Developmental Psychology

1969, Vol. 1, No. 2, 169-177

Cohort Effects in Cognitive Development of

Children as Revealed by Cross-Sectional
Sequences1
PAUL B. BALTES2 GUENTHER REINERT
AND
West Virginia University Universitaet Mannheim

A recently proposed bifactorial developmental model consisting of the fac-

tors of age and cohort was tested by using cross-sectional sequences as data-
collection strategies. In each of two studies, age was varied in two levels
(8:4 and 8:8, 9:4 and 9:8) and cohort (birthdate) in three levels (July
1955, November 1955, and March 1956; July 1956, November 1956, and
March 1957). Four subtests of intelligence from the Begabungstestsystem
were administered to two random samples of 420 subjects, with 35 boys and
35 girls in each treatment condition. Using an analysis of variance design,
significant main effects of age and cohort as well as significant interactions
were found for some of the four measures of cognitive functioning. It is
argued that the obtained cohort effects represent differential amounts of
schooling rather than season-of-birth effects. The findings clearly support the
necessity of the bifactorial developmental model which calls for sequential
strategies to disentangle age from cohort effects in developmental research.

In an attempt to solve the ongoing con-
troversy about the validity of various age
curves, alternative strategies to the conven-
tional cross-sectional and longitudinal de-
signs have been proposed (Baltes, 1968;
Schaie, 1965). Using Bell's (1953) notion
of an "accelerated longitudinal approach"
as a starting point, Schaie (1965) formu-
lated a well-explicated general model for
the study of developmental problems which
is based on three components: age, cohort
(birthdate), and time of measurement. In
order to analyze his trifactorial devel-
opmental model, Schaie derived three
types of sequential strategies: the cross-
sequential, the cohort-sequential, and the
time-sequential method. Under certain as-
1
This study was conducted in conjunction with
research supported by a grant from the Wis-
senschaftliche Gesellschaft der Universitaet des
Saarlandes, Germany. The authors are grateful to
Heide Diesel, Elisabeth Haas, and Gisela Labouvie
for their assistance in data analysis and to J. R.
Nesselroade and O. H. Cross for their critical
readings of the manuscript.
2
Requests for reprints should be sent to Paul B.
Baltes, Department of Psychology, West Virginia
University, Morgantown, West Virginia, 26506.
169
sumptions, these sequential strategies are
expected to yield the unconfounded effects
of age, cohort, and time of measurement
and thus disentangle some of the sources
of error confounding the age differences ob-
tained by application of single conven-
tional cross-sectional or longitudinal meth-
ods. Schaie (1965) appears to explain the
effects of the three components as the con-
sequences of maturation (age), environ-
ment (time of measurement), and of
heredity (cohort), an interpretation long
sought in developmental psychology.
While accepting the basic setup of
the general developmental model, Baltes
(1967, 1968) criticized Schaie's analysis
and interpretation of the developmental
model by pointing out some shortcomings
in the formal definitions and the measurabil-
ity of the components age, cohort, and time
of measurement. He proposed to give up
the explanatory status of the components
(maturation, heredity, environment) and to
transform Schaie's trifactorial model into a
bifactorial developmental model using the
descriptive components of age and cohort
only. As was true for Schaie's sequential
 170 PAUL B. BALTES AND GUENTHER REINERT
strategies, the bifactorial developmental
model can be conceptualized as a design
with independent as well as repeated meas-
urements over the age factor. It was pro-
posed that the data-collection strategies
needed to apply the bifactorial develop-
mental model as a design with independent
measurements be called cross-sectional se-
quences; and in the case of repeated meas-
urements, longitudinal sequences. If certain
assumptions are met, the use of independent
as well as repeated measurements, that is,
the application of cross-sectional as well as
longitudinal sequences, permits the separa-
tion of the effects of age and cohort in de-
velopmental phenomena.
As holds true for all models, their useful-
ness is dependent upon their heuristic value,
that is, upon the empirical relevance of age
and cohort effects in the case of the bifac-
torial developmental model. While the ex-
istence of age effects on psychological be-
havior is widely acknowledged, the presence
of cohort effects, that is, differences between
people born at different points of time, is
not generally recognized. Thus far, there are
few studies which have attempted to analyze
cohort effects directly (e.g., Riegel, 1965;
Riegel, Riegel, & Meyer, 1967; Schaie, &
Strother, 1968, 1969), most of the evidence
being of an indirect nature (Damon, 1965;
Kuhlen, 1963). In general, one is inclined
to concede that there might be differences
between cohorts born several decades apart,
for example, differences between genera-
tions; however, one is hesitant to predict
differences between subpopulations of or-
ganisms born only a few years, or even
months, apart. The present study tests such
lower bounds of the cohort dimension with
regard to cognitive development in children.
Method
Research Design and Subjects
One has to observe at least two cohorts at the
same two age levels to realize the minimum se-
quential design derived from the bifactorial de-
velopmental model. This can be accomplished,
however, either by cross-sectional or longitudinal
sequences. It has been argued (Baltes, 1968) that
a design with independent observations over both
age and cohort (cross-sectional sequences) is as
sensitive to the analysis of cohort effects as a de-
sign with repeated observations over age (longitu-
dinal sequences). Such reasoning follows from the
fact that the increase in sensitivity of a repeated-
measurement design concerns only those factors
where repeated observations are possible, that is,
with regard to the bifactorial model, only the age
factor. In addition, the interpretation of cross-sec-
tional sequences is not impaired by the existence
of either testing, selective-sampling, or selective
dropout effects as is the interpretation of longitu-
dinal sequences. The analysis of cohort effects be-
ing the primary purpose of the present study, it
therefore seemed logical to choose cross-sectional,
rather than longitudinal, sequences as data-collec-
tion strategies.
As part of a larger study on the differentiation
hypotheses of intelligence (Reinert, 1969; Reinert,
Baltes, & Schmidt, 1965), it was possible to col-
lect data suited for the bifactorial developmental
model. Four independent cross-sectional studies
separated by 4-month intervals (November 1964,
March 1965, July 1965, November 1965) were
conducted. The population of subjects consisted
of all 8- to 10-year-old pupils (Grades 2-4) attend-
ing 64 elementary schools in the city of Saar-
bruecken (Germany) and its surrounding com-
munities. Each of the 64 elementary schools was
randomly assigned to one of the four occasions of
measurement, so that the subjects in each cross-
section came from 16 elementary schools. The
city of Saarbruecken has a population of about
150,000 and is the capital of the Saarland, one of
the states of the Federal Republic of Germany. In
general, the population can be described as being
fairly representative (IQ, socioeconomic status) of
German children from urban and suburban areas.
A more detailed description of the population is
given elsewhere (Reinert, 1969).
From the pool of subjects (N = 9686), two
different designs (Study I, Study II) each consist-
ing of two age and three cohort levels were set
up to test the bifactorial model (Table 1).
The subpopulations defined by their levels of
age and cohort were each measured only at one
time of measurement, that is, either in November
1964, March 1965, July 1965, or November 1965.
Then, from each of the various subpopulations a
subsample of 70 subjects (35 male, 35 female)
was drawn at random, resulting in a total sample
of 420 subjects for each of the two studies. Thus,
a 2 (Age) X 3 (Cohort) x 2 (Sex) analysis of
variance setup was obtained for both Study I and
Study II.
Measurement Variables and Analysis
As measures of cognitive functioning, a selected
battery of subtests from the Leistungspruefsystem
(LPS) and the Begabungstestsystem (BTS) were
used. Both the LPS (Horn, 1962) and the BTS
(Horn, 1956) are group tests of intelligence con-
structed to cover the domain of intelligence as
conceptualized by Thurstone's primary mental
abilities for the German language area. Thus far,
however, factor-analytic studies have not been
 COHORT EFFECTS IN COGNITIVE DEVELOPMENT 171

TABLE 1
BlFACTORIAL DEVELOPMENTAL MODEL: Two RESEARCH DESIGNS USING
EACH THREE LEVELS or COHORT AND Two LEVELS OF AGE

Age"
Cohort"
8:4 8:8 9:4 9:8

Study I

July 1956 November 1964 March 1965 —

November 1956 March 1965 July 1965
March 1957 July 1965 November 1965 —

Study II

July 1955 November 1964 March 1965

November 1955 March 1965 July 1965
March 1956 — July 1965 November 1965
—

Note.—Body entries representing four times of measurement.

a
Bimonthly range in each level of cohort and age.

very successful in reproducing the assumed dimen-
sions (Reinert et al., 1965) in a satisfactory and
consistent manner, as they did not suggest any
other clear-cut interpretation. Therefore, in the
present study the authors have kept to the content
validity of the subtests, instead of referring to their
assumed factorial validity. For the present analysis
•only the subtests of the BTS included in the bat-
tery are used. Table 2 gives an overview on some
of their test characteristics including their assumed
factorial validity.
After the distribution of the raw scores and the
homogeneity of variances were found to be satis-
factory for the four variables, a 2 x 3 x 2 analysis
of variance was performed for each of the four in-
telligence measures separately for Study I and
Study II, yielding a total of eight analyses of
variance.
Results
The results are summarized in Table 3
and Table 4. In describing the two tables,
it should be noted that the treatment factors
age and cohort have to be conceptualized
as fixed factors; that is, in a strict sense it is
feasible only to state differences between

TABLE 2
FOUR MEASURES OF INTELLIGENCE FROM THE BEGABUNGSTESTSYSTEM (BTS)

Factor identification
Subtest Number of item
Thurstone system Guilford system

Regelerkennen (RE)a Induction Cognition of symbolic systems 28

Buchstabenraten (BR)b Verbal comprehension Cognition of semantic units 30
Grundrechnen (GR)° Numerical facility Convergent production of 38
symbolic implications
Buchstabenzaehlen (BZ)d Perceptual speed Evaluation of symbolic units 96

a
Letter Series.
b
c
Word Completion.
d
Basic Arithmetic.
Letter Counting.
172 PAUL B. BALTES AND GUENTHER REINERT

TABLE 3 Age Effects

MEANS IN FOTJB SUBTESTS OF INTELLIGENCE" FOR As was expected from numerous other
DIFFERENT LEVELS OF COHORT AND AGE
studies on the development of intelligence
and from the standardization data of the
Age BTS, the subtests Buchstabenraten (BR),
Subtestb Cohort Grundrechnen (GR), and Buchstabenzaeh-
8:4 8:8 9:4 9:8
len (BZ) show a main effect of age which,
of course, signifies that with increasing age
there is an increase in intellectual perform-
Study I ance as shown in Table 3. This does not
apply to the same extent to both studies,
7, 1956 11.3 12.0 _ since in Study I (ages 8:4 and 8:8) the
RE 11, 1956 11.8 12.5 — — three subtests, BR, GR, and BZ, show sig-
3, 1957 12.2 11.8 — — nificant age differences, while in Study II
7, 1956 5.2 6.9 — — (Ages 9:4 and 9:8) only Subtest BZ re-
BR 11, 1956 5.7 7.7 — — veals a significant main effect of age.
3, 1957 6.2 7.3 — — On the other hand, some of the main ef-
fects of age cannot be interpreted unambig-
7, 1956 13.2 18.0 — — uously because of the significant interac-
GR 11, 1956 16.4 18.3 — —
3, 1957 17.1 18.0 — — tions. This will be dealt with in a subsequent
section in more detail.
7, 1956 32.7 35.5 — —
BZ 11, 1956 33.9 32.6 — —
— Cohort Effects
3, 1957 31.3 36.5 ~ ~
Although overall main effects of cohort
are not so numerous as age effects, they are
Study II present in both studies, equalling the num-
ber of age effects in Study II, Subtest GR re-
7, 1955 13.4 14.1 veals in both studies a significant main ef-
RE 11, 1955 — 13.8 14.5 fect of cohort. The a posteriori analysis
— 14.2
3, 1956 — — 14.3 shows (see Table 3) that in both studies it
7, 1955 — — 7.9 9.6 is the first cohort level (7, 1956 and 7,
BR 11, 1955 — 9.8 10.4 1955) which is significantly different from
—
3, 1956 — — 9.7 10.4 the other two cohort levels. The significant
interactions between age and cohort, again,
7, 1955 18.1 21.5
GR 11, 1955
—
— — 22.1 21.8 point out that the main effects of cohort
3, 1956 — —
— 21.2 20.2 also cannot be generalized in a straightfor-
ward manner over all other treatment con-
7, 1955 33.9 38.7 ditions, but have to be qualified with regard
BZ 11, 1955 — 38.5 38.6
3, 1956 —
•— — 38.1 40.7
to the age level.
Sex Effects
Note.—Total sample for each study: n = 420. The means
combined over sexes are based on n = 70. Neither Study I nor Study II revealed a
» Begabungstestsystem (Horn, 1956).
b
RE = Regelerkennen (Letter Series); BR, = Buchstaben- significant main effect of sex, so that, in
raten (Word Completion); GR = Grundrechnen (Basic the two studies, sex does not pose a serious
Arithmetic); BZ = Buchstabenzaehlen (Letter Counting).
problem. There is, however, one significant
interaction between age and sex for the
mean performances at the various levels Regelerkennen (RE) variable in Study II.
without generalizing to the total range of Since sex differences are not involved in
age or cohort under consideration. The those variables which are affected by co-
level of significance for interpreting differ- hort effects (the prime concern of the pres-
ences was set at the .02 level of confidence ent paper), no further discussion of the
for all treatment conditions. Age X Sex interaction will be pursued.
 COHORT EFFECTS IN COGNITIVE DEVELOPMENT
SUMMARY OP ANALYSES OF VARIANCE FOR STUDY I AND STUDY II
Source df RE
Study I Study II
Age (A) 1,408
Cohort (C) 2,408
Sex (S) 1,408
AXC 2,408
AXS 1,408 **
c x s 2,408
A X C X S 2,408
a
Note.—For levels of ay;e and levels of cohort in both studies see Table 1.
RE = Regelerkennen (Letter Series); RR = Buchstabenraten (Word Completion); GR = Grundrechnen (Basic Arithmetic);
BZ = Buchstabenzaehlen (Letter Counting).
* V < .02.
** p < .01.
Interaction Effects
A total of three significant interactions
between age and cohort was obtained. Since
there is no evidence of heterogeneity of
variances (indicating a violation of the
analysis of variance model), the striking
stability of the significant Age X Cohort in-
teraction for GR in both Study I and Study
II may tentatively be interpreted. As can be
seen from Figure 1, the Age X Cohort in-
teraction signifies that the main effect of
cohort concerns only the lower age groups
(8:4 and 9:4), while the older age groups
in both studies obtained about the same
mean performance across all levels of co-
hort. The other side of the same interaction
is, of course, that the main effect of age for
Subtest GR obtained in Study I holds only
with one of the cohort levels (7, 1956).
The interaction term Age X Cohort, ob-
tained for Variable BZ in Study I, shows
that the significant main effect of age (Ta-
ble 3) does not apply to Cohort 11, 1956;
that is, the mean scores obtained by the
younger and older age groups of this cohort
level do not differ significantly. However,
the mean scores of the other two cohort
levels do exhibit significant age differences.
173
TABLE 4
Subtest"
BR GR BZ
Study I Study II Study I Study II Study I Study II
** #* * **
** **
** **
*
Interpretation of Cohort Differences
Contrary to Schaie's proposal (Schaie,
1965), it has been argued previously (Bal-
tes, 1968) that it is not justified to interpret
age or cohort differences as representing the
effects of different functional developmen-
tal sources (maturation, heredity, etc.)
since such sources cannot be teased out by
the arrangement of the general developmen-
tal model itself. However, it seems reason-
able to hypothesize about potential sources
when one is able to obtain additional infor-
mation on the treatment conditions, that is,
on the levels of cohort or age. Since the
main purpose of the present paper is to test
the existence of cohort differences, it is con-
cerned only with hypotheses about their
interpretation. Two rival interpretations of
the nature of the obtained cohort differ-
ences seem most reasonable, although the
present authors favor the second one.
One interpretation is based on the no-
tion of season of birth effects on intelligence
as discussed, for example, by Pintner and
Forlano (1943), Orme (1962, 1963), or
Craddick (1966). This season of birth ef-
fect refers to the notion that subjects born
at various seasons of the year (spring,
174 PAUL B. BALTES AND GUENTHER REINERT

19

18

17

„«

fi
$14
u
213

12 STUDY I

II

7,1966 11,1965 3,1956 7,1966 11.1986

COHORTS COHORTS
FIG. 1. Age x cohort interaction for GR in Study I and Study II.

summer, etc.) show differences in certain taneously different amounts of schooling.

psychological behaviors. Such effects are In other words, children of the same age
generally interpreted as a function of either have had different lengths of schooling, de-
exogenous or endogenous factors related to pending upon the time they were measured
the differential time of birth. Since in both during the year. The population that the
present studies the cohorts which exhibit present study was conducted with started
significantly lower intellectual performances school in midspring. Since at any time of the
on GR consist of subjects born at the same year it is possible to get children of all
time of the year (June and July), one might ages, and grades generally include a 1-year
argue that the obtained cohort effects rep-
resent season-of-birth effects. As a matter TABLE 5
of fact, such an interpretation parallels a LENGTH OF SCHOOLING FOR DIFFERENT COHORTS
number of studies showing that summer-
born children tend to have lower IQs. How-
Age
ever, one wonders why such a season-of-
birth effect should be present in the younger
age groups only (8:4 and 9:4) and why it 8:4 8:8 9:4 9:8
should affect only such a measurement var-
iable as GR which generally is conceived to Study I
be largely dependent on training opportuni-
ties. 7, 1956 | 7 11
The alternative interpretation, on the U, 1956 11 15 — —
other hand, seems much more plausible to 3, 1957 15 19 ~ "
the present authors and might even be taken
as a basis for solving the ongoing discus- Study II
sion on the existence and/or on the meaning
of season-of-birth effects with regard to 7, 1955 19 23
11, 1955 — 23 27
psychological variables. 3, 1956 ~ . — 27 31
As can be seen from Table 5, the differ-
ent levels of cohort besides being born at dif-
Note,—Body entries representing months, second grade
ferent times of the year, experienced simul- base line.
 COHORT EFFECTS IN COGNITIVE DEVELOPMENT
range, subjects at the four times of measure-
ment (November 1964, March 1965, July
1965, November 1965) showed differential
amounts of schooling. For example, the 8:4
year-olds tested in November 1964 had
about 7 months of schooling beyond second-
grade entrance, 8:4 year-olds tested in
March 1965 had 11 months, and 8:4 year-
olds tested in July 1965 even had 15 months
of schooling beyond second-grade entrance.
Since grades include generally a 1-year
range, the greatest difference in length of
schooling one would be able to find in chil-
dren of about the same age is, of course, 1
full year. The differences in schooling for the
cohort levels in the present study amount to
4 and 8 months.
Considering the differential amounts of
schooling the various cohorts had (Table
5), the obtained significant differences be-
tween cohorts as well as the interactions be-
tween age and cohort become more mean-
ingful. The Subtest GR (arithmetic) is a
subtest which is heavily loaded with ma-
terial that is covered in the grade levels
used; therefore, it makes sense that it is
mainly GR which is affected by cohort dif-
ferences. With regard to the interaction
term Age x Cohort, it seems reasonable to
assume that the cohort effect is most dis-
tinct with that cohort level which shows the
lowest amount of schooling, that is, either
7 months in second grade (Study I) or 7
months in third grade (Study II). The pres-
ent authors, however, cannot offer any ob-
vious interpretation of the significant inter-
action between age and cohort obtained in
Study I concerning the Variable BZ.
In general, then, it seems plausible to in-
terpret the cohort effects found mainly as
a differential schooling effect. This interpre-
tation is, of course, a rival interpretation for
season-of-birth effects, in general, also, a
notion which was first touched by Lodge
(1938) and subsequently by Williams
(1964). As a matter of fact, the notion of
differential schooling implies that the con-
flicting evidence on season-of-birth effects
may be only a result of different times of
measurements and different terms of
school entries in various countries and
states. However, the present study can only
suggest such an alternative interpretation
175
for season-of-birth differences without be-
ing able to put it to a rigorous test, since in
the present study different length of school-
ing and season of birth (cohort) are co-
varying simultaneously. A study to sepa-
rate schooling from season-of-birth effects
would have to be conducted, for example,
cross-culturally, so that one could obtain an
independent variation of age, length of
schooling, and season of birth.
The fact that the present data do not
show a continuous additive effect of cohort
levels, that is, not a linear increase in effect
as cohort levels are separated by greater
time intervals, complicates the situation.
One could argue, for instance, that such an
outcome suggests the existence of a type of
periodicity in cohort effects as a function
of two different kinds of sources. One refers
to the within-year levels of cohort, and the
second refers to between-year levels of co-
hort. In other words, our biological and
cultural system may be of such a kind that
individuals born at different times in the
year are provided with distinctive develop-
mental conditions which may be different
from those developmental conditions that
distinguish cohorts born several years apart,
that is, the usual generational differences.
Such a distinction between within-year co-
hort differences and between-year cohort
differences, however, needs further investi-
gation.
Discussion
In general, the results are not as clear-
cut and parsimonious as one might desire,
since they give a rather complicated pic-
ture of the effects of age and cohort and
their interaction in the cognitive develop-
ment of children. The outcome, however,
demonstrates the utility of the bifactorial
developmental model and illustrates some
of the pitfalls one has to deal with when
using single cross-sectional or longitudinal
studies. For neither of the two subtests af-
fected by age and cohort, that is, GR and
BZ, would the application of single cross-
sectional or longitudinal studies have re-
sulted in valid and generalizable age effects.
As has been shown elsewhere (Baltes,
1968), single cross sections would have
yielded age effects which are a confounded
176 PAUL B. BALTES AND GUENTHER REINERT
effect of age and cohort differences, and
any single cohort-specific longitudinal study
would not have been able to indicate the re-
strictions one has to consider when general-
izing the cohort-specific age effects to
other levels of cohort. Furthermore, it is
evident that even in investigating such a
small range of age and cohort, cross-
sectional and longitudinal methods do not
necessarily result in equivalent age trends,
since both conventional methods are af-
fected differently by existing cohort differ-
ences.
In addition, the present results appear to
have some significance for more specific
problems in developmental psychology. On
the one hand, for instance, the results sug-
gest that the emphasis in the interpretation
of season-of-birth effects on intelligence
should be shifted from birthdate character-
istics to variables which are associated with
different times of measurement during the
year. On the other hand, the findings sug-
gest that it might not be sufficient to stand-
ardize an intelligence test for children at
one specific time during the year, but that it
might be advisable to perform several
standardizations within 1 year to take into
account cohort effects. This demand was
first formulated some decades ago by Lodge
(1938), but was never really implemented
in subsequent standardization procedures
of intelligence tests for children.
While the implications of the present
findings should not be overgeneralized, the
obtained results clearly support the empiri-
cal significance of the bifactorial develop-
mental model. In other words, in studying
age-related phenomena one should not be
satisfied with the application of single con-
ventional methods, but one should attempt
to disentangle age from cohort effects by
use of the bifactorial developmental model
and the sequential strategies derived there-
from. While Schaie and Strother (1968,
1969) have demonstrated the presence of
cohort effects in age changes of adults using
7-year intervals, the present results argue
for the consideration of cohort effects in
cognitive development of children in deal-
ing with cohort populations separated by
intervals as small as a few months. It seems
a next logical step to extend the present in-
vestigation to include additional levels of
age and cohort and other measurement var-
iables in order to check further into the
empirical relevance of the cohort factor in
the study of age-related phenomena.
REFERENCES
BALTES, P. B. Sequenzmodelle zum Studium von
Altersprozessen: Querschnitt- und Laengsschnitt-
sequenzen. In F. Merz (Ed,), Bericht ueber den
25. Kongress der Deutschen Gesellschaft fuer
Psychologic in Muenster 1966. Goettingen:
Hogrefe, 1967.
BALTES, P. B. Longitudinal and cross-sectional se-
quences in the study of age and generation ef-
fects. Human Development, 1968, 11, 145-171.
BELL, R. Q. Convergence: An accelerated longi-
tudinal approach. Child Development, 1953, 24,
145-152.
CRADDICK, R. A. WISC and WAIS as a function of
season of birth. Psychological Reports, 1966, 18,
259-264.
DAMON, A. Discrepancies between findings of
longitudinal and cross-sectional studies in adult
life: Physique and physiology. Human Develop-
ment, 1965, 8, 16-22.
HORN, W. Begabungstestsystem. B-T-S. Handan-
weisung, Durchfuehrung, Auswertung, Interpre-
tation. Goettingen: Hogrefe, 1956.
HORN, W. Leistungspruefsystem. L-P-S. Handan-
weisung fuer die Durchfuehrung, Auswertung
und Interpretation. Goettingen: Hogrefe, 1962.
KUHLEN, R. G. Age and intelligence: The signifi-
cance of cultural change in longitudinal vs.
cross-sectional findings. Vita humana, 1963, 6,
113-124.
LODGE, T. Variation in Stanford-Binet IQs of pre-
school children according to the months in
which examinations were given. Journal of Psy-
chology, 1938, 6, 385-395.
ORME, J. E. Intelligence and season of birth. Brit-
ish Journal of Medical Psychology, 1962, 35,
233-234.
ORME, J. E. Intelligence, season of birth and cli-
matic temperature. British Journal of Psychol-
ogy, 1963, 54, 273-276.
PINTNER, R., & FORLANO, G. Season of birth and
intelligence. Psychological Bulletin, 1943, 40,
25-35.
REINERT, G. Die Differenzierungshypothese der
Intelligenz: Untersuchungen zum Problem der
Invariant der faktoriellen Intelligenzstruktur*
Mannheim: Psychologisches Institut der Uni-
versitaet, 1969, in press.
REINERT, G., BALTES, P. B., & SCHMIDT, L. R.
Faktorenanalytische Untersuchungen zur Dif-
ferenzierungshypothese der Intelligenz: Die Lei-
stungsdifferenzierungshypothese. Psychologische
Forschung, 1965, 28, 246-300.
RIEGEL, K. Age and cultural differences as deter-
minants of word associations: Suggestions for
their analysis. Psychological Reports, 1965, 16,
75-78.
 COHORT EFFECTS IN COGNITIVE
RlEGEL, K. F., RlEGEL, R. M. ( & MEYER, G. SOCIO-
psychological factors of aging: A cohort-sequen-
tial analysis. Human Development, 1967, 10,
27-56.
SCHAIE, K. W. A general model for the study of
developmental problems. Psychological Bulletin,
1965, 64, 92-107.
SCHAIE, K. W., & STROTHER, C. R. The effect of
time and cohort differences on the interpretation
DEVELOPMENT 177
of age changes in cognitive behavior. Multivari-
ate Behavioral Research, 1968, 3, 259-293.
SCHAIE, K. W., & STROTHER, C. R. A cross-sequen-
tial study of age changes in cognitive behavior.
Psychological Bulletin, 1968, 70, 671-680.
WILLIAMS, P. Date of birth, backwardness and
educational organization. British Journal of
Educational Psychology, 1964, 34, 247-255.
(Received May 2, 1968)

(Continued from page 133)

Determinants of Boys' Perceptions of Verbal Reinforcers: Daniel Solomon* and Judy Yaeger: Re-
search Program in Child Development, 232 East Ohio Street, Chicago, Illinois 60611.
Simplicial Structures of Middle-Class and Lower-Class Pupils' Attitudes toward Teachers: Albert H.
Yee* and Philip J. Runkel: School of Education, University of Wisconsin, 606 State Street,
Madison, Wisconsin 53706.
Role of Measurement Operations in the Acquisition of Conservation: David J. Bearison*: Department
of Psychology, Clark University, Worcester, Massachusetts 01610.
Sibling-Age-Spacing Effects upon Cognition: B. G. Rosenberg* and B. Sutton-Smith: Department of
Psychology, University of California, Berkeley, California 94720.
Solution Process in Children's Matching-to-Sample: Gerald R. Levin* and Daphne J. McDonnell: De-
partment of Psychology and Education, Swarthmore College, Swarthmore, Pennsylvania 19081.
Fruit-Tree Study as a Measure of Associative Thinking and Imagery in Children of Different Ages:
Leonore L. Adler*: American Museum of Natural History, Central Park West at 79th Street,
New York, New York 10024.
Modification of the Life Concept in Children: William R. Looft and Don C. Charles*: Department
of Psychology, Iowa State University of Science and Technology, Ames, Iowa 50010.
Growth Hormone and Environmental Complexity Effects on Behavior in the Rat: Oakley S. Ray*
and Sandra Hochauser: Psychology Research Laboratories, Veterans Administration Hospital, Leech
Farm Road, Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania 15206.
* Asterisk indicates author for whom address is supplied.