h1. Early experience and emotional development: The emergence of wariness of heights h2. Notes * investigators propose that maturity is the cause of this "developmental shift" (of fears) * Gottleib proposed the 'probabilistic epigenesis', or the "bootstrapping process" (acquiring of new experiences contributing to development) and that "under some circumstances, physiological function [such as crawling] may precede and account for development of neurophysiological structures [such as the fear of heights]" * it's as if (in regards to the kittens) that fear of heights is a result of forced locomotion during development as opposed to self-locomotion (i.e., they were allowed to move themselves rather than being moved around) – perhaps a fear of being pushed over the edge by the 'unseen/uncontrollable forces'... a fear of loss of control off of the 'cliff'/et al * "pinpointing the role of locomotor in the emergence of wariness of heights in human infants require[d] solution of a number of methodological problems" ** "the selection of an ecologically valid paradigm for testing wariness of heights" ** "determination of an outcome measure that can be used with both prelocomotor and locomotor infants" ** "a means of determining whether locomotion is playing a role as a correlate, an antecendent, an inducer, or a facilitator of the onset of wariness of heights" * heart rate was the indicator for degree or level of wariness (in the first experiment) * in the first experiment (with 72 same-aged prelocomotor and locomotor infants), heart rate increased for the locomotor infants on the deep side (interestingly, every infant placed correctly and gave evidence of depth perception) * the second experiment (with infants incapable of crawling which were allowed sufficient time to use walker devices voluntarily) gave evidence that "'artificial' locomotor experience may facilitate or induce wariness of heights, even for infants who otherwise have little or no crawling experience. Locomotor experience thus appears to be an antecedent of the emergence of wariness" (this experiment was to allow for synthetic locomotion in order to get a different perspective on the influence of locomotion) ** experiment three (consisting of an infant who was orthopedically handicapped, and was not locomotive until later, in order to test for the influence of age over the locomotion/prelocomotion tests) showed that the infant was not afraid until extensive experience with self-locomotion occurred ** the fourth experiment (infants who were also delayed, in order to test for the validity of the last test (because of the numerical weakness), but also to observe the self-locomotive responses in infants) showed that it was not age but experience in self-locomotive movement that had affects that indicated wariness * the evidence from the four experiments pointed toward a relationship between locomotor experience and wariness of heights ** as infants experience locomotion, they "acquire a sense of both the efficacy and the limitations of their own actions" ** the goal of crawling moves from being context insensitive to context sensitive (environmentally influenced) with the experience of successful locomotion ** the locomotive experience includes successes, falling, and near-falling (which elicit particularly strong emotional responses from parents, are frequent, and set the stage for long-term retention of negative affect in such contexts) * the consequences of the development of self-produced locomotion for emotional development extend far beyond the domain of wariness of heights ** the development of locomotion is both negative and positive in that the infant is both rewarded with successfully moving itself, but also frustrated by the prohibitory acts of the guardian ** it also allows for the development of attachment through the exercise of proximity in relation to the guardian * is has become obvious that one developmental domain-experience can have far-reaching affects on numerous other developmental domains h2. Questions * What is the question that the researchers are trying to assess? Why is this question of interest? (The authors are suggesting an alternative hypothesis; what is the traditional position regarding the development of fear of heights and what are the authors proposing?) -> where does the fear of heights come from? and when? -> it represents an understanding of how the mind and consciousness and awareness evolves over the span of life -> traditional hypothesis: maturation is the process which begins the psychological development/shift in the way that the fear of heights can bloom -> they are proposing that experiences create changes and development, particularly in the fears * Why did the researchers conduct four different experiments? Who participated in each of these experiments? -> test coverage is an important aspect of thorough research and accurate results. experiments are also performed building off of the information gathered from previous experiments, with the focus moved from something to another element that may prove to be more beneficial to the study * What were the predictor (independent) and outcome(dependent) variables in the four studies? -> the predictor: the distance of the infant to the deep side -> the outcome: an increase (or decrease) in heart rate * What does ecological validity mean? How is this issue raised in the article? -> correctness in the relation to development -> testing the premises of the argument, to ensure that the ideas aren't simply coincidences and instead are the correct causes of the observed differences * What does probabilistic epigenesis mean? -> the growth or development (of the mind) based on or adapted to a theory of probability -> the probable development * What are the authors’ conclusions? Do you accept the authors’ conclusions? Why or why not? -> that there is a direct relationship between locomotor experience and wariness of heights -> i am inclined to agree with the results, as the study has sufficiently covered the affects and possible misinterpretations of the conditions and the results