Intuitive parenting from the perspective of individual differences comments on Papousek and Papousek’s paper

Abstract

As scientists we remain curious about the basic capabilities of the human organism in its earliest period of postnatal development and particularly about the extent to which prewired psychological processes, be they affective or cognitive in nature, shape the child's experiences in the world. The Papouseks (1989, this issue), it would appear, approach the study of intuitive parenting from these two perspectives. They report upon the competencies that the human infant has been found to possess, and of the intuitive capabilities which parents unknowlingly display as they interact and communicate with their infants. Further, they seek to draw some general lessons about didactics which are pertinent to educators by sharing recent discoveries in the study of parent-infant interaction.Another reason that developmental psychologists are fascinated with the period of infancy is because many are intrigued by questions of continuity in development and early experience, and thus are motivated to discover the extent to which early capabilities and experiences forecast later competencies, and the conditions under which such short-or long-term prediction obtains. It is interesting to note that for the most part this perspective, perhaps more characteristic of American than European research, was not particularly evident in the Papouseks' essay. Although it is by no means the case the only Americans study individual differences and prediction from early to later development, and that only Europeans study normative patterns of development, or central tendencies, there is some truth to the statement that these are general trends which characterize different psychological traditions.In light of this analysis, it is perhaps not surprising that it was questions of individual differences that kept confronting me as I read the Papouseks' essay on intuitive parenting. And it is from this perspective that I will comment upon their remarks. I should make clear at the outset that my purpose is not to be critical of their analysis, but rather to extend it by placing it in the perspective of individual differences in development and variation in social experience. It is my belief that such a perspective has much to add in understanding infancy, especially from the viewpoint of the educator.