Talk:Behavior analysis of child development

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment
This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 26 August 2019 and 11 December 2019. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Mwarter24.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 15:31, 16 January 2022 (UTC)

Importance
How was this rated as high importance or was it just copied from the Child development page? Fainites barley 12:02, 12 March 2008 (UTC)
 * copied Paul foord (talk) 03:37, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

Neutrality -Contingency/Attachment Bias?
I am not sure where the charge of biased comes in..The arguement is an old one- traditional developmental psychologist calculate contingency wrong. This is not new, it is thestandard critique of the Bell and Ainsworth (1972) study. Bell and Answorth (1972) collected data on distressed and nondistressed rates of infant crying in the first year of life. Their data produced a clear correlation between the frequency of mothers ignored crying and the frequency of infant crying. They concluded from it that maternal caretaking could not function as a reinforcer; however, they made no attempt to observe maternal contingent or noncontingent care taking. Obviously they were unaware of the point that congingency must be by two conditional probabilities. This critique is not new and has been a persistent one. Watson (1979) and Gerwirtz and Boyd (1977) both leveled the charge with very similar wording. It continues today with family psychologists stating that children need a structured environment, when the research that they state clearly suggests a contingent one. For example, if a person was to have an infant in the room, they could check on the infant every five minutes. This would be a highly structured environment but not a contingent one. The effects would be very diferent then if theparent only come into the room when the infant cried. The fact that many developmental texts still cite Bell and Ainsworth (1972) as an example that reinforcement and extinction do not effect crying in infants, is a perfect testiment to the point that traditional developmental psychologists do not get the concept of contingency. Thus, no bias in the statement...Jcautilli2003 (talk) 04:20, 22 March 2008 (UTC) References Bell, S.M. & Ainsworth, M.D.S. (1972). Infant crying and maternal responsiveness. Child Development, 43, 1171-1190.

Gerwitz, J.L. & Boyd, E.F.(1977). Experiments on mother-infants interaction underlying mutual attachment acquisition: The infant conditions the mother. In T. Alloway, P. Pliner, L. Krames (Eds.), Attachment behavior (pp. 109-143). New York: Plenum Press.

Martin, J.A.(1981). A longitudinal study of the consequences of early mother infant interaction: A micro-analytic approach. Child Development, 46(3),

Watson, J.S.(1979). Perception of contingency as a determinant of social responsiveness. In E.B. Thoman (Ed.), Origins of the infant's social responsiveness (pp. 33-64). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.

No response so I removed the tagJcautilli2003 (talk) 23:11, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

This is Horrible to Read
As a research scientist in a completely different field (geology), I find this article to VERY difficult to follow. It uses waaaaaay too much psychology jargon to possibly be understandable to a non-scientist. Psychology-specific terminology needs to, at the very least, be explained before usage, or used in sentences not completely loaded with other jargon that they are rendered contextually understandable. Also, as far as I am aware, in-line citations of primary sources (as done in academic journals) are not acceptable methods of citation on wikipedia. Further, synthesizing primary source data (rather than stating it neutrally and clearly) is, to my knowledge, unacceptable. Further, past tense (used here in an academic sense, eg. "Gewirtz (1969) discussed that") is only acceptable for use in referring to things that happened in the past. While Gewirtz may have discussed something in the past (never mind that "discussed that" is grammatically poor at best in the aforementioned context), what really happened in the past is only the discussion element; facts are being reported as if they are past tense - true facts should always be reported as being in the present [tense].

If this article cannot be cleaned up, perhaps it should be reverted to an earlier version, without all the awful. If for no other reason that synthesis of primary source material. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 201.246.130.200 (talk) 22:06, 17 May 2012 (UTC)

WikiProject Edits
I, along with two members in my psychology class group, have made edits to this site to remove its previous personal essay style to make it more encyclopedic. We noticed that many of the studies appear to be quite dated, and that there may need to be a complete reformation of the studies mentioned in this article. Gbufton (talk) 04:15, 5 December 2012 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Behavior analysis of child development. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110110222511/http://www.baojournal.com/WCBA/WCBA.html to http://www.baojournal.com/WCBA/WCBA.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 03:38, 17 July 2017 (UTC)

Wiki Education assignment: STS 1010
— Assignment last updated by Jessicacariello (talk) 14:56, 14 February 2023 (UTC)