The Wiley-Blackwell Handbook of

Childhood Social Development 3rd

Edition Peter K. Smith
Visit to download the full and correct content document:
https://ebookmass.com/product/the-wiley-blackwell-handbook-of-childhood-social-dev
elopment-3rd-edition-peter-k-smith/
More products digital (pdf, epub, mobi) instant
download maybe you interests ...

Disorders of Childhood: Development and Psychopathology

3rd Edition Robin Hornik Parritz

https://ebookmass.com/product/disorders-of-childhood-development-
and-psychopathology-3rd-edition-robin-hornik-parritz/

Handbook of Health Social Work 3rd Edition

https://ebookmass.com/product/handbook-of-health-social-work-3rd-
edition/

Handbook of Health Social Work 3rd Edition, (Ebook PDF)

https://ebookmass.com/product/handbook-of-health-social-work-3rd-
edition-ebook-pdf/

The Wiley Blackwell Companion to Hinduism Gavin Flood

https://ebookmass.com/product/the-wiley-blackwell-companion-to-
hinduism-gavin-flood/
Wiley-Blackwell Companion to the Study of Religion
Nickolas P. Roubekas

https://ebookmass.com/product/wiley-blackwell-companion-to-the-
study-of-religion-nickolas-p-roubekas/

Cochrane Handbook for Systematic Reviews of Diagnostic

Test Accuracy (Wiley Cochrane Series) (Jul 12,
2023)_(1119756162)_(Wiley-Blackwell) 1st Edition
Jonathan J. Deeks
https://ebookmass.com/product/cochrane-handbook-for-systematic-
reviews-of-diagnostic-test-accuracy-wiley-cochrane-series-
jul-12-2023_1119756162_wiley-blackwell-1st-edition-jonathan-j-
deeks/

The Wiley Blackwell Companion to Hinduism 2nd Edition

Gavin Flood

https://ebookmass.com/product/the-wiley-blackwell-companion-to-
hinduism-2nd-edition-gavin-flood/

The Wiley Blackwell Handbook of Bullying: A

Comprehensive and International Review of Research and
Intervention, Vol. 1 1st Edition Peter K. Smith

https://ebookmass.com/product/the-wiley-blackwell-handbook-of-
bullying-a-comprehensive-and-international-review-of-research-
and-intervention-vol-1-1st-edition-peter-k-smith/

Wiley Blackwell Companion to Wisdom Literature Adams

https://ebookmass.com/product/wiley-blackwell-companion-to-
wisdom-literature-adams/
The Wiley-­Blackwell Handbook of
Childhood Social Development
Wiley-­Blackwell Handbooks of Developmental Psychology

This outstanding series of handbooks provides a cutting-­edge overview of classic research,

current research, and future trends in developmental psychology.

• Each handbook draws together 25–50 newly commissioned chapters to provide a

comprehensive overview of a sub-­discipline of developmental psychology.
• The international team of contributors to each handbook has been specially chosen for
its expertise and knowledge of each field.
• Each handbook is introduced and contextualized by leading figures in the field,
lending coherence and authority to each volume.

The Wiley-­Blackwell Handbooks of Developmental Psychology will provide an invaluable

overview for advanced students of developmental psychology and for researchers as an
authoritative definition of their chosen field.

Published
Blackwell Handbook of Adolescence
Edited by Gerald R. Adams and Michael D. Berzonsky
The Science of Reading: A Handbook
Edited by Margaret J. Snowling and Charles Hulme
Blackwell Handbook of Early Childhood Development
Edited by Kathleen McCartney and Deborah A. Phillips
Blackwell Handbook of Language Development
Edited by Erika Hoff and Marilyn Shatz
The Wiley-­Blackwell Handbook of Childhood Cognitive Development, 2nd edition
Edited by Usha Goswami
The Wiley-­Blackwell Handbook of Adulthood and Aging
Edited by Susan Krauss Whitbourne and Martin Sliwinski
The Wiley-­Blackwell Handbook of Infant Development, 2nd Edition
Edited by Gavin Bremner and Theodore D. Wachs
The Handbook of Early Childhood Development Programs, Practices, and Policies
Edited by Elizabeth Votruba-­Drzal and Eric Dearing
The Wiley Handbook of Developmental Psychology in Practice: Implementation and Impact
Edited by Kevin Durkin and H. Rudolph Schaffer
The Wiley Handbook of Group Processes in Children and Adolescents
Edited by Adam Rutland, Drew Nesdale and Christia Spears Brown
The Wiley-­Blackwell Handbook of Childhood Social Development, 3rd Edition
Edited by Peter K. Smith and Craig H. Hart
The Wiley-­Blackwell Handbook of
Childhood Social Development

Third Edition

Edited by

Peter K. Smith
Craig H. Hart
This edition first published 2022
© 2022 John Wiley & Sons Ltd

Edition History
John Wiley & Sons Ltd (1e, 2002); John Wiley & Sons Ltd (2e, 2013)

All rights reserved. No part of this publication may be reproduced, stored in a retrieval system, or transmitted, in any form or by any
means, electronic, mechanical, photocopying, recording or otherwise, except as permitted by law. Advice on how to obtain permission
to reuse material from this title is available at http://www.wiley.com/go/permissions.

The right of Peter K. Smith and Craig H. Hart to be identified as the authors of the editorial material in this work has been asserted
in accordance with law.

Registered Offices
John Wiley & Sons, Inc., 111 River Street, Hoboken, NJ 07030, USA
John Wiley & Sons Ltd, The Atrium, Southern Gate, Chichester, West Sussex, PO19 8SQ, UK

Editorial Office
The Atrium, Southern Gate, Chichester, West Sussex, PO19 8SQ, UK

For details of our global editorial offices, customer services, and more information about Wiley products visit us at www.wiley.com.

Wiley also publishes its books in a variety of electronic formats and by print-­on-­demand. Some content that appears in standard
print versions of this book may not be available in other formats.

Limit of Liability/Disclaimer of Warranty

The contents of this work are intended to further general scientific research, understanding, and discussion only and are not intended and
should not be relied upon as recommending or promoting scientific method, diagnosis, or treatment by physicians for any particular
patient. In view of ongoing research, equipment modifications, changes in governmental regulations, and the constant flow of information
relating to the use of medicines, equipment, and devices, the reader is urged to review and evaluate the information provided in the
package insert or instructions for each medicine, equipment, or device for, among other things, any changes in the instructions or
indication of usage and for added warnings and precautions. While the publisher and authors have used their best efforts in preparing this
work, they make no representations or warranties with respect to the accuracy or completeness of the contents of this work and specifically
disclaim all warranties, including without limitation any implied warranties of merchantability or fitness for a particular purpose. No
warranty may be created or extended by sales representatives, written sales materials or promotional statements for this work. The fact that
an organization, website, or product is referred to in this work as a citation and/or potential source of further information does not mean
that the publisher and authors endorse the information or services the organization, website, or product may provide or recommendations
it may make. This work is sold with the understanding that the publisher is not engaged in rendering professional services. The advice and
strategies contained herein may not be suitable for your situation. You should consult with a specialist where appropriate. Further, readers
should be aware that websites listed in this work may have changed or disappeared between when this work was written and when it is
read. Neither the publisher nor authors shall be liable for any loss of profit or any other commercial damages, including but not limited to
special, incidental, consequential, or other damages.

Library of Congress Cataloging-­in-­Publication Data

Names: Smith, Peter K., editor. | Hart, Craig H., 1957– editor.
Title: The Wiley-­Blackwell handbook of childhood social development /
edited by Peter K. Smith, Craig H. Hart.
Description: Third edition. | Hoboken, NJ: Wiley-­Blackwell, [2021] |
Series: Wiley Blackwell handbooks of developmental psychology | Includes
bibliographical references and index.
Identifiers: LCCN 2021035199 (print) | LCCN 2021035200 (ebook) | ISBN
9781119678984 (hardback) | ISBN 9781119678977 (adobe pdf ) | ISBN
9781119678991 (epub)
Subjects: LCSH: Child development. | Developmental psychology–­Social
aspects. | Child psychology–­Social aspects. | Socialization.
Classification: LCC HQ767.9 .W49 2021 (print) | LCC HQ767.9 (ebook) | DDC
155.4/13–­dc23
LC record available at https://lccn.loc.gov/2021035199
LC ebook record available at https://lccn.loc.gov/2021035200

Cover Design: Wiley

Cover Images: © FatCamera/Getty Images

Set in 10.5/12.5pt Adobe GaramondPro by Straive, Pondicherry, India

10 9 8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1
Contents

About the Editors ix

List of Contributors x
Introductionxv

Part I Historical Overview 1

1 Conceptual and Empirical Precursors of Contemporary Social

Development Research 5
Gary W. Ladd

Part II Disciplinary Perspectives 39

2 Behavioral Genetics 43
Darya Gaysina

3 The Brain and Social Development in Childhood 61

Erin D. Bigler

4 Evolutionary Perspectives on Social Development 84

Lance Workman, Sandie Taylor, and Jerome H. Barkow

5 Historical Developmental Psychology: Changing Conceptions of

Child Development 101
Willem Koops

6 A Sociological Perspective on Social Development 119

Dimitra Hartas

7 Anthropological Perspectives on Social Development 135

Heather Montgomery
vi  Contents

Part III Ecological Contexts 151

8 Ecological Perspectives and Social Development 155

Rachel Maunder
9 The Physical Environment and Social Development 171
Sara S. Whipple and Gary W. Evans
10 Conflict, War, and Famine in Childhood: Risks and Resilience
for Social Development 189
Charles N. Oberg, H. R. Hodges, and Ann S. Masten
11 Impact of the Climate Crisis on Children’s Social Development 206
Ann Sanson, Karina V. Padilla Malca, and Judith Van Hoorn
12 Covid-19 and Children’s Social Development: Insights from
the Life-Course Perspective 224
Rashmita S. Mistry, Aprile D. Benner, and Anna M. Kimura

Part IV Culture and Immigration 239

13 Culture and Children’s Social Development 241

Xinyin Chen, Mengting Liu, and Qinglin Bian
14 The Social Development of Immigrant Children: A Focus on
Asian and Latinx Children in the United States 260
Gustavo Carlo, Charissa S. L. Cheah, L. Diego Conejo,
and Hyun Su Cho
15 Acculturation and Children’s Social Development in Europe:
Recent Theoretical Perspectives and Empirical Findings 278
Sabahat Çiğ dem Bağ ci

Part V Child Characteristics 295

16 Temperament and Social Development in Childhood 297

H. Melis Yavuz-Müren, Irem Korucu, and Ayşe Bilge Selçuk
17 Gender Differences in Children’s Play 316
Karson T. F. Kung
18 Race and Ethnicity in the Context of Children’s Social Development 331
Kathryn M. Yee, Jacquelyn Glidden, and Melanie Killen

Part VI Contextual Factors 347

19 Children’s Social Development within the Context of Early

Childhood Education and Care Experiences 349
Linda A. White, Anika Ganness, and Michal Perlman
 Contents   vii

20 Children’s Interpersonal Skills and School-­Based Relationships:

Links to School Adjustment in Early and Middle Childhood 366
Becky Kochenderfer-­Ladd, Gary W. Ladd, and Stephanie A. Thibault

21 The Personal and Social Development of Children in Sport 386

Jean Côté, Alex Murata, and Luc J. Martin

22 Religion and Social Development in Childhood 405

Daniel Moulin-­Stoz·ek and Michael W. James

Part VII The Family and the Peer Group 423

23 Parent–Child Attachment in Early and Middle Childhood 425

Laura E. Brumariu and Kathryn A. Kerns

24 Sibling Relations in Early and Middle Childhood 443

Nina Howe, Amy L. Paine, Hildy S. Ross, and Holly Recchia

25 The Interplay of Parent and Peer Influences on

Children’s Social Development 459
Amanda W. Harrist and Anuradha J. Bakshi

Part VIII Social Competence and Forms of Peer Interaction 483

26 Children’s Friendships 487

Amanda J. Rose, Sarah K. Borowski, Allie Spiekerman,
and Rhiannon L. Smith

27 Social Withdrawal and Shyness 503

Julie C. Bowker, Robert J. Coplan, Kelly A. Smith,
and Kenneth H. Rubin

28 Social Competence in Interactions with Peers 520

Antonius H. N. Cillessen and Amy D. Bellmore

29 Social Play and Social Development 538

Ageliki Nicolopoulou and Peter K. Smith

30 Cooperation and Competition 555

Márta Fülöp

31 Aggression in Early and Middle Childhood 573

David A. Nelson, Cara S. Swit, and Craig H. Hart

32 Bullying 591
Rosario Del Rey, Esperanza Espino, Mónica Ojeda,
and Joaquín A. Mora-­Merchán
viii  Contents

Part IX Cognitive, Emotional, Prosocial and Moral Competencies 609

33 Social Cognition and its Main Correlates in Childhood 613

Daniela Bulgarelli, Anne Henning, and Evelyn Bertin

34 Emotions and Social Development in Childhood 631

Maria von Salisch, Katharina Voltmer, Rachel Miller-­Slough,
Jui-­Chih Chin, and Susanne Denham

35 Prosocial Behavior 651

Hali Kil and Joan E. Grusec

36 Children’s Lies: Intersecting Cognitive Development, Theory of Mind,

and Socialization 668
Laura Visu-­Petra, Narcisa Prodan, and Victoria Talwar

Part X Children and the Media 687

37 Media and Children’s Social Development 689

Eric E. Rasmussen and Kathrin Karsay

38 Social Networking Sites and Children’s Social Development 707

Elisabeth Staksrud and Tijana Milosevic

Part XI Intervention and Social Development 727

39 Helping Autistic Children 729

Rachael Davis, Jacquiline den Houting, Anders Nordahl-­Hansen,
and Sue Fletcher-­Watson

40 Intervening in Childhood Social Development 747

Janis B. Kupersmidt, Alison E. Parker, and Mary Ellen Voegler-­Lee

41 The Development of Social Competence in Children with Disabilities 766

Soo-­Young Hong, Elizabeth A. Steed, Lori E. Meyer,
and İbrahim H. Acar

42 Interventions to Enhance Psychosocial Competence among Children

in Low-­ and Middle-­Income Countries 784
Suman Verma

Author Index 803

Subject Index 850
About the Editors

Peter K. Smith is Emeritus Professor of Psychology at the Unit for School and Family Studies
at Goldsmiths, University of London. He is co-­author of the textbook Understanding Children’s
Development and co-­ editor of Bullying, Cyberbullying and Pupil Well-­ being in Schools:
Comparing European, Australian, and Indian Perspectives, The Cambridge Handbook of Play:
Developmental and Disciplinary Perspectives, and The Wiley-Blackwell Handbook of Bullying: A
Comprehensive and International Review of Research and Intervention.

Craig H. Hart is a Professor of Human Development in the School of Family Life and
Director of the Faculty Center at Brigham Young University. He has authored or co-­authored
numerous scientific papers and book chapters on parenting/familial linkages with children’s
social development from a multicultural and US Asian immigration perspective. Dr. Hart
has served in numerous university administrative capacities as well as on the Biobehavioral
and Behavioral Sciences subcommittee, National Institute of Child Health and Human
Development (NICHD).
List of Contributors

İbrahim H. Acar, Ozyegin University, Istanbul, Turkey

Sabahat Çiğdem Bağcı, Sabanci University, Istanbul, Turkey

Anuradha J. Bakshi, University of Mumbai, Maharashtra, India

Jerome H. Barkow, Dalhousie University, Halifax, Nova Scotia, Canada

Amy D. Bellmore, University of Wisconsin-­Madison, Madison, WI, USA

Aprile D. Benner, University of Texas at Austin, Austin, TX, USA

Evelyn Bertin, University of Applied Sciences Northwestern Switzerland, Brugg, Switzerland

Qinglin Bian, University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, PA, USA

Erin D. Bigler, Brigham Young University, Provo, UT, USA

Sarah K. Borowski, University of Missouri, Columbia, Missouri, USA

Julie C. Bowker, University at Buffalo, Buffalo, NY, USA

Laura E. Brumariu, Adelphi University, Garden City, NY, USA

Daniela Bulgarelli, University of Turin, Turin, Italy

Gustavo Carlo, University of California, Irvine, CA, USA

 List of Contributors   xi

Charissa S. L. Cheah, University of Maryland, Baltimore County, Baltimore, MD, USA

Xinyin Chen, University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, USA

Jui-­Chih Chin, University of Taipei, Taipei City, Taiwan

Hyun Su Cho, University of Maryland, Baltimore County, Baltimore, MD, USA

Antonius H. N. Cillessen, Radboud University, Nijmegen, The Netherlands

L. Diego Conejo, National University of Costa Rica, Herdia, Costa Rica

Robert J. Coplan, Carleton University, Ottawa, Canada

Jean Côté, Queen’s University, Ontario, Canada

Rachael Davis, The University of Edinburgh, Edinburgh, Scotland

Rosario Del Rey, University of Seville, Seville, Spain

Jacquiline den Houting, Macquarie University, Sydney, Australia

Susanne Denham, George Mason University, Fairfax, VA. USA

Esperanza Espino, University of Seville, Seville, Spain.

Gary W. Evans, Cornell University, Ithaca, NY, USA

Sue Fletcher-­Watson, Royal Edinburgh Hospital, Edinburgh, Scotland

Márta Fülöp, Hungarian Academy of Sciences, Budapest, Hungary

Anika Ganness, University of Toronto, Toronto, Canada

Darya Gaysina, University of Sussex, Falmer, England

Jacquelyn Glidden, University of Maryland, College Park, MD, USA

Joan E. Grusec, University of Toronto, Toronto, Canada

Amanda W. Harrist, Oklahoma State University, Stillwater, USA

Craig H. Hart, Brigham Young University, Provo, UT, USA

Dimitra Hartas, University of Warwick, Coventry, England

xii  List of Contributors

Anne Henning, University of Applied Health Sciences, Bochum, Germany

H. R. Hodges, University of Minnesota, Minneapolis, MN, USA

Soo-­Young Hong, University of Nebraska-­Lincoln, Lincoln, NE, USA

Nina Howe, Concordia University, Quebec, Canada

Michael W. James, University of Cambridge, Cambridge, England

Kathrin Karsay, School for Mass Communication Research, Leuven, Belgium

Kathryn A. Kerns, Kent State University, Kent, OH, USA

Hali Kil, Centre for Addiction and Mental Health, Toronto, Canada

Melanie Killen, University of Maryland, College Park, MD, USA

Anna M. Kimura, University of California, Los Angeles, CA, USA

Becky Kochenderfer-­Ladd, Arizona State University, Tempe, AZ, USA

Willem Koops, Utrecht University, Utrecht, The Netherlands

Irem Korucu, Yale University School of Medicine, New Haven, CT, USA

Karson T. F. Kung, University of Hong Kong, Pok Fu Lam, Hong Kong, PRC

Janis B. Kupersmidt, Innovation Research & Training (iRT), Durham, NC, USA

Gary W. Ladd, Arizona State University, Tempe, USA

Mengting Liu, University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, PA, USA

Luc J. Martin, Queen’s University, Ontario, Canada

Ann S. Masten, University of Minnesota, Minneapolis, MN, USA

Rachel Maunder, University of Northampton, Northampton, England

Lori E. Meyer, University of Vermont, Burlington, VT, USA

Rachel Miller-­Slough, East Tennessee State University, Johnson City, TN, USA

Tijana Milosevic, Dublin City University, Dublin, Ireland

 List of Contributors   xiii

Rashmita S. Mistry, University of California, Los Angeles, CA, USA

Heather Montgomery, The Open University, Milton Keynes, England

Joaquín A. Mora-­Merchán, University of Seville, Seville, Spain

Daniel Moulin-­Stożek, University of Cambridge, Cambridge, England

Alex Murata, Queen’s University, Ontario, Canada

David A. Nelson, Brigham Young University, Provo, UT, USA

Ageliki Nicolopoulou, Lehigh University, Bethlehem, PA, USA

Anders Nordahl-­Hansen, Østfold University College, Halden, Norway

Charles N. Oberg, University of Minnesota, Minneapolis, MN, USA

Mónica Ojeda, University of Seville, Seville, Spain.

Karina V. Padilla Malca, The University of Edinburgh, Edinburgh, Scotland

Amy L. Paine, Cardiff University, Cardiff, Wales

Alison E. Parker, Innovation Research & Training (iRT), Durham, NC, USA

Michal Perlman, University of Toronto, Toronto, Canada

Narcisa Prodan, Babeş-­Bolyai University, Cluj-­Napoca, Romania

Eric E. Rasmussen, Texas Tech University, Lubbock, USA

Holly Recchia, Concordia University, Quebec, Canada

Amanda J. Rose, University of Missouri, Columbia, MO, USA

Hildy S. Ross, University of Waterloo, Waterloo, ON, Canada

Kenneth H. Rubin, University of Maryland, College Park, USA

Ann Sanson, University of Melbourne, Victoria, Australia

Ayşe Bilge Selçuk, Koç University, Istanbul, Turkey

Kelly A. Smith, University of Maryland, College Park, MD, USA

xiv  List of Contributors

Rhiannon L. Smith, University of Connecticut, Storrs, CT, USA

Peter K. Smith, Goldsmiths College, University of London, London, UK

Allie Spiekerman, University of Missouri, Columbia, MI, USA

Elisabeth Staksrud, University of Oslo, Oslo, Norway

Elizabeth A. Steed, University of Colorado Denver, Denver, CO, USA

Cara S. Swit, University of Canterbury, Christchurch, New Zealand

Victoria Talwar, McGill University, Quebec, Canada

Sandie Taylor, University of South Wales, Newport, Wales

Stephanie A. Thibault, Arizona State University, Tempe, AZ, USA

Judith Van Hoorn, University of the Pacific, Stockton, CA, USA

Suman Verma, Panjab University, Chandigarh, India

Laura Visu-­Petra, Babeş-­Bolyai University, Cluj-­Napoca, Romania

Mary Ellen Voegler-­Lee, University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, Chapel Hill, NC, USA

Katharina Voltmer, Leuphana University Lueneburg, Lueneburg, Germany

Maria von Salisch, Leuphana University Lueneburg, Lueneberg, Germany

Sara S. Whipple, Virginia Military Institute, Lexington, VA, USA

Linda A. White, University of Toronto, Toronto, Canada

Lance Workman, University of South Wales, Newport, Wales

H. Melis Yavuz-Müren, University of Toronto at Mississauga, Ontario, Canada

Kathryn M. Yee, University of Maryland, College Park, MD, USA

Introduction

Peter K. Smith and Craig H. Hart

This is the third edition of this Handbook, which has proved to be a successful volume in
a successful series. In editing this third edition, we have sought to maintain the strengths
of the first (2002) and second (2011) editions, update and further strengthen the breadth
of coverage, and provide an advanced text which will be useful to many individual researchers,
as well as an indispensable library resource. Many features are in common with the first
and second editions, but there are some distinctive new features.
This volume is part of a series, and there are companion volumes on infancy; on cognitive
development in childhood; and on adolescence. Thus, the age range covered in this volume
is broadly from post-­infancy (around 3 years) up to adolescence. It does not include material
on infancy, or adolescence and beyond, except in so far as it might be necessary for under-
standing or contextualizing the theories, methods, and findings of the research in childhood.
Of course, a wide age range remains, from preschool (3–5 years), early school (5–7 years)
through to later elementary or middle school (8–11 years). Also, the chapters focus on social
development. This includes several chapters in the social cognition area, in Part IX.
We asked for chapters at a certain level. Thus this Handbook is not meant for beginners
in the area. Those who have not studied child development previously will be better served
by one of the many introductory texts available. The brief we gave to authors was to give
a clear and succinct account of work in their area, which would be suitable for anyone
wishing to go beyond basic textbook coverage. This would include advanced undergradu-
ates in psychology and behavioral sciences, and postgraduates taking taught or research-­
focused master’s degrees, or pursuing doctoral research. It will also include teaching staff
and researchers who wish for an authoritative update outside their immediate teaching/
research area. The book should also be useful for those professionals outside academic
life – for example, educators, social workers, counsellors, probation officers – who have
had training in the behavioral sciences and retain an active interest in the implications of
research for their professional practice.
As in the first and second editions, we attempted – and feel we have succeeded – to get
a very good geographical coverage of contributors. Much of the work in our domain does
come from North America, and it is appropriate that the largest single country contributing
authors is the United States. However, it is also appropriate that we have contributors
xvi  Introduction

from Australia, Belgium, Canada, Costa Rica, England, Germany, Hong Kong, Hungary,
India, Ireland, Italy, the Netherlands, New Zealand, Norway, Rumania, Scotland, Spain,
Switzerland, Taiwan, Turkey, and Wales. This reflects the now very international commu-
nity of child development researchers, and is an even broader spread than we had in 2002
and in 2011.
Regardless of their origin, we asked our contributors to be clear and succinct, but also
interesting and where appropriate, challenging. In our letters of invitation we asked
authors to “provide authoritative reviews of focused areas in social development, which
both summarize existing knowledge, and highlight areas of debate and growing points in
the discipline.” We worked with authors, sometimes intensively, to try to ensure that this
was achieved.
For this new edition, while we retained some contributors from the second edition,
well over half are new contributors. In all cases we pointed out that this new edition was
being designed to capture emerging trends in the study of childhood social development
as well as to provide updated insights on traditional topics covered in the first and second
editions. We have several extra chapters; 42, compared to 34 in the second edition and
30 in the first edition, and two extra Parts making 11 in all.
Notable new features include a chapter on conflict, war, and famine as they affect
children’s social development; a chapter on the impact of the climate crisis; and a chapter
on the impact of the Covid-­19 pandemic, still an active concern at the time of writing. We
have an extra chapter on acculturation and children’s social development; a new chapter
on social development of youth in sport; and one on the impact of faith and religion.
Another new topic covered is lies and deception in relation to social development; plus, we
now have two chapters dedicated to the influence of the media and social networking sites.
We have 11 Parts in this new Handbook. Part I is a single chapter, as before, provid-
ing an historical overview of psychological research in social development; because of
the foundational importance of this topic, this is effectively a double-­length chapter.
Part II (six chapters) covers different disciplinary perspectives – from behavior genetics,
brain development, evolution, history, sociology and anthropology. Part III (five chap-
ters) is on ecological contexts for social development, the physical environment, con-
flict, war, and famine, the climate crisis, and the Covid-­19 pandemic. Part IV (three
chapters) is on culture and immigration, including a focus on Asian and Latinx children
in the United States, and studies in Europe. Part V (three chapters) is on child charac-
teristics – temperament, gender, and ethnicity. Part VI (four chapters) is on contextual
factors – child care experience, interpersonal skills in school, sport, and religion. Part
VII (three chapters) is on parents, siblings, and the interplay between families and peers.
Part VIII (seven chapters) focuses on forms of peer interaction including friendships,
shyness, social competence, play, cooperation and competition, aggression, and bullying.
Part IX (four chapters) covers social cognition, emotions, prosocial behavior, and lies
and deception. Part X (two chapters) is on children and the media generally, and social
networking sites specifically. Finally Part XI (four chapters) covers interventions in relation to
social development, generally and for children with autism, children with disabilities, and
finally for children in low-­and middle income countries. In short introductions to each Part
we highlight particular areas of debate or contrasting perspectives among the chapters.
We have enjoyed working with the authors, and with our publishers. A thank you to
Kathy McQuinn, for invaluable secretarial assistance. We hope that you will also enjoy the
end product, and find it a useful and rewarding resource, whether for study, teaching,
research, or professional practice.
PART I

Historical Overview

This section has only one chapter, but it sets the stage for the rest of the volume. Gary W.
Ladd is in an excellent position to provide a historical perspective. He has been a leading
figure in developmental psychology for the past four decades, with an extensive scholarly
publication record focusing on children’s friendships, peer group relations, and social
competence. His research extends across the breadth of many social development topics
covered in this volume, including child, family, and schooling factors that predict chil-
dren’s success and difficulties in peer relationships. In his editorial roles with prestigious
scientific journals, Ladd has witnessed much of the progress that has been made in this
broad interdisciplinary field that covers the “modern era,” much of which emerged in the
1960s and blossomed in the 1970s and beyond with increasing sophistication that was
evident by the 2021 bookend for this chapter.
The chapter builds upon the historical summary presented by Andrew Collins in the
first and second editions of this Handbook that traces the developmental underpinnings
of the modern era back to the 1800s. After briefly reviewing late 19th and earlier
20th century ideological forces, theory and scholarship that paved the way for modern era
thinking and research on children’s social/emotional development, Ladd embarks on a
journey through the empirical knowledge base on children’s social development that has
emerged over the past half century. Guided by four overarching aims, Ladd takes us
through some illustrative research emphases and findings that have contributed to our
understanding of multiply determined social developmental phenomena across early and
middle childhood.
Aim one focuses readers on how childrearing and socialization processes facilitate chil-
dren’s social development. Research is reviewed that focuses on children’s relationships with
caregivers, including the study of attachment processes, parenting characteristics and
behaviors, family processes, moral socialization, culture, and dyadic features involving child
and parenting effects as they play out in child social cognitive and social developmental

The Wiley-Blackwell Handbook of Childhood Social Development, Third Edition. Edited by Peter K. Smith and Craig H. Hart.
© 2022 John Wiley & Sons Ltd. Published 2022 by John Wiley & Sons Ltd.
2  Part I

outcomes. Recent decades of scholarly inquiry into children’s peer interactions, relationships,
and groups are also explored that includes: seminal work on peer group dynamics and
behavior and the contexts in which they occur; the associated relationship processes that are
linked to friendships and peer group adjustment and difficulties; and the social cognitive,
behavioral competencies and social skill deficits that drive them. Ladd concludes this section
with an overview of the extensive research on the effects of childcare, schooling contexts, and
media influences on children’s social development.
Aim two delineates the biological foundations, mechanisms, and processes that influence
the course of children’s social development. Ladd begins with a brief survey of the behav-
ioral genetics discipline that emerged in the 1960s and discusses how genetic influence on
social characteristics has been ascertained indirectly by studying adopted children and
twins. Scientific and theoretical advances led to a greater understanding of how environ-
mental and genetic influences work together to influence behavior, along with ensuing
controversies about the interplay between nature and nurture. He then addresses more
direct approaches to studying genes that stem from genomic and molecular genetics
disciplinary approaches that are facilitated by scientific advancements such as DNA
sequencing and human genome mapping. Several illustrative findings are presented from
this line of research showing how children’s genetic susceptibility to environmental
influence plays out in some social behavioral characteristics. From there, Ladd briefly
walks us through ways that the emergence of the neuroscience discipline in the 1960s has
increased our understanding of how neurological and brain development processes are
linked to children’s social development. More recent innovations in imaging technology
have dramatically increased knowledge of how the construct of the “social brain” facilitates
the analysis of social stimuli. A concluding section highlights the incremental refinements
that have evolved in the study of variations in emotional, cognitive, and behavioral processes
that tie child temperamental characteristics to social development.
Aim three takes readers through what Ladd refers to as the “nonobservables” such as
social-­cognitive, psychological, and emotional representations and processes that are reflected
in child social developmental outcomes. This includes sections on: self-­understanding (e.g.,
self-­recognition, self-­concept, self-­esteem); social cognition which focuses on inferences chil-
dren make about others’ mental states and psychological characteristics and how they use
these insights to navigate their social worlds; and moral development, which includes
research on moral reasoning, children’s knowledge about social norms and conventions, and
internalization of moral rules and the emotions that guide moral decision making that is
reflected in social behavior.
Aim four illuminates the ways that aversive socialization practices and other risk factors
predict adverse psychosocial outcomes for children. Ladd gives an overview of the knowledge
that has accumulated over the past several decades from research on the family system regarding
the adverse effects of child maltreatment, marital discord, divorce, poor mental health, and
insecure attachment relationships. This is followed by a review of research on impoverished
child rearing conditions that negatively impact children’s social and psychological adjustment,
with a focus on institutionally reared children and inconsistent caretaking. Problems in the
peer system has been another area of systematic inquiry. Ladd discusses how poor peer rela-
tions in childhood is one of the best predictors of later problematic social and mental
health outcomes. Much of this stems from peer group rejection, peer exclusion, and peer
 Historical Overview   3

victimization. Risky child characteristics that are manifest in behavioral tendencies towards
different forms of aggressive or withdrawn behavior, along with difficult temperament and
mental health challenges (e.g., childhood depression), are associated with a host of dysfunc-
tional characteristics and outcomes in adolescence and adulthood.
Ladd concludes this chapter with an analysis of the major factors that have facilitated
transformations in social development research over the past 50 years. Readers will be
enlightened by his synthesis and evaluation of innovations in developmental theories and
models of development, the sociocultural issues and public health crises that have given
rise to new lines of investigation, and the unprecedented rate of knowledge that has been
acquired through advances in research methodology and sophisticated analytic strategies.
Looking back and reflecting on the historical insights gleaned from this carefully crafted
chapter and the chapters that follow can help advance interdisciplinary knowledge about
children’s social development in new and potentially exciting ways. It is easy to ignore the
past and forget how we got to where we are. But it is important to remember how the past
still exerts a strong influence on the parameters of our present thinking. As we review the
breadth of scientific literature on children’s social development that Ladd and the other
authors in this Handbook have so eloquently organized and synthesized for us, we may
learn something too from the successes and failures of our predecessors that will help
strategically shape the next half century for the betterment of children around the world.
CHAPTER ONE

Conceptual and Empirical Precursors

of Contemporary Social Development Research

Gary W. Ladd

The aim of this chapter is to consider how conceptual and investigative trends over the
past half-­century (i.e., 1970s to 2020s; the “modern era”; Collins, 2011) shaped the theo-
retical and investigative agendas that drive contemporary research on social development.
This historical analysis begins by briefly examining some of the ideological and empirical
foundations of the modern era. It then proceeds to identify the dominant aims and foci of
social development discipline during the past half-­century and trace the major research
trends and substantive developments that transpired during that epoch. Of particular
interest are research agendas that supersede individual substantive areas and thereby exem-
plify the overarching purposes of the larger scientific enterprise. Finally, this analysis traces
some of the conceptual and empirical forces that transformed the discipline, including
shifts in explanatory foci and frameworks, the influx of sociocultural issues and crises, and
the introduction of novel research methods and analytic strategies.

Foundations of the Modern Era

The ideological underpinnings of the modern era can be traced to an intellectual awaken-
ing that originated during the 1800s and continued into the mid-­1900s (the emergent
and middle periods; Collins, 2011). Interest in child socialization and development grew

The Wiley-Blackwell Handbook of Childhood Social Development, Third Edition. Edited by Peter K. Smith and Craig H. Hart.
© 2022 John Wiley & Sons Ltd. Published 2022 by John Wiley & Sons Ltd.
6  Gary W. Ladd

out of the enlightened humanitarian values and novel theoretical speculations that were
expressed in the writings of philosophers, psychologists, educators, and physicians during
the mid-­to late 1800s. These innovative ideas challenged prevailing perspectives on a
range of sociocultural and scientific issues including the origins of morality, the determi-
nants of crime and juvenile delinquency, the causes of mental illness, and the value of
education for children.
By the turn of the 20th century, these ideological forces inspired new ways of thinking
about childrearing and development. Critical in this shift was the view that children’s develop-
ment was driven not only by forces acting inside the child (e.g., the child’s nature), but also by
forces outside the child, such as the socializing influences of families, peers, and cultures.
In the scientific community, the role of socialization and children’s social experience
figured prominently in emerging theory and research on normal and abnormal develop-
ment. Early examples include G. Stanley Hall’s (1844–1924) investigations of school chil-
dren’s interests and experiences (White, 1994), John B. Watson’s (1878–1958) contention
that learning drives development (Watson, 1913), and James Mark Baldwin’s (1861–1934)
assertions that the child’s social environment, and the child’s reactions to this milieu, were
essential and interrelated components of development (Cairns, 1994). During the early-­
to mid-­1900s, theorists such as Sigmund Freud, Erik Erikson, George Herbert Mead, Jean
Piaget, and Lev Vygotsky contended that, among other influences, children’s development
was affected by their experiences with adult caregivers and peers.
Freud (1856–1939) stressed the importance of early experience and theorized that con-
flicts between the child’s biological drives and rearing experiences (i.e., progressively across
distinct psychosexual stages) shaped personality development. He also saw early parent–
child play as a context that influenced children’s sense of self and shaped their emotional
ties with caregivers (via brief separations and feelings of loss; Emde, 1994). In proposing
the concept of the “looking glass self,” Mead (1863–1931) asserted that the individual’s
self-­concept was based on the reactions they received from others (Mead, 1913). Erikson
(1902–1994), a student of Freud’s, recognized the importance of parents and peers in
children’s identity formation by arguing that relations with socializers could enhance or
undermine a child’s sense of interpersonal trust, self-­ worth, and social competence
(Erikson, 1950).
Piaget (1896–1980) articulated a constructivist perspective in which organismic growth
coupled with formative experiences – particularly conflicts with peers and other socializers –
propelled not only children’s intellectual development but also their moral development
(Beilin, 1994). The Russian psychologist Vygotsky (1896–1934), a contemporary of
Piaget’s who died much younger than him, emphasized the social context of learning
(Vygotsky, 1978). His concept of the zone of proximal development proved especially influ-
ential and was taken up later by Bruner in his concept of scaffolding. Many other scientists
contributed to this paradigmatic shift and readers are encouraged to consult more detailed
accounts of the intellectual currents and contributors that foreshadowed the modern era
(e.g., Collins, 2011; Parke et al., 1994; Sears, 1975).
These early forerunners and their intellectual and empirical contributions created a
foundation for social development as a discipline. Considered next are the theoretical and
empirical elaborations and innovations that were erected upon this foundation during the
following half-­century, or the modern era.
 Conceptual and Empirical Precursors of Contemporary Social Development Research   7

Dominant Research Aims and Foci

Social developmental phenomena are complex and multiply determined and, as a result,
empirically based knowledge has been built around circumscribed phenomena.
Nevertheless, four overarching aims can be identified that capture the thrust and scope of
empirical inquiry during the discipline’s recent history. In the sections that follow, each of
these broader objectives is profiled and a few illustrative trends, findings, and citations are
highlighted from research on early and middle childhood.

Aim 1: Elucidate childrearing and socialization processes and their contributions to child
and adolescent development

Socialization has been defined as the process(es) through which youth are prepared to par-
ticipate successfully in contexts, interactions, practices, and relationships that comprise their
culture. Understanding how children are socialized to become successful members of their
culture has been a priority in research on social development. Principal investigative venues
have included primary socialization contexts such as the family, and secondary socialization
contexts such as the neighborhood, peer group, school, and larger community.

The family context

Relationships within the family garnered considerable attention, particularly the child’s
relationships with caregivers. At the forefront was research on attachment, driven princi-
pally by Bowlby’s theory and elaborations crafted by contemporary investigators (Cassidy
& Shaver, 2008). Progress included the further explication of attachment processes (e.g.,
parents’ and child’s contributions), types of attachment relationships (e.g., secure vs. inse-
cure typologies), and consequences of attachment. Longitudinal studies, for example,
revealed that secure attachment anteceded a plethora of favorable socialization outcomes
during childhood and adolescence, including social and emotional competencies, self-­
esteem, and mental health (Groh et al., 2017).
Research on parenting styles begun in the 1960s (Baumrind, 1967) expanded thereafter
and offered new insights about the determinants of parent’s approaches to childrearing,
child outcomes, and cultural variations. To illustrate, findings shed light on the anteced-
ents of particular childrearing styles, including parent and child determinants (e.g., par-
ents’ personalities, education; children’s temperament, behavior; e.g., Kelley et al., 1992).
Longitudinal studies further explicated child outcomes. In one such study, early authorita-
tive parenting (i.e., with preschoolers) was compared to other rearing styles (e.g., authori-
tarian, permissive) and found to predict favorable adolescent outcomes (e.g., social
competence; Baumrind et al., 2010). Other findings revealed that parenting styles were
construed differently across ethnic groups and cultures and were associated with culture-­
specific child outcomes (Pinquart & Kauser, 2018).
Parenting characteristics, behaviors, and interactions. Concern that parenting styles were
not as robust as originally conceptualized (Maccoby, 2015) precipitated a movement away
8  Gary W. Ladd

from static typologies toward models that emphasized dynamic features, such as parenting
behaviors and interactions. Some researchers studied features that were implied within
parenting typologies (e.g., warmth) whereas others focused on attributes drawn from
other theoretical perspectives, including dyadic constructs (e.g., connectedness, syn-
chrony, autonomy support). Both avenues proved productive. For example, components
of authoritative parenting were found to predict children’s social competence from infancy
into adolescence (Valiente et al. 2009). Conversely, authoritarian parenting was linked
with children’s aggressive and disruptive behaviors (Pascual-­Sagastizabal et al., 2014).
Likewise, studies of parent–child interactions revealed that dyadic features such as con-
nectedness and synchrony were similarly or more strongly linked with child competence
(Mize & Pettit, 1997).
Other trends included the study of child effects and bidirectional parent–child influ-
ences. Studies of child effects supported the notion that children’s actions evoke different
forms of parenting (Newton et al., 2014) and that parenting influences are moderated by
children’s temperaments (Kochanska & Kim, 2013). Research on bidirectional patterns of
influence corroborated the premise that early child behaviors and emotions shape later
parenting (e.g., punitiveness; warmth), and vice versa (Lengua & Kovacs, 2005).
Parental discipline and moral socialization were examined with multiple dimensions of
children’s social development. Prominent objectives included evaluating parent–child
interaction and disciplinary practices that were hypothesized to render particular socializa-
tion outcomes (e.g., higher levels of moral reasoning; responsible behavior). Key findings
suggested that everyday parent–child discussions encompassing moral themes (e.g., rules,
issues, conflicts) promoted growth in children’s moral reasoning (Dunn, 2006) and that
positive parent–child relations fostered growth in children’s conscience and moral behav-
ior (Kochanska et al., 2010). Investigation of the relative merits of inductive as opposed to
assertive or hostile discipline revealed that, whereas induction forecasted children’s
prosocial-­moral beliefs and behavior (Hart et al. 2003), assertive and hostile discipline
predicted antithetical outcomes (Baumrind et al., 2010).
Cultural contrasts. Researchers also compared Western socialization practices to those
found in other cultures. In cross-­national comparisons, for example, differences were
found in parent’s perceptions of their children’s temperamental and behavioral character-
istics (Russell et al., 2003), but similarities were reported for the consequences of particu-
lar parenting styles (e.g., authoritarian parenting and child aggression; Nelson et al.,
2014). Other findings showed that parenting effects varied depending on the family’s
ethnicity and cultural context. To illustrate, researchers found that, when compared to
White or Hispanic youth, African-­American adolescents were less likely to participate in
gangs or gang-­related delinquency if their parents abstained from lax discipline and
wielded greater control over children’s behavior (Walker-­Barnes & Mason, 2001).

The peer context

After a period of dormancy following World War II, research on children’s peer relations
reemerged in the 1970s and expanded thereafter (Ladd, 2005). A key impetus was the
premise that peer socialization prepared children to succeed in multiple spheres of life,
including romantic and workplace relations.
 Conceptual and Empirical Precursors of Contemporary Social Development Research   9

Focal areas of inquiry included children’s peer interactions, relationships, and groups.
Seminal work described the character of peer interactions and behavior (e.g., prosocial,
aggressive, withdrawn) in varying social contexts (e.g., classrooms, playgrounds), expli-
cated relationship processes and consequences (e.g., friendship formation, maintenance,
termination, e.g., Parker & Seal, 1996; bully–victim dynamics, Veenstra et al., 2007), and
probed the process by which children access and acquire status in peer groups (e.g., peer
group entry, acceptance, rejection; Bukowski et al., 2018).
Evidence linking children’s behavior with the quality of their peer relationships led
investigators to search for the origins of social “competencies” and skill “deficits” (Ladd,
2005). Among the determinants examined were the social-­ cognitive underpinnings
(Gifford-­Smith & Rabiner, 2004) and the parenting and family processes associated with
children’s behavior amongst peers (Ladd & Kochenderfer-­Ladd, 2019).
Another key objective was to confirm and extend early longitudinal findings suggesting
that the quality of children’s peer relations during childhood predicted their health and
adjustment in adolescence and adulthood. A new wave of prospective longitudinal studies
largely substantiated this premise. Childhood peer rejection, victimization, and friendless-
ness forecasted a variety of later-­life social difficulties and dysfunctions (Ladd, 2005).
Peer relations research eventually broadened to incorporate diverse ethnic and cultural
contexts. Within North America, for example, researchers discovered that whereas Euro-­
American children had more cross-­ethnic friendships than African-­American children
(Kawabata & Crick, 2008), African-­American children had a larger number of friendships
and more opposite-­sex friendships (Kovacs et al., 1996). Internationally, research on bul-
lying that had originated in Norway spread to many other nations. Additionally, cross-­
national comparisons were made of children’s friendships, peer group relations, social
behavior, and interpersonal competencies (Chen et al. 2018).

Childcare and schooling contexts

Cultural and economic changes made childcare and formal schooling foci for social devel-
opment research. A primary aim for childcare research, as detailed later, was to elucidate
the impact of early nonparental care on young children’s socioemotional development.
Another investigative thrust centered on the evaluation of compensatory programs for
economically disadvantaged preschoolers. Programs such as Head Start, which were
designed to prepare children for school, eventually expanded their objectives to include
social as well as pre-­academic competencies (Raver & Zigler, 1997).
With older children, researchers endeavored to elucidate the social features and conse-
quences of formal schooling (Wentzel, 2015). Inquiry was wide-­ranging and included fac-
tors such as school structure and organization (e.g., size, gender groupings, school transitions,
race/ethnic composition), instructional environments and methods (e.g., open vs. traditional
classrooms, didactic vs. peer-­mediated learning), and classroom interpersonal dynamics
(e.g., classmate and teacher–child relations). Among other discoveries, researchers found that
smaller schools facilitated children’s engagement in extracurricular activities which, in turn,
predicted favorable student outcomes (Schaefer et al., 2011). School transitions, in contrast,
were associated with unfavorable student outcomes, such as stress, declining self-­esteem, and
disengagement (Eccles & Roeser, 2003). Research on classroom instruction and dynamics
10  Gary W. Ladd

revealed, among other findings, that peer-­mediated learning improved children’s collaborative
and interpersonal relations with classmates (Roseth et al., 2006; Tolmie et al., 2010).
Research on after-­school arrangements for school-­age children arose in response to the
growth of dual-­earner families. Studies of self-­care (i.e., allowing children to look after
themselves after school) often documented hazards and risks (e.g., stress, drug use, antiso-
cial behavior; Lord & Mahoney, 2007). In contrast, children were found to benefit from
structured, adult-­supervised after-­school programs (Vandell et al., 2005).

Media
Media, in all of its rapidly expanding forms, received substantial investigative attention.
Early research focused on televised violence and its effects on children’s aggressive behav-
ior. Corroboration of this effect and the pervasiveness of violence in media aimed at chil-
dren (Wilson et al., 2002) spurred additional lines of investigation. Included were studies
designed to explicate violent television’s role in fostering hostile attitudes and aggressive,
violent, and delinquent behavior (Bushman & Huesmann, 2012). Researchers also exam-
ined media’s effects on children’s social relations, perceptions, and emotional sensitivity.
Findings indicated that media use not only limited children’s participation in real-­life peer
relations (e.g., friendships) and social activities (Pea et al., 2012), but it also distorted their
perceptions of the social world. Illustrations included results showing that children, after
viewing episodes of interpersonal conflict, developed negative expectations toward
unknown peers (i.e., perceived hypothetical classmates as unfriendly; Mares et al., 2012).
Additionally, evidence suggested (although see Ferguson, 2007) that violent media and
video games desensitized children to violence, reduced their emotional responsiveness,
and fostered stereotypes (Bushman & Huesmann, 2012).
It also became evident that media need not be harmful and in fact, could facilitate
children’s social development. Research on educational and public-­ service television
revealed that, depending on its form and content, media could not only discourage anti-
social behavior but also increase altruism. Investigators discovered, for example, that chil-
dren who watched Sesame Street and Mister Rogers – TV programs rich in sociomoral and
prosocial content – were more likely to learn and apply prosocial behaviors in real-­life
interactions (Mares & Woodward, 2001).
The introduction of the internet (i.e., social media) and its rapid adoption by youth
prompted research on its use and impact (Livingstone & Haddon, 2009). Both benefits and
risks were identified. For example, whereas evidence showed that children utilized these plat-
forms to meet and maintain friendships (Wolak et al., 2002), it also revealed that internet
usage made them vulnerable to cyberbullying and abuse by predators (Ybarra et al., 2006).

Aim 2: Delineate the biological foundations, mechanisms, and processes that launch, regulate,
and shape the course of social development

Theory and research on the biological foundations of human development has grown
exponentially over the past few decades. Particularly noteworthy are advances in human
genetics, neurological and brain development, and child temperament.
 Conceptual and Empirical Precursors of Contemporary Social Development Research   11

Genetics
The discipline of behavioral genetics emerged during the 1960s and one of its aims was to
estimate the heritability of human characteristics or behaviors. Because the human geno-
type could not be studied directly, genetic influence was investigated indirectly using
adoption and twin studies and findings substantiated the heritability of many social char-
acteristics (e.g., temperament, personality, aggression; Rutter, 2006).
As subsequently detailed, theoretical and investigative innovations enabled researchers
to address more challenging questions (e.g., How do genetic and environmental influences
combine to influence behavior? Scarr & McCartney, 1983; Rutter, 2006), but also gener-
ated controversies about the relative importance of genetic versus environmental influ-
ences. One such debate revolved around the contention that parental genes made a
stronger contribution to children’s development than parenting behavior (Harris, 1995;
Vandell, 2000).
As direct approaches to studying genes emerged, disciplines such as genomics and
molecular genetics were formed. Innovations such as DNA sequencing techniques and the
mapping of the human genome (Collins et al., 2003) made it possible to examine the
association between specific genes and phenotypical social attributes.
The likelihood that multiple rather than single genes underlie observable charac-
teristics, and the near-­infinite number of combinations thereof, complicated research
on the genetic bases of social characteristics. Nonetheless, evidence began to reveal
how specific genes, in combination with particular rearing conditions, were linked
with children’s social development. In one such study (Caspi et al., 2002), it was dis-
covered that the effects of parental maltreatment were moderated by children’s genetic
susceptibility to that particular stressor. Children with low-­activity MAOA (monoam-
ine oxidase A: a gene that breaks down stress-­linked neurotransmitters) tended to
develop higher levels of antisocial behavior than those with high-­activity MAOA.
Other findings showed that children who possessed a gene configuration linked to
self-­regulation difficulties (i.e., chromosome 7 gene with short 5-­HTTPR) and expe-
rienced low-­quality parenting were more likely to develop externalizing problems
(Davies & Cicchetti, 2014).

Neurological and brain development

The emergence of neuroscience as a discipline and ensuing innovations advanced knowl-
edge about neurological and brain development during childhood. Research strategies
progressed from static, circumscribed techniques, such as mapping individual neurons
and electrically stimulating brain tissue (Penfield, 1961), to dynamic, encompassing
modes of inquiry made possible by imaging tools such as fMRI (Functional Magnetic
Resonance Imaging). These innovations, along with other scientific initiatives (e.g., the
“Decade of the Brain”) furthered efforts to elucidate the interface between brain growth
and children’s social development.
Research on prenatal and infant development strengthened the premise that neuro-
logical development underlies early-­emerging social abilities and, when compromised,
contributes to social dysfunctions. Findings, for example, implied that infants are
12  Gary W. Ladd

biologically prepared to attend and respond to caregivers and to participate in rudimentary

forms of social interaction (Bornstein, 2013). In contrast, neurological impairments
attributable to prenatal teratogens (e.g., cocaine, marijuana, alcohol) were linked with
early-­emerging, and in some cases, lasting social and emotional difficulties (Behnke
et al., 2013).
Studies of brain maturation revealed that, throughout childhood and adolescence,
there were periods of rapid growth and pruning within specific brain regions (e.g., visual,
motor, auditory, language centers) and progress toward hemispheric lateralization and
connectedness. Growth of this type was found to be associated with improvements in
infants’ and children’s social and emotional capacities, skills, and regulatory abilities
(Nelson et al., 2006).
Neuroscientific findings also supported the conclusion that social experience is a neces-
sary component of brain development. Evidence implied that, although the brain is wired
to “expect” species-­wide forms of experience (i.e., experience-­expectant processes), it also
is influenced by experiences that are unique to the individual (i.e., experience-­dependent
processes; Shonkoff & Phillips, 2000). On this basis, it was argued that experience essen-
tially “customizes” the child’s brain (e.g., builds, differentially strengthens, prunes neu-
ronal networks). Support for this contention included evidence linking brain alterations
with differences in children’s early experiences and rearing conditions (e.g., deprivation,
isolation, abuse; Nelson et al., 2007).
Recent innovations include the construct of the “social brain” which was conceived to
be a network of brain sites (Blakemore, 2008; Bornstein, 2013) that facilitated the pro-
cessing and interpretation of social phenomena (e.g., recognizing faces, predicting anoth-
er’s actions). It was postulated that this network, along with other brain regions, contained
a “mirror” system of neurons that enabled children to empathize or “experience” the same
emotions they observed in others. Imaging data provided considerable support for the
existence of these networks and their hypothesized functions (Blakemore, 2008).

Temperament
Beginning in the 1950s, investigators such as Thomas and Chess (Thomas et al., 1968)
utilized the construct of temperament to account for early-­emerging, stable individual
differences in infants’ and children’s responses to their environments. Subsequent refine-
ments to theory and research extended knowledge about the origins of temperament.
Much of what was learned supported the hypothesis that temperament, although not
impervious to environmental influences, has a genetic or neurological basis (Kagan, 2007).
Advances were made in the conceptualization of temperament, the specification of
component dimensions, and the development of reliable assessments. Descriptive taxono-
mies (e.g., easy, difficult, slow-­to-­warm-­up) were replaced with theory-­driven models that
attributed temperamental variations to specific emotional, cognitive, or behavioral pro-
cesses (emotional reactivity to novel stimuli; Kagen & Snidman, 2007; effortful control,
negative affectivity, extroversion-­surgency; Rothbart, 2007). Empirical work clarified how
temperamental characteristics were related to other aspects of children’s social develop-
ment, including their behavior, relationships, and adjustment (Rothbart 2007).
 Conceptual and Empirical Precursors of Contemporary Social Development Research   13

Aim 3: Explicate the nature and development of children’s internal social-­cognitive,

psychological, and emotional processes

Another prominent objective was to expand knowledge about processes that transpire
within the child, that is, nonobservables such as social-­cognitive, psychological, and emo-
tional representations and processes. Largely, investigative efforts were focused on expli-
cating theory (e.g., specifying mechanisms driving development), gathering evidence
about developmental transformations (i.e., age or stage changes, growth patterns), and
linking specific internal processes with other aspects of child development (e.g., behavior,
health, dysfunction).

Self-­understanding
Priorities within this sphere were to further illuminate when children develop a sense of
self (i.e., emergence of self-­recognition), how children revise their self-­construals with age
and experience (i.e., development of self-­concept), and how children appraise their abili-
ties and worth (i.e., self-­esteem). Findings suggested that self-­recognition emerges early
(i.e., around age two) and becomes more reliable and less context-­dependent across early
childhood (Miyazaki & Hiraki, 2006).
Constructivist perspectives dominated research on self-­concept and, for the most part,
investigators examined stability and change children’s self-­construals using self-­descriptive
tools and methodologies. Principal findings implied that children’s self-­theories become
more complex and abstract as they are shaped by age-­, gender-­, and context-­related experi-
ences (Harter, 2012).
Self-­esteem was investigated for scientific purposes and to address the popularized
assumption that high self-­esteem is a prerequisite for children’s achievement and well-­
being. Discoveries illuminated developmental shifts in children’s self-­evaluations, suggest-
ing a progression from global and unrealistic appraisals during early childhood to more
domain-­specific (i.e., ability-­based) and accurate appraisals during middle childhood and
thereafter. Findings also revealed that children’s overall sense of self-­worth varied as a func-
tion of their perceived competence within multiple, specific domains (e.g., social, scholas-
tic, athletic; Harter, 2012).
Potential causes and consequences of self-­ esteem were explored by examining
dimensions of children’s social relations and experiences. Evidence indicated, for exam-
ple, that self-­esteem correlated positively with warm, affectionate parent–child rela-
tions (Ojanen & Perry, 2007), and negatively with parental abuse (Cicchetti & Toth,
2006). Likewise, children were found to have higher self-­esteem when their peer rela-
tionships were supportive as opposed to abusive (e.g., friendships vs. peer victimiza-
tion; Hodges et al., 1999). Decrements in self-­esteem were documented following
school transitions (Wigfield & Eccles, 1994) and parental divorce (Bynum & Durm,
1996). The premise that self-­esteem is a precondition for healthy development received
mixed support in that higher levels of this construct were linked with positive as well
as negative outcomes (e.g., happiness, lower internalizing problems vs. drug use, preju-
dice; Baumeister et al., 2003).
14  Gary W. Ladd

Social-­cognition
In addition to the self, investigators explored children’s cognitions about others. Principal
foci included research on children’s inferences about others’ mental states and psychologi-
cal traits (e.g., intentions, personalities), and their ability to use these and other insights to
negotiate interactions and solve social problems.
Research on theory of mind helped to clarify when children begin to draw inferences
about others’ thoughts and beliefs, and how they utilize these conjectures to forecast their
own and others’ social behavior. Evidence suggested that abilities such as these emerged
during early childhood, were refined throughout middle childhood, and were instrumen-
tal in the development of social competence (Harris, 2006).
Investigators also studied children’s inferences about others’ psychological characteristics
and traits. Findings implied that children begin to make trait attributions during early child-
hood and differentiate among people on this basis about the time they enter school. Studies
of older age groups suggested that children increasingly regard others’ traits as stable, and
utilize these attributions to interpret others’ motives and behaviors (Flavell et al., 2002).
Broader, more dynamic frameworks were developed and tested as a means of explicat-
ing the combination of social-­cognitive processes that enabled children to cope with com-
plex interpersonal tasks, such as provocations and conflict. The dominant models
developed for this purpose were based on information processing and social learning theo-
ries (Dodge, 1986).
Among the constructs postulated within these models were those representing operations
deemed essential for gathering, interpreting, and storing social information, and for retriev-
ing and utilizing social information to guide social behavior. These models spurred investiga-
tion and findings linked the hypothesized social-­ cognitive processes with numerous
indicators of children’s social behavior (e.g., aggression; Gifford-­Smith & Rabiner, 2004).

Moral development
Children’s moral reasoning, emotions, and behavior were at the forefront of investigation
during this era. Research on moral reasoning, arising from constructivist perspectives,
outstripped that conducted on other aspects of moral development, including children’s
moral emotions (e.g., guilt) and moral behavior. Conceptual propositions (e.g., stage the-
ory; Kohlberg, 1969) spurred investigation and led to discoveries that extended knowl-
edge about continuities and change in children’s moral reasoning. Eventually, claims about
the cognitive bases and universality of stage progressions were tempered by evidence sug-
gesting that moral deliberations were shaped by situational factors (e.g., form, context,
realism of ethical quandaries) as well as by culture, cohort, and personal experience (Nucci,
& Gingo, 2011).
Another impetus for inquiry was social domain theory (Smetana et al., 2014) and, in
particular, the premise that morality constitutes one domain of social knowledge, among
others (e.g., knowledge about social norms and conventions), that children construct and
utilize as they mature. Empirical findings implied that children recognize domain differ-
ences, develop more mature reasoning patterns within domains with age, and judge infrac-
tions differentially, depending on the domain (Smetana et al., 2014).
 Conceptual and Empirical Precursors of Contemporary Social Development Research   15

Moral behavior was investigated primarily by examining children’s developing capacity

to refrain from rule-­breaking and their ability to conform to moral standards (e.g., parents’
rules, values). Key objectives were to determine how and when children internalized moral
rules (i.e., growth of conscience; Kochanska et al., 2010) and developed the ability to fol-
low internalized rules, even in the absence of parental control. Other focal constructs
included self-­control, self-­regulation, and delay of gratification. Evidence gathered on
delay of gratification tasks, for example, indicated that children’s self-­control increased
dramatically from the toddler through the preschool years (Cole et al., 2011), and corre-
lated positively with brain maturation and maternal support (Bernier et al., 2010).
Investigators who studied moral emotions primarily focused on the development and
determinants of guilt and shame. Such emotions were found to emerge in 2-­and
3-­year-­olds, and correlated positively with both child factors (e.g., inhibited, fearful tem-
peraments; female gender) and parenting practices (e.g., provision of support vs. anger
following transgressions; Kochanska et al., 2002). Other findings suggested that children
who manifested stronger expressions of guilt and remorse at early ages exhibited greater
rule adherence and fewer moral transgressions at later ages (Tangney & Dearing, 2002).

Emotional development
Advances in this domain stemmed partly from the creation of coding schemes that reliably
differentiated infants’ and children’s emotional expressions, and from the implementation
of technologies that indexed emotion’s physiological referents (e.g., heart, brain, and CNS
monitoring instruments). These innovations paved the way for researchers to distinguish
among basic emotions (e.g., joy, fear, sadness) and self-­conscious emotions (e.g., pride,
guilt), and to chart developmental milestones (e.g., emergence, stability) and gauge indi-
vidual differences in emotional reactivity (Lewis, 2014).
Efforts to define and measure individual differences in emotions (e.g., forms expressed,
intensity, regulation) and relate them to other aspects of children’s development produced
important discoveries. Associations were found between the emotions children frequently
expressed and their temperament and adjustment. Children prone to express positive
affect, for example, were found to have outgoing temperaments and manifested better
adjustment outcomes (e.g., higher self-­esteem, social competence). In contrast, negative
affectivity was linked with inhibited and difficult temperaments and a range of adjustment
problems (Rothbart, 2007). Similar differences in temperament and adjustment were
found for children who evidenced greater as opposed to lesser ability to manage their emo-
tions (e.g., self-regulation, effortful control; Denham et al., 2011).

Aim 4: Identify the forms of socialization and the bio/psycho/social developments in children
that predict adverse outcomes

Principal research aims included examining the effects of nonoptimal or aberrant sociali-
zation practices and rearing conditions, and ascertaining the sequela of risky child charac-
teristics and maladies. Scientists who addressed these aims often did so in the context of
short-­and long-­term longitudinal investigations.
16  Gary W. Ladd

Disruptions, deviations, and dysfunctions in the family system

The principal aspects of the family system that were investigated as detriments to children’s
development were child abuse, marital discord and divorce, parental depression, and inse-
cure parent–child attachment. Evidence of child maltreatment within families (e.g., abuse,
neglect, child death; Sedlak et al., 2010) spurred research on the consequences of child
abuse. Findings supported the conclusion that maltreatment impairs children’s health and
well-­being during childhood and thereafter (Cicchetti & Toth, 2006). For example, it was
discovered that sexually abused children often developed inappropriate sexual behavior,
internalizing disorders, and interpersonal difficulties (Sawyerr & Bagley, 2017; Trickett &
Putnam, 1998), and that physically abused children manifested analogous as well as more
serious dysfunctions (e.g., PTSD, suicidal thoughts, self-­injurious behaviors; Cicchetti &
Toth, 2006).
Rising divorce rates spurred research on the effects of marital discord and divorce on
children’s development. Studies of family conflict revealed that interparental hostility –
particularly when severe, unresolved, and witnessed by children – elevated children’s dis-
tress and foreshadowed chronic adjustment problems (Cummings & Davies, 2010).
Likewise, divorce and family dissolution were linked with children’s adjustment difficul-
ties. Evidence indicated that children from divorced families were less well-­adjusted than
their counterparts in intact families and more likely to develop emotional and behavioral
problems. Age, as well as other child characteristics (e.g., gender, temperament, intelli-
gence, and pre-­divorce adjustment), were implicated as moderators of children’s post-­
divorce adjustment (Clarke-­Stewart & Brentano, 2006).
Research on parents’ mental health during the 1980s focused attention on maternal
depression. It was discovered, for example, that children of manic-­depressive parents not
only had more difficulty maintaining social interactions and controlling aggressive behav-
ior but also exhibited lower levels of prosocial behavior (Zahn-­Waxler et al., 1984).
Subsequent studies revealed that these and other child impairments (e.g., poor emotion
regulation) stemmed from a combination of genetic influences (Cicchetti & Toth, 2006)
and depressed parents’ disorganized parenting and dysfunctional thinking and behavior
(e.g., insensitivity, negative attributions, poor spousal relationships; Hammen, 2009).
Attachment theory’s growing influence prompted longitudinal studies of the conse-
quences of insecure versus secure parent–child attachments. In general, investigators
worked from the hypothesis that children with a history of insecure attachment would
evidence more adjustment difficulties as they matured. Findings attested to the stability of
attachment status (Waters et al., 2000) and showed that insecurely attached children were
more likely than their secure counterparts to develop adjustment problems, particularly if
their subsequent caregiving relationships were not consistently sensitive and supportive
(Thompson, 2013).

Impoverished rearing conditions

Early studies of infants raised in orphanages implied that impoverished environments,
particularly institutionalization and inconsistent caretaking, adversely impacted children’s
 Conceptual and Empirical Precursors of Contemporary Social Development Research   17

social development. Subsequent research clarified the nature of institutionalized children’s

social deficits and uncovered underlying causes or contributing factors. For example,
findings showed that institutionally reared children tended to develop emotional and
behavior problems, exhibit indiscriminate friendliness, and form poor-­quality friendships
(Roy et al., 2004). These deficits were attributed to neurodevelopmental problems, which
often were expressed as attentional deficits and over-­active behavior (Rutter et al., 2001).
Additional evidence, comparing institutionalized children with their adopted or home-­
reared counterparts, suggested that impoverished rearing conditions anteceded a variety of
social difficulties (Maclean, 2003), including behavior problems, peer difficulties, and
attachment disorders.
Also studied were the effects of adoption or foster-­care placement on the social develop-
ment of formerly institutionalized children. Results from these studies, most of which
were conducted with children reared in Romanian orphanages, constituted the one bright
spot in an otherwise bleak body of findings. In general, these data indicated that removing
children from deprived rearing environments and placing them in better-­quality care (e.g.,
via adoption, foster placement) lessened the likelihood that they would develop social
impairments. The best outcomes were achieved when children’s exposure to deprivation
was brief rather than prolonged (i.e., adoption before six months of age; Fox et al., 2013;
Kennedy et al., 2016).

Problems in the peer system

Extensive research was undertaken to elucidate the developmental consequences of adverse
peer relations during childhood. The impetus, in large part, stemmed from early longitu-
dinal findings (Ladd, 2005) indicating that poor peer relations in childhood were one of
the best predictors of adult social and mental health difficulties. Three peer “adversities”
received the most empirical scrutiny: peer group rejection, peer exclusion, and peer
victimization.
Research on peer rejection focused on children who were disliked by the majority of
members of their peer group. Longitudinal findings revealed that rejection by one’s peers,
especially when chronic, increased children’s risk for adverse interpersonal and develop-
mental outcomes (Ladd, 2005). Peer exclusion was investigated by identifying and follow-
ing children who were marginalized by peers (e.g., actively ignored, isolated from
interactions and activities). Like rejection, peer exclusion during childhood was linked
with unfavorable social and developmental consequences (Buhs et al., 2006). Evidence
gathered on peer victimization (e.g., peer maltreatment) revealed that it often had detri-
mental and, in some instances, life-­threatening consequences. Evidence related to this peer
adversity is reviewed in a subsequent section.

Risky child characteristics

Also investigated were child attributes that were conceptualized as risk factors, that is, char-
acteristics that were hypothesized to increase the likelihood of adverse developmental out-
comes. Prominent among those investigated were particular behavioral propensities (e.g.,
18  Gary W. Ladd

aggressive, withdrawn behavior), habitual reaction patterns (e.g., difficult temperament),

and enduring maladies (e.g., childhood depression).
Early investigators established that aggressive behavior was quite stable, especially in
boys (Olweus, 1979), and follow-­back longitudinal studies showed that delinquent adoles-
cents often were aggressive during childhood (Mulligan et al., 1963). Subsequent longitu-
dinal studies further clarified potential outcomes by showing that early aggressiveness not
only predicted later misconduct but also diverse social dysfunctions. To illustrate, research-
ers followed assaultive fourth-­graders and a sample of matched controls over many years
and found that the aggressive children were more likely to develop a range of dysfunctions
in adolescence and adulthood, including criminal arrests, teenage motherhood, and psychi-
atric care (Cairns & Cairns, 1994). Researchers also drew distinctions between direct and
indirect aggression (Lagerspetz et al., 1988) and found that both direct and indirect forms
of aggression were predictive of maladjustment (Crick, 1996).
Initial research on withdrawn behavior failed to make clear whether it was a stable child
characteristic and one that predicted adjustment difficulties (Morris et al., 1954). Later
theory and evidence led to the identification of solitary subtypes that were differentiated
by children’s propensities to engage in solitary-­anxious, unsociable, or socially avoidant
behaviors (Coplan et al., 2013). Longitudinal findings revealed that some forms of
withdrawn behavior became increasingly stable as children matured and were predictive of
adjustment problems (Ladd, 2006). Conclusions remain tentative, but extant evidence
implied that solitary-­anxious behavior, in particular, anteceded the development of
interpersonal and internalizing problems (Gazelle & Ladd, 2003).
Certain configurations of child temperament were investigated as risk factors, particu-
larly those characterized as low in extroversion-­surgency (e.g., shy, inhibited) and low in
effortful control or high in negative affectivity (e.g., under controlled, “difficult”). Findings
suggested that, whereas inhibited children were likely to develop internalizing problems,
those deficient in regulation abilities, such as effortful control, tended to develop external-
izing problems (Rothbart et al., 2011). Children disposed toward negative affectivity had
a higher probability of developing aggressive behavior or conduct problems (Mathiesen &
Prior, 2006). Overall, evidence suggested that temperaments skewed toward characteristics
such as emotionality, impulsiveness, and irritability increased children’s risk for adjustment
difficulties (Rothbart, 2007; Rothbart et al., 2011).

Childhood depression
Depression was at the forefront of the childhood maladies investigated because it posed a
serious threat to mortality. Moreover, theory and evidence implied that depression’s effects
on children (e.g., impaired cognitive, emotional, interpersonal functioning; Nolen-­
Hoeksema et al., 1992) were likely to alter the course of their social development. Evidence
gathered in longitudinal studies attested to the stability of depressive symptoms during
childhood (Nolen-­Hoeksema et al., 1992) and revealed that children who suffered
moderate to severe episodes of depression during childhood were more at risk for suicide
and prone to manifest social, emotional, and personality dysfunctions as adults (Akingbuwa
et al., 2020; Kasen et al., 2001).
 Conceptual and Empirical Precursors of Contemporary Social Development Research   19

Major Transformations in Social Development Research

Foremost among the factors that precipitated transformations in social development

research over the past 50 years were innovations in developmental theory, the emergence
of pressing sociocultural issues and public health crises, and advances in scientific research
methods and analytic strategies. Consideration is given to how these forces transformed
researchers’ objectives and altered the purview of social development research.

Transformations in theories and models of development

Perhaps the foremost overarching theoretical innovation was the progressive transforma-
tion that occurred in scientists’ conceptions of the causes of development (i.e., bio-­psycho-­
social determinants) and the dynamics of development (i.e., processes that shape growth
and outcomes). Previously in the discipline’s history, research on development cycled
through epochs during which either naturist or nurturist perspectives dominated scientific
inquiry. As a result, when “development” was inferred from findings, it was typically
attributed to maturational or environmental determinants, but not both. This state of
affairs, in turn, fueled the nature versus nurture controversy.
Across the past several decades, the roles of nature and nurture as determinants of
development were reconceptualized in ways that gave rise to novel, integrated perspec-
tives. Behavioral geneticists, for example, postulated that environments influenced genetic
expression (e.g., milieus amplify vs. canalize gene influence; Plomin, 1995) and, con-
versely, that genes shaped the developing organism’s environment (Scarr & McCartney,
1983). In the latter paradigm, three modes of influence, or gene by environment interac-
tions, were proposed (i.e., passive, evocative, active), each of which depicted distinct ave-
nues through which children’s genotypes affected the form, quality, or responses of their
rearing environments. These models broadened preexisting premises about the causes of
development by postulating that biological and environmental determinants not only
influenced each other but also worked conjointly to foster development.
Interactionist perspectives emerged alongside behavioral genetic frameworks and
evolved into what were eventually termed person-­by-­environment models or, in the con-
text of developmental research, child-­by-­environment models (Magnusson & Stattin,
1998). A central premise of child-­by-­environment models was that the determinants of
development originate not only within the child but also in the child’s social environment.
Guided by this premise, researchers often focused on stable, organismic characteristics of
the child (e.g., temperament, behavioral dispositions) and pertinent features of the child’s
social environment (e.g., quality of caregiver or peer relationships) and examined both
factors as antecedents of children’s development. Over time, multiple categories of child-­
by-­environment frameworks (e.g., additive, moderator, and mediator models; Ladd,
2003) were proposed and utilized to investigate how particular child and environmental
characteristics operated together (e.g., combined) to influence development. Thus, similar
to the innovations in behavioral genetic theory, child-­by-­environment frameworks
20  Gary W. Ladd

encouraged scientists to conceptualize development as a product of organismic and

environmental forces, and investigate these determinants as conjoint rather than singular
influences.
In time, some of the assumptions within behavior genetic and child-­by-­environment
perspectives (e.g., the primacy of biological influences; a static conception of environ-
ments) were criticized because they failed to sufficiently characterize development as an
ongoing, dynamic process. For example, it was argued that environments, like their bio-
logical or organismic counterparts, should be conceptualized as dynamic rather than static
entities – determinants whose influence changed across time in response to children’s
growth or maturation (Wachs, 1983).
Criticisms such as these, coupled with the ascendance of dynamic perspectives (e.g.,
transactional, systems theories; Sameroff & Chandler, 1975; Thelen, 1989) and advances
in longitudinal research design and analyses, encouraged scientists to formulate more
complex, process-­oriented frameworks. In many instances, these frameworks took the
form of multivariate longitudinal process models. Unlike prior perspectives, these models
were better suited to theorizing about the dynamic nature of development because they
afforded scientists the ability to specify: (a) multiple constructs (i.e., hypothesized causes
and consequences); (b) complex patterns of relations among postulated causes and conse-
quences, both concurrently and prospectively (e.g., directions of effect, mediation, mod-
eration, reciprocation of effects, continuities, discontinuities, trajectories, transactions,
cascades); and (c) timeframes during which developmental processes (i.e., relations among
determinants and outcomes) were postulated to emerge, play out, strengthen or weaken,
etc. (e.g., ages, stages, sensitive periods, constant vs. time-­varying intervals, distal vs. proxi-
mal lags).
The exact structure of these longitudinal process models often was specific to the facet
of social development that was under investigation. However, throughout this era, four
overarching classes of multivariate longitudinal process models (i.e., continuity, disconti-
nuity, transactional, and cascade) rose to prominence and played a significant role in the-
ory development and testing.
Continuity models were influential in the formulation and testing of hypotheses about
developmental continuities, such as the stability of early-­emerging characteristics (e.g.,
temperament; specific behavioral dispositions) or the lasting impact of early experiences or
relationships (e.g., parent–child attachment). As one illustration, Caspi et al. (1987) pos-
tulated that children’s early behavioral dispositions derive from constitutional factors (e.g.,
temperament) and that, throughout development, these dispositions perpetually orient
children toward social contexts (e.g., caregiver, peer relations) that sustain these disposi-
tions via dynamic processes termed interactional and cumulative continuity.
Discontinuity models, in contrast, were formulated to test premises about bio-­
organismic and environmental factors that, when activated or experienced, caused shifts
(i.e., discontinuities) in previously established developmental trajectories, thereby redi-
recting children toward more or less adaptive pathways. Frameworks of this type were
utilized in research on many aspects of social development. To illustrate, researchers
hypothesized that adolescent transitions constituted a “turning point” because the junc-
ture between childhood and adolescence was marked by a confluence of biological, psy-
chological, and social disruptions that altered youths’ previously established adjustment
 Conceptual and Empirical Precursors of Contemporary Social Development Research   21

trajectories (Rutter, 1996). Findings consistent with this model’s premises – linking
transition-­related disruptions or instabilities with discontinuities in adolescents’ adjustment
trajectories – were reported in many investigations (Petersen & Hamburg, 1986).
Transactional models were introduced during the 1970s within the context of infant
research (Sameroff & Chandler, 1975) and held, as a principal tenet, that development
occurred through a continuous process of dynamic interactions in which infants and car-
egivers mutually influenced each other (i.e., bidirectional, reciprocal patterns of influence,
interdependent effects; Sameroff, 2009). Over time, this conception of development was
incorporated into the mainstream of developmental theory and was widely utilized as a
framework for research on social development (Sameroff, 2009). In research on marital
relations, for example, researchers discovered that parental conflict predicted negative
child behavior which, in turn, forecasted higher levels of marital discord (Schermerhorn
et al., 2010). Bidirectional or reciprocal patterns of influence also were documented in
gene-­environment research, with evidence suggesting that children’s genes shaped their
environments which, in turn, influenced their genes (Rutter, 2006).
Cascade models represent a recent innovation in developmental theory. The cascade
concept has been defined and applied in various ways in the natural and physical sci-
ences, but in developmental research, it has denoted the process through which different
facets of the child’s development (e.g., social, emotional, psychological) mutually or
sequentially influence each other to engender diverse developmental outcomes (i.e.,
broader rather than narrower bands or sequences of effects; spreading, snowballing of
consequences; Masten & Cicchetti, 2010). These models principally have been utilized
in research on psychopathology and have yielded important discoveries. Findings, for
example, have shown that children disposed toward externalizing problems in childhood
also were likely to develop academic difficulties, and this combination of problems not
only endured but also forecasted the emergence of a third dysfunction later in develop-
ment (i.e., internalizing problems; Masten et al., 2005). Effects consistent with cascade
models also have been reported for children who were exposed to institutional depriva-
tion (Golm et al., 2020) and children who exhibited early-­emerging social difficulties
(Van Lier & Koot, 2010).

The emergence of pressing sociocultural issues and public health crises

Many sociocultural issues and public health crises prompted new investigative agendas,
instigated conceptual and empirical innovations, and ultimately altered the course of
social development research. Because numerous transformative issues and crises occurred,
consideration is limited to three prominent exemplars, including research initiatives on
childcare, bullying and peer victimization, and ethnic and political violence.

Childcare
Prompted by changing economic conditions and cultural mores (e.g., increase in dual-­
earner families, feminism; Clarke-­Stewart & Parke, 2014), demand for childcare increased
during the 1970s and accelerated thereafter. This movement toward nonparental care
22  Gary W. Ladd

precipitated concerns, some of which had implications for children’s social development.
Foremost among these concerns were questions about whether sustained nonparental care
would disrupt parent–child relations (e.g., alter attachment security; Melhuish, 2001),
help vs. hinder children’s self-­esteem, and enhance or impair children’s social competence
(Phillips et al., 1987).
Accordingly, prominent research objectives included examining the effects of childcare
on children’s emotions (e.g., stress), behaviors (e.g., externalizing behavior), and attach-
ments to parents and teachers (McCartney et al., 2010; NICHD Early Child Care
Research Network, 2005). Additionally, researchers sought to estimate childcare quality
and identify dimensions associated with better-­quality care (Clarke-­Stewart & Allhusen,
2005; Melhuish, 2001).
The research that was undertaken to address these concerns spanned several decades
(the 1980s–present) and, at its peak, included large-­scale, long-­term, government-­funded
projects such as the NICHD Study for Early Child Care and Youth Development
(NICHD Early Child Care Research Network, 2005). These investigations produced an
extensive body of evidence that, collectively, characterized childcare as a context that –
under certain conditions – could have positive as well as negative effects on children’s
social development. Although findings implied that parent–child attachment typically
was not altered by children’s participation in childcare, insecure attachments were evi-
denced when infants experienced both insensitive parenting and sustained poor-­quality
childcare (NICHD Early Child Care Research Network, 2005). Time spent in childcare
also emerged as a potential risk factor. Evidence indicated that children who attended
childcare for longer intervals (i.e., per day, week, yearly, etc.) were more likely to exhibit
disruptive, disobedient, and aggressive behavior (McCartney et al., 2010). High-­quality
care, in contrast, was linked with many positive dimensions of children’s social develop-
ment (e.g., sociability, self-­esteem, emotion regulation, prosocial behavior, compliance;
Clarke-­Stuart & Allhusen, 2005; NICHD Early Child Care Research Network, 2005) as
well as with children’s long-­term social and emotional adjustment (Vandell et al., 2010).

Bullying and peer victimization

Research on bullying and peer victimization began in Scandinavia during the late 1970s
following a spate of suicides attributed to bullying (Olweus, 1978). By the late 1990s,
bullying had become a worldwide public health crisis fueled by a series of highly publi-
cized suicides (Greene, 1993) and violent acts (e.g., 1999 Columbine shootings) commit-
ted by previously bullied children. In response to this crisis, scientists from many countries
established research and policy initiatives (European Association of Developmental
Psychology, 2007 UNESCO, n.d.) and searched for ways to eliminate bullying. Thereafter,
evidence began to accrue about the determinants of bullying, the characteristics of bullies
and victims, the effects of bullying on victims, the impact of cultures and cohorts, and the
results of prevention programs.
Theory and research on the causes of bullying implicated genetic as well as environ-
mental determinants (Ball et al., 2008). Definitional, measurement, and taxonomic inno-
vations led to the identification of different types of bullies (e.g., bullies, bully-victims),
victims (e.g., passive, aggressive victims), and bystanders (e.g., defenders, reinforcers, assistants;
 Conceptual and Empirical Precursors of Contemporary Social Development Research   23

Huitsing & Veenstra, 2012). Characteristics ascribed to bullies included aggressiveness,

impulsiveness, physical strength, positive self-­concept, and, depending on the subtype, social
intelligence (Pabian & Vandebosch, 2016). Passive victims were characterized as shy, anxious,
physically weak, isolated, low in self-­esteem, and submissive toward bullies (Olweus,
1978; Perry et al., 1988). In contrast, aggressive, or provocative victims were described
as angry, impulsive, emotionally dysregulated, and vengeful (Schwartz, 2000).
The victims of bullying, it was found, often developed multiple and enduring psycho-
logical and health problems including internalizing and externalizing problems (Reijntjes
et al., 2010, 2011). Many of these maladies were found to be chronic, even following the
termination of abuse (Kochenderfer-­Ladd & Wardrop, 2001; Wolke & Lereya, 2015).
Bullying venues and tactics were found to vary by culture and cohort. International
surveys (Elgar et al., 2009), although complicated by cultural, definitional, and transla-
tional issues (Smith et al., 2016), revealed cross-­national differences in bullying rates (e.g.,
lower in wealthier countries) and tactics (e.g., harassing familiar vs. unfamiliar peers). As
recent cohorts of children accessed cell phones and the internet (Livingstone & Haddon,
2009), bullying venues and tactics shifted, and incidents of “cyberbullying” increased
(Wolak et al., 2006). By the mid-­2000s, cyberbullying was a top research priority, and
accruing evidence linked it with both internalizing and externalizing problems (Menesini
& Spiel, 2012).
Antibullying programs were initially implemented in Scandinavia (Olweus Bully
Prevention Program [OBPP]; Olweus & Limber, 2010) and were designed to reduce bul-
lying via adult-­mediated environmental management (e.g., rules, limit setting, establish-
ing consequences). Findings showed that, after 20 months, the OBPP achieved a nearly
50% reduction in bully-­victim problems. Newer programs (e.g., KiVa; Salmivalli &
Poskiparta, 2012) incorporated peer-­mediated intervention strategies (e.g., empowering
peer defenders) and proved effective particularly with preadolescents. Currently, antibul-
lying efforts are widespread. Investigators in many countries have devised and tested a
myriad of antibullying programs, and meta-­analyses of the results suggest that many pro-
duce modest but significant reductions in bullying and victimization (Jiménez-­Barbero
et al., 2016).

Ethnic and political violence

Although ethnic and political violence likely has harmed children for centuries, the
scope, prominence, and severity of contemporary hostilities (e.g., racially motivated gen-
ocide, refugee crises, Intifada, repression-­driven internal displacements, World Trade
Center bombing) brought this issue to the fore. From the mid-­1980s to the mid-­1990s,
it was estimated that approximately 10 million children have been traumatized by war,
1.5 million children have died in armed conflicts, and an additional 4 million have been
disabled, maimed, blinded, or suffered brain damage (Benjamin, 1994). Today, it is
­estimated that approximately 250 million children reside in politically volatile, conflict-­
ridden locales (Dubow et al., 2019).
The scientists who studied ethnic and political violence found that the consequences of
growing up amid violence, chaos, and deprivation were frequently harmful and often
severe. Evidence gathered in many of the world’s trouble spots (e.g., Bosnia, Iraq, Lebanon
24  Gary W. Ladd

Palestine, Rwanda; Dubow et al., 2009; Ladd & Cairns, 1996), consistently showed that
children exposed to violence exhibited dysfunctions (e.g., PTSD) and often developed
enduring adjustment problems (i.e., internalizing and externalizing problems; Dubow
et al., 2009, 2019). Given the current level of political tensions, ethnic strife, and terrorist
activity throughout the world, this issue will undoubtedly remain a pressing sociocultural
concern for the foreseeable future.

Advances in research methodology and analytic strategies

Knowledge about social development expanded at an unprecedented rate during modern

and near-­contemporary eras and this accomplishment largely was attributable to changes
in scientific practice. Two progressive research innovations were particularly influential:
(a) the recruitment and utilization of larger and more diverse samples, and (2) the imple-
mentation of enhanced longitudinal research designs and data analytic strategies.

Samples and sampling

The pursuit of larger samples was motivated by many factors including the challenge of
improving sample representativeness and generalizability and the need to obtain larger ns
for complex, multivariate analyses. Evidence of this trend was apparent in the progression
of studies that were published on social development from the 1970s to the present.
Gains in sample sizes were accompanied by a movement toward sample diversification.
Whereas Caucasian samples predominated in published studies during the early decades
of this era, this convention eventually was supplanted by ongoing efforts to increase sam-
ple representativeness, validate findings in understudied populations, and ensure that
underrepresented groups or strata (e.g., minorities, girls and women, low-­income families)
were included in scientific research.

Research methods, designs, and analyses

As implied by the term “development,” the principal aim of empirical research on social
development has been to account for change (e.g., describe, predict; ultimately “explain”
when, how, or why growth occurs) in child characteristics that are conceived as “social.”
Near the inception of this era, investigators commonly made inferences about develop-
mental changes from data obtained with cross-­sectional designs (comparing children of
different ages concurrently). Longitudinal studies were less prevalent, relatively narrow in
scope (e.g., limited to a few focal variables), and often implemented with follow-­back or
follow-­up designs. Even rarer were prospective or follow-­through longitudinal studies in
which targeted constructs were progressively tracked (i.e., repeatedly measured) across
many months or years.
Advances in developmental theory and multivariate statistics expedited a transition
toward longitudinal research and increased the utilization of prospective and cross-­
sequential longitudinal designs (Baltes, 1968, 1987). The emergence of developmental
 Conceptual and Empirical Precursors of Contemporary Social Development Research   25

process models encouraged researchers to devise and implement multiwave, multivariate

longitudinal studies in which assessment intervals were sequenced to capture the interven-
ing processes (e.g., variable associations, interactions, transactions) that were hypothesized
to drive developmental change.
In particular, the creation of multivariate statistical tools such as structural equations
models (SEM; Jöreskog & Sörbom, 1979) furthered this transition by providing research-
ers with a means for evaluating complex networks of relations among multiple constructs
across multiple occasions (i.e., both within and across time). Moreover, the algorithms
contained in these tools (i.e., measurement models) allowed for the estimation of unob-
served latent variables and, accordingly, provided investigators strategies for addressing
critical measurement objectives such as improving construct specification and validity and
evaluating and reducing measurement error (MacCallum & Austin, 2000).
One consequence of these developments was that researchers incorporated larger num-
bers of variables into their longitudinal investigations. Another was that they began to
propose and test more complex patterns of construct relations (e.g., stability, invariance,
independence/collinearity of constructs; direct and indirect effects; mediated, moderated,
and cross-­lagged associations) that corresponded to (and provided a test of ) hypotheses
about developmental processes, mechanisms, pathways of influence, and so on.
Full-­panel prospective longitudinal designs increasingly were utilized because the data
generated were well-­suited for evaluating hypotheses about emergent, shifting, and con-
tinuing pathways of influence among constructs (e.g., stabilities, alternative directions of
effect, bidirectional effects, mediated effects, transactions) as specified within developmen-
tal process models. Investigators who utilized these designs assessed all focal constructs plus
relevant covariates (e.g., control variables) at all times of measurement (i.e., repeatedly
across assessment waves) and often relied on statistical tools such as cross-­lag panel models
(CLPM; Kenny & Harackiewicz, 1979) to analyze their data. Among the advantages of
CLPM, relative to its multivariate forerunners (e.g., multiple regression, path analysis) was
the ability to construct and utilize latent variables, estimate multiple pathways over time
including mediated pathways, and simultaneously estimate alternative directions of effects.
Other, more recent analytic innovations improved researchers’ ability to describe, dis-
tinguish, and quantify intra-­individual (within-­person) growth patterns (i.e., trajectories).
Scientists used tools such as latent growth modeling (LGM; Bollen & Curran, 2006;
Meredith, & Tisak, 1990) to map developmental trajectories and index specific trajectory
parameters (e.g., initial status, shape or contour, and direction of change over time) for
many dimensions of social development. Common applications included using LGM to:
(a) contrast the growth trajectories of different classes of children (e.g., individuals mani-
festing different temperamental or behavioral characteristics); (b) assess whether growth on
one variable was related to growth on another variable (trajectory covariance); (c) determine
whether particular background variables (e.g., organismic or contextual factors) predicted
specific aspects of children’s trajectories (e.g., rate of growth); and (d) test hypotheses
about developmental continuities and discontinuities.
Among the latest advances made in the analysis of longitudinal panel data stem from
tools such as Latent Curve Model with Structured Residuals (LCM-­SR, Curran et al.,
2014), Autoregressive Latent Trajectory with Structured Residuals (ALT-­SR, Berry &
Willoughby, 2017), and Random Intercept Cross-­Lag Panel Model (RI-­CLPM; Hamaker
26  Gary W. Ladd

et al., 2015). Developmental scientists began to utilize these tools because they overcame
a basic limitation inherent within CLPM: the aggregation of between-­person and within-­
person covariance (Berry & Willoughby, 2017; Curran et al., 2014).
CLPM proliferated because it offered researchers an analytic framework for testing
hypotheses about alternative pathways of influence (e.g., by simultaneously estimating
cross-­lagged associations among constructs). Eventually, however, questions arose about
the reliability of CLPM findings. Principally, criticism stemmed from the fact that, due to
the aggregation of between-­person and within-­person covariance, significant cross-­lagged
paths could emerge absent of any systemic within-­person increases or decreases in the
predicted variable. This being the case, it was argued that CLPM could overestimate (or
underestimate) cross-­lagged paths and thereby cause investigators to misinterpret the
nature and strength of predictive links.
Strategies such as ALT-­SR overcame this limitation by utilizing repeated measurements
to apportion the variance of each variable to stable between-­person differences (i.e., a latent
intercept), between-­person differences in linear change (i.e., latent slope), and within-­
person deviations from the estimated linear trajectory (i.e., structured residuals). Covariances
between latent intercepts reflect stable between-­person associations, potentially due to
unmeasured covariates or patterns established earlier in development. Cross-­lagged associa-
tions between structured residuals indicate that deviation from one’s developmental trajec-
tory on one variable (e.g., an increase over and above what would be expected) is predictive
of deviation from one’s developmental trajectory on a second variable at a subsequent time
point (e.g., a decrease relative to what would be expected). Thus, unlike CLPM, these
newer analytic tools provided researchers with a means of isolating within-­person changes
and testing hypothesized predictors of within-­person increases and decreases.

Summary and Additional Considerations

Over the past half-­century, important advances were achieved on many fronts in research
on social development. These accomplishments, as reviewed in relation to four overarch-
ing aims, not only laid the groundwork for contemporary knowledge about social devel-
opment but also influenced the course of current and future research. Moreover, the
progress described within these research mainstreams attests to the discipline’s ever-­
expanding breadth, depth, and complexity.
Theoretical and methodological innovations were defining characteristics of the mod-
ern and near-­contemporary eras. Substantial shifts occurred in the conceptual frameworks
that were proposed, tested, and revised and in the modes of inquiry and statistical tools
that were used to gather, analyze, and interpret data. Collectively, these innovations trans-
formed nearly every aspect of scientific endeavor including the conceptualization of social
developmental phenomena, the formulation of research aims and hypotheses, the design
of investigations, the analysis and interpretation of empirical data, and ultimately, the
expansion of knowledge.
The discipline also was transformed by the many methodological and analytic advances
that occurred throughout the modern and near-­contemporary eras. In addition to those
 Conceptual and Empirical Precursors of Contemporary Social Development Research   27

detailed above, other significant innovations shaped the discipline’s progress. Although not
a comprehensive account, the following deserve mention. Great strides were made in the
development and utilization of neurobiological and psychophysiological assessments
(Adrian et al., 2011; Vaillancourt, 2018). The use of these tools became widespread and not
only extended existing lines of inquiry but also precipitated new avenues of investigation.
Refinements in twin-­ study methodologies advanced knowledge about genetic-­
environmental contributions to children’s social development (Brendgen, 2014; Boivin
et al. 2013), as did progress in molecular genetic research, including technology that ena-
bled the identification of specific genes and gene–environment interactions (Caspi et al.,
2002; Rutter, 2006). The emergence of social network theory, and associated measurement
and analytic innovations, added a new dimension to research on the social structure and
organization of children’s peer groups (Burk et al., 2007; DeLay et al., 2021). Multilevel
modeling (Raudenbush & Bryk, 2002) influenced the way developmental scientists ana-
lyzed nested or clustered data, such as when variable relations (e.g., strength of association,
predictive efficacy) were hypothesized to differ by social contexts or strata (e.g., categorical
variables such as schools, socio-economic status [SES] groups).
Many sociocultural issues and crises arose during this era that shaped research on chil-
dren’s social development. Beyond the issues detailed herein, the following were among
the most influential: (a) racial, ethnic, and sexual diversity (e.g., minority/non-­minority
status, prejudice and discrimination, ethnic and bicultural identity; Douglas & Umaňa-­
Taylor, 2015; Fuligni & Tisak, 2014; Rivas-­Drake et al., 2014), (b) assimilation and accul-
turation of immigrant, migrant, and refugee children (e.g., risks, acculturative stress,
resilience; Böhlmark, 2018; Ismail, 2019; Rogers-­Sirin et al., 2014), (c) gender develop-
ment and transitions (e.g., transgender children, gender dysphoria, gender reassignment;
Di Cegli, 2014; Ristori & Steensma, 2016; Steensma & Cohen-­Kettenis, 2015), (d) drug
abuse (e.g., exposure in-­utero, Bandstra et al., 2010; Behnke et al., 2013; child and ado-
lescent drug use, Patrick & Schulenberg, 2014; Susman et al., 2008), (d) reproductive
trends and sexual development (e.g., delayed childbearing; adolescent pregnancy, Balasch
& Gratacos, 2012; Geronimus, 2003; LGBTQ youth and LGBTQ parents, Farr et al.,
2010; Rosario & Schrimshaw, 2013), (f ) rearing alternatives and disparities (e.g., adop-
tion, foster care; poverty, SES differences; Grotevant & McDermott, 2014; Lawrence
et al., 2006; Aber et al., 2007; Letourneau et al., 2013), (g) pathways to deviance and
criminality (e.g., gangs, delinquency, peer deviancy training; Allen et al., 2019; Allen
et al., 2002; Bradshaw et al., 2013; Ryan et al., 2010), and (h) religious and spiritual
development (e.g., religiosity; religious socialization, Bartkowski et al., 2008; Carothers
et al., 2005; Hardy & Carlo, 2005).
In conclusion, readers are encouraged to contemplate a disclaimer and a recommenda-
tion. The scientific study of children’s social development has had a long history and only
a portion of its recent innovations and achievements were profiled in this chapter. Given
this discipline’s breadth, complexity, and longevity, it was necessary to adopt a macro per-
spective; consideration of specific conceptual advances within the many subdomains of
social development exceeded the scope of this chapter. For this reason, readers are
encouraged to consult other sources that provide a more in-­depth, detailed overview and
analysis of the social development discipline and its history (e.g., chapters in this volume;
Clarke-­Stuart & Parke, 2014).
28  Gary W. Ladd

References

Aber, J. L., Jones, S. M., & Raver, C. C. (2007). Poverty and child development: New perspectives on
a defining issue. In J. L. Aber, S. J. Bishop-­Josef, S. M. Jones, K. T. McLearn, & D. A. Phillips
(Eds.), Child development and social policy: Knowledge for action (pp. 149–166). American
Psychological Association.
Adrian, M., Zeman, J., & Veits, G. (2011). Methodological implications of the affect revolution: A
35-­year review of emotion regulation assessment in children. Journal of Experimental Child
Psychology, 110, 171–197.
Akingbuwa, W. A., Hammerschlag, A. R., Jami, E. S., Allegrini, A. G., Karhnen, V., Salis, H., Ask,
H., Askeland, R. B., Baselmans, B., Diemer, E., Hagenbeek, F. A., Havdahl, A., Hottenga, J. J.,
Mbarek, H., Rivadeneira, F., Tesli, M., Beijsterveldt, T., Breen, G., Lewis, C., . . . Middeldorp,
C. M. (2020). Genetic associations between childhood psychopathology and adult depression
and associated traits in 42998 individuals: A meta-­ analysis. Journal of American Medical
Association, Psychiatry, 77(7), 715–728.
Allen, J. P., Marsh, P., McFarland, C., McElhaney, K. B., Land, D. J., Jodl, K. M., & Peck, S.
(2002). Attachment and autonomy as predictors of the development of social skills and delin-
quency during mid-­adolescence. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 70(1), 56–66.
Allen, J. P., Narr, R. K., Loeb, E. L., & Davis, A. A. (2019). Beyond deviancy-­training: Deviant
adolescent friendships and long-­term social development. Development and Psychopathology,
31(5), 1609–1618.
Balasch, J., & Gratacos, E. (2012). Delayed childbearing: Effects on fertility and the outcome of
pregnancy. Current Opinion in Obstetrics & Gynecology, 24, 187–193.
Ball, H. A., Arseneault, L., Taylor, A., Maughan, B., Caspi, A., & Moffitt, T. E. (2008). Genetic and
environmental influences on victims, bullies, and bully-­victims in childhood. Journal of Child
Psychology and Psychiatry, 49, 104–112.
Baltes, P. B. (1968). Longitudinal and cross-­sequential sequences in the study of age and generation
effects. Human Development, 11, 145–171.
Baltes, P. B. (1987). Theoretical propositions on life-­span developmental psychology: On the
dynamics between growth and decline. Developmental Psychology, 23, 611–626.
Bandstra, E. S., Morrow, C. E., Mansooor, E., & Accornero, B. H. (2010). Prenatal drug exposure:
Infant and toddler outcomes. Journal of Addictive Diseases, 29, 245–258.
Bartkowski, J. P., Xu, X., & Levin, M. L. (2008). Religion and child development: Evidence from
the Early Childhood Longitudinal Study. Social Science Research, 37(1), 18–36.
Baumeister, R. F., Campbell, J. D., Krueger, J. I., & Vohs, K. D. (2003). Does high self-­esteem
cause better performance, interpersonal success, happiness, or healthier lifestyles? Psychological
Science in the Public Interest, 4, 1–44.
Baumrind, D. (1967). Child-­care practices anteceding three patterns of preschool behavior. Genetic
Psychology Monographs, 75, 43–88.
Baumrind, D., Larzelere, E., & Owens, E. B. (2010). Effects of preschool parents’ power assertive
patterns and practices on adolescent development. Parenting: Science and Practice, 10, 157–201.
Behnke, M., Smith, V. C., & Committee on Substance Abuse and Committee on Fetus and
Newborn. (2013). Prenatal substance abuse: Short-­and long-­term effects on the exposed fetus.
Pediatrics 13, 1009–1024.
Beilin, H. (1994). Jean Piaget’s enduring contribution to developmental psychology. In R. D.
Parke, P. A. Ornstein, J. J. Rieser, & C. Zahn-­Waxler (Eds.), A century of developmental psychology
(pp. 257–290). American Psychological Association.
Benjamin, A. (1994). Children at war. Save the Children.
 Conceptual and Empirical Precursors of Contemporary Social Development Research   29

Bernier, A., Carlson, S. M., & Whipple, N. (2010). From external regulation to self-­regulation:
Early parenting precursors of young children’s executive functioning. Child Development, 81,
326–339.
Berry, D., & Willoughby, M. T. (2017). On the practical interpretability of cross-­lagged panel
models: Rethinking a developmental workhorse, Child Development, 88(4), 1186–1206.
Blakemore, S-­J. (2008). The social brain in adolescence. Nature Reviews Neuroscience, 9, 267–277.
Böhlmark A. (2018). Integration of childhood immigrants in the short and long run – Swedish
evidence. International Migration Review. 43(2), 387–409.
Boivin, M., Brendgen, M., Vitaro, F., Dionne, G., Girard, A., Pérusse, D., & Tremblay, R. E.
(2013). Strong genetic contribution to peer relationship difficulties at school entry: Findings
from a longitudinal twin study. Child Development, 84, 1098–1114.
Bollen, K. A., & Curran, P. J. (2006). Latent curve models: A structural equation perspective. Wiley.
Bornstein, M. H. (2013). Mother-­infant attachment: A multilevel approach via body, brain, and
behavior. In M. Legerstee, D. Haley, & M. H. Bornstein (Eds.), The infant mind: Origins of the
social brain (pp. 266–300). Guilford Press.
Bradshaw, C. P., Waasdorp, T. E., Goldweber, A., & Johnson, S. L. (2013). Bullies, gangs, drugs,
and school: Understanding the overlap and the role of ethnicity and urbanicity. Journal of Youth
and Adolescence 42, 220–234.
Brendgen, M. (2014). Introduction to the special issue: The interplay between genetic factors and
the peer environment in explaining children’s social adjustment. Merrill-­Palmer Quarterly, 60(2),
101–109.
Buhs, E. S., Ladd, G. W., & Herald, S. (2006). Peer exclusion and victimization: Processes that
mediate the relation between peer group rejection and children’s classroom engagement and
achievement? Journal of Educational Psychology, 98, 1–13.
Bukowski, W. M., Laursen, B., & Rubin, K. H. (2018). Handbook of peer interactions, relationships,
and groups. Guilford Press.
Burk, W. J., Steglich, C. E. G., & Snijders, A. B. (2007). Beyond dyadic interdependence: Actor-­
oriented models for co-­evolving social networks and individual behaviors. International Journal
of Behavioral Development, 31, 397–404.
Bushman, B. J., & Huesmann, L. R. (2012). Effects of violent media on aggression. In D. G.
Singer, & J. L. Singer (Eds.), Handbook of children and the media (2nd ed., pp. 231–248). Sage.
Bynum, M. K., & Durm, M. W. (1996). Children of divorce and its effect on their self-­esteem.
Psychological Reports, 79, 447–450.
Cairns, R. B. (1994). The contributions and intellectual heritage of James Mark Baldwin. In R. D.
Parke, P. A. Ornstein, J. J. Rieser, & C. Zahn-­Waxler (Eds.), A century of developmental psychology
(pp. 127–144). American Psychological Association.
Cairns, R. B., & Cairns, B. D. (1994). Lifelines and risks: Pathways of youth in our time. Cambridge
University Press.
Carothers, S. S., Borkowski, J. G., Lefever, J. B., & Whitman, T. L. (2005). Religiosity and the
socioemotional adjustment of adolescent mothers and their children. Journal of Family Psychology,
19(2), 263–275.
Caspi, A., Elder, G. H., & Bem, D. J. (1987). Moving against the world: Life-­course patterns of
explosive children. Developmental Psychology, 23, 308–313.
Caspi, A., McClay, J., Moffitt, T. E., Mill, J., Martin, J., Craig, I. W., Taylor, A., & Poulton, R.
(2002). Role of genotype in the cycle of violence in maltreated children. Science, 297,
851–854.
Cassidy, J., & Shaver, P. R. (Eds.). (2008). Handbook of attachment: Theory, research, and clinical
applications (2nd ed.). Guilford Press.
30  Gary W. Ladd

Chen, X., Lee, J., & Chen, L. (2018). Culture and peer relationships. In W. M. Bukowski, B. Laursen,
& K. H. Rubin (Eds.), Handbook of peer interactions, relationships, and groups (pp. 552–570).
Guilford Press.
Cicchetti, D., & Toth, S. L. (2006). Developmental psychopathology and preventive intervention.
In W. Damon & R. M. Lerner (Series Eds.), and K. A. Renninger & I. E. Sigel (Vol. Eds.),
Handbook of child psychology: Vol. 4. Child psychology and practice (6th ed., pp. 497–547). Wiley.
Clarke-­Stewart, A., & Allhusen, V. D. (2005). What we know about childcare. Harvard University
Press.
Clarke-­Stewart, A., & Brentano, C. (2006). Divorce: Causes and consequences. Yale University Press.
Clarke-­Stewart, A., & Parke, R. (2014). Social development (2nd ed.). Wiley.
Cole, P. M., Tan, P. Z., Hall, S. E., Zhang, Y., Crnic, K. A., Blair, C. B., & Li, R. (2011).
Developmental changes in anger expression and attention focus: Learning to wait. Developmental
Psychology, 47(4), 1078–1089.
Collins, F. S., Morgan, M., & Patrinos, A. (2003). The human genome project: Lessons from large-­
scale biology. Science, 300, 286–290.
Collins, W. A. (2011). Historical perspectives on contemporary research in social development. In
P. K. Smith & C. H. Hart (Eds.), The Wiley-­Blackwell handbook of childhood social development
(2nd ed., pp. 3–21). Wiley-­Blackwell.
Coplan, R. J., Rose-­Krasnor, L., Weeks, M., Kingsbury, A., Kingsbury, M., & Bullock, A. (2013).
Alone is a crowd: Social motivations, social withdrawal, and socioemotional functioning in later
childhood. Developmental Psychology, 49(5), 861–875.
Crick, N. R. (1996). The role of overt aggression, relational aggression, and prosocial behavior in
the prediction of children’s future social adjustment. Child Development, 67, 2317–2327.
Cummings, E. M., & Davies, P. T. (2010). Marital conflict and children. An emotional security
perspective. Guilford Press.
Curran, P. J., Howard, A. L., Bainter, S. A., Lane, S. T., & McGinley, J. S. (2014). The separation
of between-­person and within-­person components of individual change over time: A latent curve
model with structured residuals. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 82, 8–94.
Davies, P. T., & Cicchetti, D. (2014). How and why does the 5-­HTTLPR gene moderate associa-
tions between maternal unresponsiveness and children’s disruptive problems? Child Development,
85, 484–500.
DeLay, D., Laursen, B., Kiuru, N., Rogers, A., & Kindermann, T. (2021). A comparison of dyadic
and social network assessments of peer influence. International Journal of Behavioral Development,
45(3), 275–288.
Denham, S. A., Warren, H., von Salisch, M., Benga, O., Chin, J-­C., & Geangu, E. (2011).
Emotions and social development in childhood. In P. K. Smith & C. H. Hart (Eds.), The Wiley-­
Blackwell handbook of social development (2nd ed., pp. 413–433). Wiley-­Blackwell.
Di Cegli, D. (2014). Care for gender-­dysphoric children. In B. P. C. Kreukels, T. D. Steensma, &
A. L.C. deVries (Eds.), Gender dysphoria and disorders of sex development: Progress in care and
knowledge (pp. 151–169). Springer Science.
Dodge, K. A. (1986). A social information processing model of social competence in children. In
M. Perlmutter (Ed.), The Minnesota Symposium on Child Psychology: Vol. 18 (pp. 77–125).
Hillsdale: Erlbaum.
Douglas, S., & Umaňa-­Taylor, A. (2015). Development of ethnic-­racial identity among Latino
adolescents and the role of the family. Journal of Applied Developmental Psychology, 41,
90–98.
Dubow, E. F., Huesmann, L. R., & Boxer, P. (2009). A social-­cognitive-­ecological framework for
understanding the impact of exposure to persistent ethnic-­political violence on children’s psycho-
social adjustment. Clinical Child and Family Psychological Review, 12, 113–126.
Another random document with
no related content on Scribd: