? … .What do you
have to do first when there’s a story problem?
11 But … before you can actually get to write the answer, what do
you have to do?
13 You have to use your fingers? … .
15 It’s hard to think in your head, right. And I try, I try to encourage
you to draw a picture … , right? Doesn’t that make it easier
sometimes? If you draw a picture of how many one person has
and how many the other person has … , right?
17 But how do you feel about math in general?
19 Yeah. … I hope you … think “I can figure this out.” Because lots of
times, right away you’re thinking you can’t figure it out. And
that makes it all the harder …
21 Well maybe you’ll start feeling a little better at math. Because
math can be fun, don’t ya think?
Note. MCC stands for mother-child conversations about learning. T stands for turn. Seg stands for Segment.
learning. We use discourse analysis (Schiffrin, 1994)
to follow the moment-to-moment interactions. We
proceed with two layers of analysis in the following
order: (1) interactive moves displaying joint intention-
ality and joint intersubjectivity and (2) content of the
mother-child conversation as reflective of each SCLM.
Example 1: a European American mother-child
conversation
Mom mentions to the interviewer (not shown) that
her son Ted does not know how to solve “story prob-
lems” (i.e. word problems) in math. Ted is present,
helping her come up with an example (see Table 1 for
the mother-child conversation, T1, T2, etc., with turns
defined as each expression by either party).
This excerpt can be divided into six segments: (1)
Mom continues the mother-child conversation with
the topic that Ted accepts (T1-T2); (2) Mom probes
Ted’s feelings about math first (T3-T8); (3) Mom
redirects Ted’s inaccurate diagnosis of his challenge,
guiding him to analytical strategy (T9-T14); (4) Mom
leads Ted away from vague wondering to a concrete
strategy (T15-T16); (5) Mom returns to probe Ted’s
positive affect toward math (T17-T20); and (6) Mom
ends the conversation, guiding Ted toward feeling
positive about math learning (T21-T22).
As shown in Table 1, in Segment 1, Mom suggests
(T1) that Ted does not know how to do “story prob-
lems.” But she does this by saying “let’s talk … ” and
“let’s pretend … ” so as to give Ted a chance to share
his sense of his math learning challenge Ted agrees
Seg T Child’s Turn
1 2 Yeah.
….
2 4 I don’t want to do it.
6 … . It’s hard.
8 It takes a long time.
3 10 … . Study.
12 Think about it … . Sometimes I can’t
do it. And I have to use my fingers.
14 It’s hard to think in my head.
4 16 Mhm.
5 18 Good.
20 Yeah.
6 22 Yeah.
 APPLIED DEVELOPMENTAL SCIENCE 33

Table 2. Example 2: a Taiwanese MCC.

T Mother’s Turn Seg T Child’s Turn
1 How come you don’t you write your schoolwork well? … . 1 2 Because … maybe I sometimes don’t
have time.
3 Hm, that’s because you don’t prepare yourself well, do you? You don’t 2 4 – One thing well.
preview, and you don’t review your work at home, right? And then
you can’t concentrate on–
5 That’s right, not concentrating on one thing well. Then you drag too – Can’t finish it.
long, understand? If you drag too long, within the time your
teacher allows–
7 That’s right, you can’t finish it. But then while you are working, you also 3 8 That’s true.
play. That is why you can’t complete your schoolwork on time, can
you? Is this not so?
9 That’s why you should focus better. Finish one thing first before doing 10 I understand it.
other things, correct?
11 Hm, right. There are many other things, like the Chinese characters you 4 12 Yes.
write. I have taught you how to write the strokes and pointed out
what you need to improve on, but the next time you do it you make
the same mistakes. Do you understand?
13 This just means to me that you didn’t really pay attention; am I right? If 14 Yes, it is indeed the case.
you keep doing that, it’s like you just repeat the same correcting, then
going back, and then correcting and going back again without any
progress. Is this not the case?
15 Then what do you think you should do? 5 16 Get rid of this behavior right away; it’d be
good if I could get rid of this behavior.
17 It’s not “it’d be good,” it should be do your hardest, with your full heart 6 18 Yeah, with my full heart and mind.
and mind.
Note. MCC stands for mother-child conversations about learning. T stands for turn. Seg stands for.
Segment. This MCC was done in Chinese. The first author translated it into English.

(T2). In Segment 2, Mom sets up (T3) a hypothetical
situation of Ted facing “story problems,” to draw Ted
in to share how he would feel. Ted readily admits
(T4) that he does not want to do them. Mom probes
(T5) his reason further, and he says (T6) it is hard.
When asked what is hard about math (T7), he says
(T8) that it takes too long. In these exchanges, Mom
engages, demonstrating mostly intersubjectivity but
hinting her intentionality with her focused question-
ing. She succeeds in getting Ted’s full cooperation.
After ascertaining Ted’s perspective on his math chal-
lenge, Mom focuses (T9), in Segment 3, on Ted’s
familiar but unworkable method of counting fingers
and declares that he cannot do so because there are
no numbers in a word problem (Jack and Suzie) for
him to count. She asks further what Ted should do,
exhibiting both intentionality and intersubjectivity.
This leads Ted to resort (T10) to the general idea of
“study.” Seeing that Ted has not moved closer to a
solution, Mom asks (T11) what he should do before
he can write any answers. Unfortunately, Ted gets
(T12) further lost, repeating the familiar but vague
concept “think about it,” admitting he cannot do that
sometimes, and goes back to finger counting. Mom
signals (T13) that finger counting is precisely the
wrong idea. Ted does not see (T14) any other way by
claiming “it’s hard to think in my head.”
In Segment 4, Mom leads (T15) Ted away from his
vague wondering to a concrete strategy: drawing a
picture to visualize the quantities implicit in the verbal
“story” problem. Mom uses several rhetorical affirma-
tions (e.g. “right?”) following her teaching statements,
exhibiting intentionality and intersubjectivity to grease
her tone. Ted agrees (T16). In Segment 5, now that
Mom finally wins Ted over with her workable strat-
egy, she returns (T17) to probe Ted’s positive affect
toward math. Ted now acknowledges (T18) that he
feels good. Mom hopes (T19) that Ted will no longer
think he is stuck because he can “figure it out,” which
Ted meets (T20) with a resounding “yeah.” In the
final Segment 6, Mom ends the mother-child conver-
sation by guiding (T21) Ted to feel positive because
math can be fun, and Ted agrees (T22).
This example shows how Mom is socializing her
child in developing learning beliefs in everyday life.
Her socialization unfolds with prevalent and deeply
intertwined intentionality and intersubjectivity. It is
clear that without them, human communication
would likely be impossible. Although intentionality
and intersubjectivity are everywhere, they are not ran-
domly inserted, but organized in this case to serve the
maternal socialization purpose. First, throughout the
segment, Mom expresses her intentionality, but rarely
alone and forcefully. Rather, whenever she interjects
her intentionality, she either preempts, or intermin-
gles, or post-inserts her ideas with affects that bring
Ted in (showing intersubjectivity), revealing caution
and sensitivity toward her son. Since intersubjectivity
34 J. LI AND H. FUNG
is fundamentally socioemotional in nature, this mater-
nal socialization is never dry, but imbued with cultur-
ally appropriate emotionality that conveys love, care,
and empathy. Second, Mom does not appear to have
to sweat blood to proceed, but does it so “naturally.”
As a result, she seems to make her son feel comfort-
able, and hence willing to admit his inadequacy. In
the end, he accepts her suggested strategy and concurs
that positive affect will ensue in learning math.
Regarding the SCLM, this mother-child conversa-
tion evinced EA core values that reflect their philo-
sophical origins. Two are particularly noteworthy–
mental processes and positive affect. First, Mom’s
entire approach is to guide her son into thinking
about effective strategies. To be sure, at the outset her
son already knew a few (e.g. studying and counting
fingers) that he had presumably learned before. When
none of these works, Mom leads him to a new strat-
egy (i.e. making a story problem visual, hence expos-
ing the quantity from the story, stripping off the
interfering elements). Learning to do this is learning
to effectively abstract the principles of things, which is
a central Western intellectual value (Li, 2012). Second,
Mom begins with probing the emotions her son expe-
rienced facing his challenge. The maternal caution
may reflect the EA culture’s strong emphasis on pro-
moting children’s self-esteem (Miller & Cho, 2018).
Hence, parents are hesitant to criticize their children
blatantly for their “imperfect” intellectual perform-
ance. It is only culturally natural that when the new
strategy makes sense to the son, Mom reconnects this
mental process to his positive affect. This serves to
further motivate the child to overcome the challenge.
Example 2: a Taiwanese mother-child conversation
Mom tells the interviewer (not shown) that her son
Lee is sometimes lazy at school without being specific
about a particular school issue. Mom briefly talks to
Lee about his need to participate in group cleaning at
school that is expected of every student, and not try-
ing to escape from his responsibility. Then Mom
switches to the following learning situation.
This mother-child conversation can also be divided
into six segments: (1) Mom directly probes the reason
for Lee’s poor schoolwork only to meet his convenient
excuse (T1-T2); (2) Mom debunks Lee’s excuse and
points out the real cause of his problem: lack of the
virtue of concentration, with Lee’s willing admission
(T3-T6); (3) Mom addresses Lee’s wider problem,
again with his concurrence (T7-T10); (4) Mom turns
to more poor work and points out that she has shown
him how to improve, but to no avail, compelling
mom to conclude that Lee is in a “vicious” cycle of
repeating the same issue with no progress (T11-T14);
(5) Mom asks him what to do, but he expresses only
a noncommittal wish (T15-T16); and (6) Mom pokes
a hole in his thinking and urges him to do his best to
change, to which Lee concurs (T17-T18).
In Segment 1, Mom’s opening (T1) may appear to
come from nowhere, but it follows her “chiding” Lee
for escaping his cleaning responsibility. Thus, her tone
is understandable. But still she only poses a question
to Lee, thereby displaying both her intentionality and
intersubjectivity. Unfortunately, Lee gives (T2) a con-
venient excuse (no time). In Segment 2, Mom directly
debunks (T3) Lee’s excuse and points out the real
cause of his problem: not doing the routine study as
expected of any student. She brings up his lack of
concentration as a key learning virtue. But she does it
with rhetorical affirmation (i.e. do you? right?), as
commonly observed in Chinese daily communication,
facilitating utterances of intentionality and intersub-
jectivity. This time, Lee readily admits (T4) his prob-
lem even before Mom finishes her sentence. Mom
confirms (T5) that it is his lack of concentration that
makes him take too long to finish his work. Again,
Lee sees (T6) the point and concurs, also before Mom
completes her expression. In Segment 3, Mom takes
(T7) the opportunity of Lee’s cooperation to address a
wider issue as part of his lack of concentration: he
plays while doing schoolwork. She again uses rhet-
orical affirmations and asks Lee if it is true, compel-
ling him to answer, which he does (T8). Mom
continues (T9) to stress again the real cause of his
problem as lack of concentration and urges him to
focus (“Finish one thing first before doing other
things”). She asks if it is correct. Lee says (T10) he
understands. All these exchanges in this segment illus-
trate intentionality and intersubjectivity.
In Segment 4, now that Lee is fully on board with
Mom, she turns (T11) to yet another example of Lee’s
poor work (writing Chinese characters) and points
out that she has shown him how to improve, but to
no avail. Lee acknowledges (T12) that. Mom summa-
rizes (T13) that all these manifestations point to one
root cause: lack of concentration. To highlight the ser-
ious consequence of not changing himself, Mom lays
bare the “vicious” cycle of repeating the same issue
without any progress and asks him if this is the case.
Lee readily confesses (T14). As in the other segments,
Mom deepens the recounting through much inten-
tionality and intersubjectivity, keeping Lee attentive
and cooperative. Now in Segment 5, Mom asks (T15)

Lee to give a real solution. Although he cooperates
fully and also clearly desires to change, he gives (T16)
a nonchalant response “it’d be good if I could get rid
of this behavior,” which sounds more like a wish than
resolve. Finally, in Segment 6, as a coda, Mom pokes
(T17) a hole in his noncommittal response and states
his need to do his hardest, with his full heart and
mind (resolve and commitment to follow through).
Lee fully concurs (T18).
Similar to the European-American mother-child
dyadic interaction, this Taiwanese mother-child con-
versation proceeds also with plenty of intentionality
and intersubjectivity intertwined, again serving the
mother’s socialization purpose. However, we note two
ways that it is distinct from the European-American
maternal socialization. First, the Taiwanese mother’s
intentionality seems to be more straightforward with
less caution than the European-American mother.
This pattern has also been widely observed in other
research (Fung, 1999). Second, although the mother’s
intentionality may be expressed more directly, she
expresses much more intersubjectivity through the lin-
guistic device called “rhetorical affirmations” in the
form of a question (e.g. the 2nd part of the speech in
“you didn’t really pay attention; am I right?”). This
common linguistic feature in Chinese communication
serves to soften an otherwise more direct and harsh-
sounding expression (Li & Yamamoto, 2020).
Accordingly, when uttered, the listener is often com-
pelled to respond. This is probably why Lee always
responds to his mother’s rhetorical affirmations fol-
lowing a statement about his challenges. It seems that
rhetorical affirmations help deepen intersubjectivity in
their communication, therefore achieving the effect-
iveness of parental socialization as this mother-child
conversation illustrates.
Concerning their SCLM, this Taiwanese mother
quite centrally reveals her socialization goal to anchor
the important learning virtue of concentration. She
does not focus on mental processes, although some of
her attributions of her son’s problems involve some
analytical thinking (e.g. the “vicious” cycle of no pro-
gress). Instead, she elaborates all aspects of concentra-
tion, from different behavioral manifestations, to the
right steps (e.g. finish one thing before doing other
things), and most important of all, to the negative
consequence for personal growth (Li et al., 2013). Her
more direct and “forceful” tone likely stems from her
parental social/moral sense of responsibility (not to
mention, she has already chided Lee for not partici-
pating in group cleaning). The second striking differ-
ence is that the mother never talks about her son’s
APPLIED DEVELOPMENTAL SCIENCE 35
inner feelings, positive or negative, unlike the
European-American mother’s strong affective
emphasis. Again, this difference has also been widely
noted in East Asian parental socialization (Fung, 1999;
Li, 2012). The focus is on a better future self, an
orientation that is also believed to motivate children
on their journey of self-cultivation, a central tenet of
Confucian philosophy.
Conclusion
We began this article by discussing three general
assumptions about culture that inform our work and
that we think are important to consider. The first
addresses the embeddedness of culture, meaning that
people generally experience their culture by living it,
rather than thinking about it. The second assumption
concerns the philosophical origins of cultural values.
What values people live by in the here and now are
rooted in the long history of cultural development.
Such philosophical origins can shed important light
on a given current culture. The third assumption
makes it clear that the core values of a culture that set
it apart from other cultures are important for empir-
ical research to study.
Our research focused on human learning based on
the above three assumptions. First, by examining two
distinct cultures, we addressed our third assumption.
By tracing the two respective cultures’ philosophical
origins for their SCLMs as empirically documented,
we provided support for our second assumption.
Finally, to show how culture works, based on our first
assumption, we presented examples of the daily living
process from each culture where the mother draws on
her SCLM to socialize her child in constructing his
learning beliefs. With discourse analysis of moment-
to-moment social microprocesses, the embeddedness
of the living process is uncovered. Although mundane
in some ways, the process holds the key to under-
standing how the cultural becomes the personal.
Repeated in the homes of many cultural members, the
SCLMs, in turn, are upheld, strengthened, and
also altered.
We consider two implications, one for general
childrearing and one for learning and education.
Childrearing is not really a routine metacogntive mat-
ter and process. Parents hold certain knowledge and
beliefs that guide what they do (Bornstein, 2006).
Most of parents’ knowledge and beliefs did not come
about primarily through schooling but by the very
process of their own upbringing that is immersed in
their culture. Thus, parents developed such knowledge
36 J. LI AND H. FUNG
and beliefs themselves over a long period of time, and
this process results in the deep-seated nature of their
knowledge and beliefs. As stated in the introduction,
such knowledge and beliefs need to be understood
before any attempt to “reform” how culturally/ethnic-
ally diverse parents raise their children so that they
could be more “successful” in a society such as the US
(Ochs, 2019; Serpell, 2019). Although well-intentioned,
such efforts frequently backfire, attesting to ignorance
or misunderstanding of children, families, and
communities.
Regarding learning and education, ample research,
including our own, has shown that there is no single
optimal way to learn and to educate children. Certainly,
cultures can learn from each other to benefit their own
learning. Individual children can also adopt different
ways to learn while parents can choose diverse strategies
to socialize their children. Such mutual learning has
become more available in our world’s increasingly infor-
mation-rich era with frequent cross-cultural exchange.
After some 150 years of intensive learning from the
West (a term commonly used by CHC scholars),
coupled with strong critiques of their own learning tra-
ditions (see a review of this history in Li, 2012), more
and more CHCs are rethinking their learning traditions,
particularly in light of their children’s consistently higher
achievement than their European-heritage peers in inter-
national education assessment (OECD, 2018). It is
doubtful that their achievement is due only to learning
from European-heritage cultures. If that were true, then
Western children should achieve better than children
from Confucian-heritage cultures. But evidence does not
support that. Cultivating children’s learning virtues that
enable them to self-improve toward moral, social, and
intellectual personal growth and to honor their parents
and community is likely a stronger reason for their
achievement. A large body of research supports that.
Learning how to think independently and critically is
certainly a strength of European-heritage learning trad-
ition, and when applied appropriately could benefit
CHC children. However, if they apply the challenging
stance indiscriminately to their family and community
elders, friends, and legitimate authority, they may find
themselves mired in endless interpersonal conflict
instead of harmony, isolation instead of social support,
and ultimately a dimming tunnel instead of a lit path
for life.
Disclosure statement
No potential conflict of interest was reported by
the authors.
References
Ammaniti, M., & Gallese, V. (2014). The birth of intersub-
jectivity: Psychodynamics, neurobiology, and the self.
Norton.
Bornstein, M. H., (2006). Parenting science and practice. In
W. Damon & R. M. Lerner (Series Eds.) I. E., Sigel, K. A.
& Renninger, (Vol. Eds.), Handbook of child psychology:
Vol. 4. Child psychology in practice (6th ed., pp.
893–949). Wiley.
Chirkov, V. (2020). An introduction to the theory of socio-
cultural models. Asian Journal of Social Psychology, 23(2),
143–162. https://doi.org/10.1111/ajsp.181
D’Andrade, R. G. (1992). Schemas and motivation. In R. G.
D’Andrade & C. Strauss (Eds.), Human motives and cul-
tural models (pp. 23–44). Cambridge University Press.
Fogel, A. (1993). Developing through relationships: Origins of
communication, self, and culture. The University of
Chicago Press.
Fung, H. (1999). Becoming a moral child: The socialization
of shame among young Chinese children. Ethos, 27(2),
180–209. https://doi.org/10.1525/eth.1999.27.2.180
Fung, H., Miller, P. J., & Lin, L. C. (2004). Listening is
active: Lessons from the narrative practices of Taiwanese
families. In M. W. Pratt & B. E. Fiese (Eds.), Family sto-
ries and the life course: Across time and generations (pp.
303–323). Erlbaum.
Gardiner, H. W., & Kosmitzki, C. (2018). Lives across cul-
tures: Cross-cultural human development. (6th ed.).
Pearson.
Geertz, C. (1973). The interpretation of cultures. Basic
Books. p. 68.
Hau, K. T., & Salili, F. (1990). Examination result attribu-
tion, expectancy and achievement goals among Chinese
students in Hong Kong. Educational Studies, 16(1),
17–31. https://doi.org/10.1080/0305569900160102
Hecht, J. M. (2003). Doubt, a history: The great doubters
and their legacy of innovation from Socrates and Jesus to
Thomas Jefferson and Emily Dickinson. New York:
HarperCollins.
Hess, R. D., & Azuma, H. (1991). Cultural support for
schooling: Contrasts between Japan and the United
States. Educational Researcher, 20(9), 2–8. https://doi.org/
10.3102/0013189X020009002
Hoff, E., Core, C., & Shanks, K. F. (2020). The quality of
child-directed speech depends on the speaker’s language
proficiency. Journal of Child Language, 47(1), 132–145.
https://doi.org/10.1017/S030500091900028X
Holloway, S. D. (1988). Concepts of ability and effort in
Japan and the US. Review of Educational Research, 58(3),
327–345. https://doi.org/10.2307/1170258
Li, J. (2001). Chinese conceptualization of learning. Ethos,
29(2), 111–137. https://doi.org/10.1525/eth.2001.29.2.111
Li, J. (2002). A cultural model of learning: Chinese “heart
and mind for wanting to learn. Journal of Cross-Cultural
Psychology, 33(3), 248–269. https://doi.org/10.1177/
0022022102033003003
Li, J. (2003). U.S. and Chinese cultural beliefs about learn-
ing. Journal of Educational Psychology, 95(2), 258–267.
https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-0663.95.2.258

Li, J. (2012). Cultural foundations of learning: East and
West. Cambridge University Press. https://doi.org/10.
1017/CBO9781139028400
Li, J. (2016). Humility in learning: A Confucian perspective.
Journal of Moral Education, 45(2), 147–119. https://doi.
org/10.1080/03057240.2016.1168736
Li, J., & Yamamoto, Y. (2020). Western and East Asian
sociocultural learning models: Evidence from cross-cul-
tural and immigrant research. Asian Journal of Social
Psychology, 23(2), 174–186. https://doi.org/10.1111/ajsp.
184[Mismatch]
Li, J., & Fung, H. (2014). 由親子對談窺探關於學習信念的
文化詮釋框架: 台灣與美國學童之比較 [Cultural inter-
pretive frame for mother-child conversations about learn-
ing: Comparing European American and Taiwanese
dyads. In F.-W. Liu (Ed.), 同理心、情感、與互為主體
[Empathy, affect, and intersubjectivity] (pp. 261–298).
Institute of Ethnology, Academia Sinica.
Li, J., Fung, H., & Chen, E. C.-H. (2013). Taiwanese parent-
child conversations for moral guidance: Uncovering the
ubiquitous but enigmatic process. In C. Wainryb & H.
Recchia (Eds.), Talking about right and wrong:
Parent–child conversations as contexts for moral develop-
ment (pp. 71–97)Cambridge University Press.
Li, J., Fung, H., Bakeman, R., Rae, K., & Wei, W.-C. (2014).
How European American and Taiwanese mothers talk to
their children about learning. Child Development, 85(3),
1206–1216. https://doi.org/10.1111/cdev.12172
Lightfoot, C., Cole, M., & Cole, S. R. (2018). The develop-
ment of children (8th ed.). Worth.
Miller, P. J., & Cho, G. E. (2018). Self-esteem in time and
place: How American families imagine, enact, and person-
alize a cultural ideal. Oxford University Press.
Ochs, E. (2019). Ethical blindspots in ethnographic and
developmental approaches to the language gap debate.
Invited address at the Biannual Meetings of Society for
Research in Child Development. MD.
Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development
(OECD). (2018). PISA 2018 results: Executive summary.
https://www.oecd.org/pisa/Combined_Executive_Summaries_
PISA_2018.pdf
Plato. (1981). Five dialogues. (G. M. A. Gruber, Trans.) IN
Hackett. p. 41.
Quinn, N. (2005). How to reconstruct schemas people
share, from what they say. In N. Quinn (Ed.), Finding
culture in talk: A collection of methods (pp. 35–81).
Palgrave Macmillan.
Russell, B. (1975). A history of western philosophy and its
connection with political and social circumstances from the
earliest times to the present day. Simon & Schuster.
APPLIED DEVELOPMENTAL SCIENCE 37
Schiffrin, D. (1994). Approaches to discourse: Language as
social interaction. Blackwell.
Serpell, R. (2019). Discussion on UN policy to reform child-
rearing practices in developing countries. In F. Kessel
(Moderator), Cultural diversity, interventions, and ethics.
Conversation Roundtable at the Biannual Meetings of
Society for Research in Child Development. MD.
Shweder, R. A. (2011). Commentary: Ontogenetic cultural
psychology. In L. A. Jensen (Ed.), Bridging cultural and
developmental psychology: New syntheses in theory, research
and policy (pp. 303–310). Oxford University Press.
Sobel, D. M., Li, J., & Corriveau, K. (2007). It danced around
in my head and I learned it:” What children know about
learning. Journal of Cognition and Development, 8(3),
345–325. https://doi.org/10.1080/15248370701446806
Stern, D. M. (1985). The interpersonal world of the infant.
Basic Books.
Stevenson, H. W., & Stigler, J. W. (1992). The learning gap.
Simon & Schuster.
Stipek, D., Feiler, R., Byler, P., Ryan, R., Milburn, S., &
Salmon, J. (1998). Good beginnings: What difference does
the program make in preparing young children for school.
Journal of Applied Developmental Psychology, 19(1), 41–66.
https://doi.org/10.1016/S0193-3973(99)80027-6
Tomasello, M. (2014). A natural history of human thinking.
Harvard University Press.
Tomasello, M. (2018). Becoming human: A theory of
ontogeny. MA: Belknap.
Trevarthen, C. (1998). The concept and foundation of
infant intersubjectivity. In S. Braten (Ed.), Intersubject
communication and emotion in early ontogeny (pp.
15–46). Cambridge University Press.
van Egmond, M. C. (2011). Mind and virtue: A cross-cul-
tural analysis of beliefs about learning [Unpublished doc-
toral dissertation]. Jacobs University.
Van Abbema, D. L., & Bauer, P. J. (2005). Autobiographical
memory in middle childhood: Recollections of the recent
and distant past. Memory (Hove, England)), 13(8),
829–845. https://doi.org/10.1080/09658210444000430
Watkins, D. A., & Biggs, J. B. (Eds.). (1996). The Chinese
learner: Cultural, psychological, and contextual influences.
Comparative Education Research Centre.
Watkins, D. A, & Biggs, J. B. (Eds.). (2001). Teaching the
Chinese learner: Psychological and pedagogical perspec-
tives. Comparative Education Research Centre.
Yamamoto, Y., Li, J., & Liu, J. L. (2016). Does socioeconomic
status matter for Chinese immigrants’ academic socialization?
Family environment, parental engagement, and preschoolers’
outcomes. Research in Human Development, 13(3), 191–206.
https://doi.org/10.1080/15427609.2016.1194706
Copyright of Applied Developmental Science is the property of Taylor & Francis Ltd and its
content may not be copied or emailed to multiple sites or posted to a listserv without the
copyright holder's express written permission. However, users may print, download, or email
articles for individual use.