Human Development 2002;45:237245

Adding Culture to Studies of Development:

Toward Changes in Procedure and Theory
Jacqueline J. Goodnow1

Macquarie University, Sydney, Australia

Key Words
Culture ` Development ` Using culture

Abstract
This paper asks how an interest in culture and in development can be com-
bined to the benefit of both and at the level of theory and procedures. Three
steps are considered, noting for each some existing moves and some recom-
mended extensions. The first step has to do with the sampling of people. Here
the main existing move has been toward greater social diversity in sampling.
The extensions have to do with giving closer attention to the bases for choice,
the subjects view of events, within-group diversity or consensus, and ones
own culture. The second step has to do with sampling tasks and situations. Here
the existing moves have been toward the greater use of everyday tasks, life-
course problems, and tasks that involve two or more people: all shifts based on
changes in concepts of ability and its bases. The extensions have to do with
considering larger groups (going beyond dyads), the impact of audiences, the
expectations people hold about appropriate contributions to shared tasks, and
the conceptual bases for choice. The third step consists of alertness to unex-
pected or missing pieces in data or theory. It is illustrated by progressions
within research by Peggy Miller and by the author and her colleagues (e.g., pro-
gressions in the latter case from Piagetian tasks to parents concepts of devel-
opment and household divisions of labour).
Copyright 2002 S. Karger AG, Basel

1
My first training was in psychology only (University of Sydney). A first broadening came from a
PhD in Harvards Department of Social Relations: a department requiring courses in anthropology and
sociology as well as psychology. Further broadening came from seeing in practice how people outside
the usual Anglo-Saxon mainstream responsed to standard tasks. That exposure sparked a continuing
concern with the way people in any social group interpret tasks, define intelligence, ability or develop-
ment, and view some ways of learning, teaching, and problem-solving as better than others. It also
sparked the recognition that these issues are as relevant to ones own social group as to those consid-
ered as other. My main teaching appointments have been at George Washington University and at
Macquarie University (Sydney), with each marked by a search for ways to combine social and non-
social approaches to the nature and bases of performance and development.

2002 S. Karger AG, Basel Jacqueline Goodnow

0018716X/02/04540237$18.50/0 Department of Psychology, Division of Linguistics and
Fax + 41 61 306 12 34 Psychology, Macquarie University
E-Mail karger@karger.ch Accessible online at: Sydney, NSW 2109 (Australia), Tel. +61 2 9850 8105
www.karger.com www.karger.com/journals/hde Fax +61 2 9850 8062, E-Mail jgoodnow@psy.mq.edu.au
 How can we use the concept of culture in developmental research? And how
can we cover that question in a short position paper? To meet Barbara Rogoffs
challenging questions, I start with a brief note on why we might want to add con-
siderations of culture to developmental research and theory, followed by some
longer sections on or how we might do so. Two of these sections deal with recom-
mendations one might expect to see. They are recommendations for change in
(1) the sampling of people and (2) the sampling of situations and tasks. Both
changes are already underway within developmental research and I concentrate on
asking how they might be extended or made most effective. The third section deals
with a less obvious recommendation: (3) becoming alert to strange or missing
pieces in developmental research and theory. My aim throughout is to go beyond
some earlier pieces on similar topics: pieces covering the use of concepts from an-
thropology and sociology to extend research on cognition [Goodnow, 1990a], ways
of differentiating among contexts [Goodnow, 1995; Goodnow and Warton, 1992],
and ways of translating social-cultural concerns into research on family patterns
and cross-generation relationships [Goodnow, 1997].

Why Add Considerations of Culture?

The main reason is that this would enrich developmental research. An immedi-
ate benefit would be assistance in dealing with the emerging search for ways to
define contexts and to specify their links to development. More broadly, adding
considerations of culture would open up developmental psychology, would change
the way it proceeds, challenge its assumptions, and prompt new questions and new
ways of interpreting what we observe. The addition could also have social and po-
litical benefits. It could, for example, make more visible the presence of diversity
and more relevant many of the applications to policy (especially where these refer
to social groups other than ones own).
A further hope is that developmental psychology will move toward more dy-
namic views of culture and its links to development. For many developmentalists,
culture seems to imply only a particular sampling procedure: the study of groups
seen as distant and exotic or one step forward of ethnic or racial groups
within ones own national borders. Far less often, there is the recognition that an
interest in culture can lead to looking in a new way at ones own social group or at
the nature of development in general. To produce change, we need then to find
ways of respecting the meanings already in place but at the same time ways of
moving toward the broader view.

Consider Changes in the Sampling of People

From time to time, developmental journals express an interest in studies that

sample in ways reflective of racial, ethnic, or cultural diversity. The Society
for Research in Child Development program for 2001 was also marked by a far
higher incidence than in previous years of studies where the sample was African-
American, Hispanic-American, Asian-American, or drawn from countries outside
North America.

238 Human Development Goodnow

2002;45:237245
 Going outside ones own cultural group is certainly an often useful and salu-
tary experience. The fish, it has been said, is the last to discover water. To take
one example, Liddell [in press] uses African perspectives to raise questions about
what is regarded as risk and what are seen as appropriate ways to help children
exposed to war, murder, famine, riots, or family loss. Are the appropriate ways, for
instance, talk, silence, cleansing ceremonies, or some normalization of what has
occurred? A simple aiming at diversity in sampling, however, is not sufficient. To
make such sampling effective, we need to add some further recommendations.
(a) Look carefully at the bases for choice: Why this group rather than an-
other? The basis may be political. We wish primarily to alter the visibility of some
particular groups, to challenge the assumption that one group stands for all. The
basis may also be one of need. Here, for instance, is a group that we wish to help or
to change and we cannot do so effectively unless we have a better understanding of
their goals, their views of the world, and what they are willing to consider. The
basis may also be more theory-driven. Here, for example, is the opportunity to
check some prevailing assumptions about the course of development (e.g., shifts in
skill or in vulnerability) or about the importance of particular circumstances (e.g.,
the effects of various levels or kinds of schooling, of emigration, minority status, or
the significance of everyday routines). At the moment, all three bases for choice
(plus factors of convenience) often seem to be run together.
(b) Ask: What is the nature of your link to this group and their perception of
what you do or what you expect? An early lession in cultural studies is that people
often agree to what researchers ask out of courtesy, amusement, expected benefit,
or a sense of duress. The ideal group for the questions we have in mind may also
be unwilling to be involved or unlikely to respond as we hope they will. When we
consider our actions from others points of view, we learn a great deal about what
people perceive as sensible tasks, reasonable questions, appropriate social behav-
iours, and the implicit social agreements that are part of any situation that involves
testing, interviewing, or observation. We are also led to think about the perceptions
and meanings that we take for granted and to ask how these have come to be shared
or taken for granted.
(c) No social group is homogeneous: Look for within-group differences. Stud-
ies of gender provide a useful lession. Originally oriented only toward sampling
both males and females and toward locating differences and similarities between
them, the focus has shifted to covering within-gender differences and to finding the
kinds of dimensions and the kinds of sampling that would help account for these
[e.g., McHale, Crouter, and Whiteman, in press]. That shift may be less easy than
the comparison of groups en bloc (e.g., comparing males with females). One way
forward may be to look especially at the people who do not fit an expected pattern.
This is the push, for instance, behind attention to the children who make it in
schools or other areas of achievement despite their disadvantaged settings [e.g.,
Furstenberg, Cook, Eccles, Elder, and Sameroff, 1999]. Another way forward is to
explore the social distinctions that the people in question themselves draw. We
might well explore more fully, for example, the ways in which people use terms
such as ethnic [Goodnow, 1999], the distinctions that students draw among them-
selves (e.g., distinctions between the nerds and the jocks), and the way people
position themselves so that they attract the category labels they themselves prefer.

Using Analyses of Culture Human Development 239

2002;45:237245
 (d) Ask: Could the question I have in mind be answered by looking within my
own culture? One of the striking features to research on culture and development is
the extent to which many developmentalists have turned to a closer look at their
own social groups (e.g., Cole, Gauvain, Hatano, Nunes, Rogoff, Shweder, Weisner,
Wertsch). Questions about circumstances and processes may well be explored by
way of situations that are close to home. The diversity around us may supply all the
variations among people that we need. In short, sampling outside the mainstream
is not the only way forward. Taking a fresh look at what we usually take for
granted may even turn out to be the best way to reexamine the assumptions and
procedures contained within our own approaches to development.

Consider Changes in the Sampling of Situations and Tasks

Studies of culture have helped developmental research move in two directions.

One shift is in the direction of adding everyday or real-life situations to an earlier
preference for abstract and unfamiliar situations. The study of arithmetical skills,
for example, has moved from textbook problems to the study of skills related to
street selling, bookmaking, cooking, calculating diets, planting fields, filling orders
for milk deliveries. The study of planning now covers not only hypothetical prob-
lems but also planning for life-course changes. The procedural change, we should
note, does not stand alone. It is instead part of a change away from an emphasis on
general abilities or traits and toward an emphasis on situational competence or situ-
ational styles.
In a related move, there has also been a procedural shift toward investigating
situations that involve two or more people. Tasks that involve dyads (one expert,
one novice) have become popular. To a lesser extent, so also have tasks where peo-
ple need to function collaboratively or are required to resolve a difference in view-
point in order to reach an agreed-upon position or solution. The procedural change
is again part of a conceptual shift: in this case a move toward the recognition that
people do not exist or act in isolation. Even when a task appears to be tackled in
solo fashion, others have shaped the structure of the task, the resources available,
and the definitions of success. The solitary thinker the Rodins statue kind of
model is likely to be an appropriate model only in special circumstances, and
even then may be a fiction.
These changes in tasks toward everyday situations and toward two or more
participants might have taken place without any prompting from analyses of cul-
ture. Their origins, however as Rogoffs position paper in this set makes espe-
cially clear lie predominantly in conceptual positions that emphasize the social
and cultural bases of development. Researchers may have picked up more of the
procedures than of the theory. The procedures, however, have opened the way to
some familiarity with general concepts. Out of the research containing tasks with 2
or more people, for example, has come some familiarity with concepts such as scaf-
folding, the zone of proximal development, forms of participation (guided, periph-
eral, legitimate), distributed cognition, shared understanding, or a more recent
candidate interactive minds [Baltes and Staudinger, 1996].
What more might be done? Let me focus on tasks that involve 2 or more peo-
ple. Four possibilities stand out:

240 Human Development Goodnow

2002;45:237245
 (1) Consider larger groups as well as dyads. We now know a fair amount about
expert-novice pairs, but far less about other combinations of people: about, for ex-
ample, the ways in which work is distributed among members of a team, among
people in a classroom, or among members of a family. A critical part of becoming
culturally competent, however, is likely to consist of learning how and what to con-
tribute in these larger groups.
(2) Consider situations where others are not physically present but form an
anticipated audience, a voice of the mind [Wertsch, 1991]. The development of
skill in the performance of music, for example, is accompanied by changing orien-
tations toward possible audiences and by a mixture of meeting their expectations
and ones own [Hatano and Oura, 2001]. Hatano and Ouras [2001] studies stand
out for their innovative content. They stand out also for the way they add to a view
of development as revolving around various forms of dialogue (dialogue between
past and present, between teacher and pupil, between performer and audience) and
the use of various kinds of voice [a position from Bakhtin, and represented by
Wertsch, 1991].
(3) Consider not only what each person contributes but also what is expected
from each. Most of our analyses of expert/novice dyads, for example, concentrate
on what each person does: on the kind of support offered or accepted. We know far
less about what each person expects, about the collaborative rules [Goodnow,
1996b] that regulate who has the privilege of speaking first, what kinds of help can
be asked for, how an interest in help or in not being helped can be indicated, or
when help is being given on a once-off (one time only) basis. The learning of
these rules, however, is as much a part of development as acquiring the skills
needed to solve the official task, and may be a major aspect of coming to be seen as
culturally competent.
It is also in relation to the nature of the expected rules that we may need to re-
examine what developmental psychology generally assumes. Within studies of ex-
pert-novice pairs, for example, the bias is toward assuming eager learners and will-
ing teachers, leaving all the variance to be accounted for in terms of capacity: the
learners capacity to absorb and the helpers capacity to support or instruct. Anthro-
pologists and sociologists, however, are far more likely to expect that learners may
resist or reject what is offered and that teachers will regard knowledge as a com-
modity to be dispensed or hoarded in line with their vested interests [for some of
these positions, see Goodnow, 1990a, 1996c].
(4) Look for ways of combining an interest in shared tasks and in everyday
situations. Many of the early studies of expert/novice combinations, for example,
were based on constructed situations: e.g. on parents being asked to work with chil-
dren on a task devised by the researcher. The later shift is toward situations that are
more part of everyday life: observing, for example, how apprentices or children
learn to cut cloth, make tortillas, tell stories, give sermons, greet people, say
please or thank you at the expected moments.
Once we begin to look around us, there are many such tasks. How then to
choose among them? Over the last several years, my choice has been to turn to the
ways in which 2 or more family members share household tasks or family tasks.
The specific sharing may be between parents and children, among children, be-
tween adult partners, or among adult children providing care for a parent in need of
assistance. Common to these several combinations are questions about the distinc-

Using Analyses of Culture Human Development 241

2002;45:237245
tions people draw among tasks or contributions and the links they make between
the sharing of and the nature of relationships. [For a review of several studies, see
Goodnow, 1996a, and Goodnow and Lawrence, 2001. The ongoing work on shared
caregiving is described in Goodnow, Lawrence, Ryan, Karantzas, and King, in
press, and Lawrence, Goodnow, Woods, and Karantzas, 2001].
Why this particular choice of situations? Part of the answer is that here are
forms of task sharing that people care about and for which they have strong expec-
tations. This is no empty practice. Here also is an area that challenges some of our
usual assumptions. The sharing that emerges in these situations is not well covered
by our usual ways of considering equality or equity [Goodnow, 1999]. We are also
faced firmly with the fact that people often draw distinctions among tasks in essen-
tially social terms rather than in terms of their demands for various forms of com-
petence or amounts of time. People regard some tasks, for example, as fairly move-
able from one person to another and reject the movement or delegation of others as
wrong [e.g., Goodnow, 1996a; Goodnow et al., 2002].

Becoming Alert to Strange or Missing Pieces in Developmental

Theory or Research

It is easy to say that whatever we do should have some link to general devel-
opmental theory. It is easy to say also that it is not enough to choose a group simply
because it is different and might answer questions about the extent to which re-
sults generalize. How do we work toward both working from theory and feeding
back to some general theory?
One step toward this goal consists of becoming aware of some current ac-
counts of how development in context proceeds and of moving back and forth
between these accounts and any particular sampling of people or of situations. As-
sume, for example, that what provokes ones interest is the presence of some spe-
cific difference in practices: in the everyday ways of telling stories, talking to chil-
dren, keeping them close or letting them run, putting them to sleep, showing them
what to do, encouraging their participation in activities or in social groups. Explor-
ing that kind of difference should be linked to views of culture as a set of practices
and to questions about the sources and impact of particular routines. One example
is provided by Rogoffs position paper in this set and by her earlier work on guided
participation [e.g., Rogoff, Mistry, Goncu, and Mosier, 1993]. The several chapters
in Goodnow, Miller, and Kessel [1995] provide a number of others.
Practices are not the only ways by which one might link a specific aspect of
similarity or difference to a general view of culture and development. The framing
view of development and culture may be in terms of people coming to share mean-
ings, models, views of the world, categories of objects or of people. The groups we
choose may then be groups that illustrate particular differences in views of the
world (e.g., in what counts as a moral act) or particular circumstances influencing
the likelihood of shared meanings within a group (e.g., emigration as a possible
influence on the likelihood of shared views between parents and children). The
framing view may also be one of culture as consisting of multiple worlds, with
development then consisting of learning to bridge these worlds or to navigate the
borders [Cooper, 1999]: a framing that links well to sampling groups that face

242 Human Development Goodnow

2002;45:237245
various degrees of agreement in ethos among the worlds of family, school, and paid
work. To take one last example, often adopted in the study of risk and disadvan-
tage, the framing view may be one of contexts as involving mixtures of challenges
and resources, and of development as ways of coping or of becoming resilient [e.g.,
Werner, 1995]. The point in all these cases is that what one hopes to see is some
degree of linking between the procedures adopted the groups and the situations
chosen and some general views of culture and development, with the procedures
and the theories feeding into one another.
Does that sound as if the best way to proceed is to lay out some hypotheses
and then test them? Some specific questions are certainly needed. In the course of
pursuing these questions, however, we are likely to encounter phenomena that stop
one in ones tracks. They create a sense of something that is unexpected, something
that is strange, doesnt fit, or is homeless (the sense that nothing in current
psychological theory speaks to this phenomenon). These are the phenomena, I sug-
gest, that have particular possibilities as a basis for adding to existing theory and
procedures. They are also phenomena that are more likely to occur in the course of
stepping outside ones own social or cultural group, but they are by no means re-
stricted to that kind of experience.
Let me try to anchor such comments in some specific research accounts. One
account comes from work by Peggy Miller. Miller is well known for her work on
the ways in which parents and children use narratives: narratives for, about, with,
or by children [work starting with Miller and Sperry, 1988]. Miller has also com-
mented that she began by exploring African-American speech patterns and was
struck by the frequent and sophisticated ways in which stories were constructed and
used. For that kind of interaction between adults or between parents and children,
Miller found that psychologists accounts of development contained at that time
little recognition of the behavior and little in the way of measures that would help
distinguish between one kind of narrative use and another. The study of narratives
is now well established. The same kinds of gap that once existed, however, still
apply to our understanding of religious interpretations of events and of phenomena
such as teasing, either between children or between adults and children [Miller,
2001]. In all such cases, Miller points out, we need not only to find ways to do re-
search. We need also to ask why there are these gaps in our existing theory and
procedures.
For a second account, I turn to my own experience. The first time I worked
with a different cultural group was with the aim of asking how far the progression
usually found with Piagetian conservation tasks reflected shifts in schooling or
some natural unfolding that was independent of schooling. Hong Kong offered at
that time groups of children who were not in school and were at the same time nei-
ther rural nor necessarily the poorest in the city (the government faced a massive
influx of refugees and, as a temporary measure, resorted to admission to school on
a lottery basis). I did emerge with some answers to the original question. I also
emerged, however, with the recognition that the developmental theory I knew drew
a sharp distinction between areas that were cognitive and areas that were social.
People, however, defined being intelligent or being smart in ways that reflected
the worlds they lived in. They also drew distinctions between tasks that made
sense and tasks that were unimportant. Psychologists accounts of cognitive de-
velopment, I came to recognize, needed to take more account of cognitive values

Using Analyses of Culture Human Development 243

2002;45:237245
and cognitive socialization, both within and outside ones own social group [e.g.,
Goodnow, 1990b, 1996c].
A second example starts from a request by the Catholic Education Office to
help them understand why, in several areas, the children of Lebanese-Australian
families were arriving in kindergarten unprepared for school, with parents appar-
ently ignoring the advice sent to them about the need for children to come equipped
with some particular skills (e.g., being able to button their coats or tie their shoe-
laces). We were able to answer that question and to explore some differences in the
developmental timetables that Lebanese-Australian and Anglo-Australian mothers
had in mind when they were asked about various aspects of development
[Goodnow, Cashmore, Cotton, and Knight, 1984]. That request, however, brought a
sharp recognition of the extent to which developmental accounts at that time had
little to say about the way parents thought about development. That recognition was
again the start of a search for other people who felt the same ways, within and out-
side psychology, and for ways of bringing together their data and their concepts
[e.g., Goodnow and Collins, 1990; Goodnow, 2002].
I might indeed have spent a lifetime exploring only parents beliefs or ethno-
theories, as they came to be labelled. What brought me up short was a difference
between these two groups of mothers in their answers to a question about household
tasks for children. I was unprepared for the Lebanese-Australian mothers frank re-
jection of any such tasks as appropriate for 5- to 6-year-olds (although the same chil-
dren might well be expected to look after their younger siblings). The children were
too young. The tasks were mothers work. The help was not needed. Not pres-
ent, however, were the Anglo endorsements of such tasks, however small, as good
for the development of character or for learning that were a family.
That was a galvanizing encounter and it took me in several linked directions.
In one of these, I went back to the developmental data from Western sources, and
was intrigued to find little or no evidence for the virtues so often taken for granted.
That led to a review of related theory and data and, later, to a study of whether
there were benefits even in Anglo groups [Grusec, Goodnow, and Cohen, 1996].
In another, I became alert to the significance of everyday routines: ways of acting
that embodied what parents thought was important or that perhaps had a life of their
own. Again, the question arose of who else was interested in these aspects of devel-
opment, both within and outside psychology, and of asking how these efforts might
be brought together: a search that led to the collection and framing of papers in
Goodnow, Miller, and Kessel [1995]. In a third, I turned to the area noted earlier: to
questions about the ways in which family members distribute tasks and the expecta-
tions they hold about who can and who should make this or that contribution.
One could multiply such examples. What I hope to bring out, however, is
some of the actuality of how an interest in culture and an interest in development
can be linked, to the benefit of both and at the level of both theory and procedures.

References

Baltes, P., & Staudinger, U. (1996). Interactive minds. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Cooper, C.R. (1999). Multiple selves, multiple worlds: Cultural perspectives on individuality and con-
nectedness in adolescent development. In A. Masten (Ed.), Minnesota symposium on child devel-
opment: Cultural processes in development (pp. 2557). Hillsdale NJ: Erlbaum.

244 Human Development Goodnow

2002;45:237245
Furstenberg, F.F. Jr., Cook, T.D., Eccles, J., Elder, G.H., & Sameroff, A. (1999). Managing to make it:
Urban families and adolescent success. Chicago IL: University of Chicago Press.
Goodnow, J.J. (1990a). Using sociology to extend psychological accounts of cognitive development.
Human Development, 33, 81107.
Goodnow, J.J. (1990b). The socialization of cognition: Acquiring cognitive values. In J. Stigler, R.
Shweder, & G. Herdt (Eds.), Culture and Human Development (pp. 259286). Chicago: Univer-
sity of Chicago Press.
Goodnow, J.J. (1995). Ways of differentiating among social contexts: By spatial features, forms of
interaction, and social contracts. In P. Moen, G.H. Elder Jr., & K. Luscher (Eds.). Examining lives
in context (pp. 269302). Washington DC: American Psychological Association.
Goodnow, J.J. (1996a). From household practices to parents ideas about work and interpersonal rela-
tionships. In S. Harkness & C. Super (Eds.), Parents cultural belief systems (pp. 313344). New
York: Guilford.
Goodnow, J.J. (1996b). Collaborative rules: From shares of the work to rights to the story. In P. Baltes
& U. Staudinger (Eds.), Interactive minds (pp. 163193). Cambridge: Cambridge University
Press.
Goodnow, J.J. (1996c). Acceptable ignorance, negotiable disagreement: Alternative views of learning.
In D. Olson & N. Torrance (Eds.), Handbook of psychology in education. New models of teach-
ing, learning, and schooling (pp. 345368). Oxford: Blackwell.
Goodnow, J.J. (1997). Parenting and the transmission and internalization of values: From social-
cultural perspectives to within-family analyses. In J.E. Grusec & L. Kuczynski (Eds.), Handbook
of parenting and the transmission of values (pp. 333361). New York: Wiley.
Goodnow, J.J. (1998). Beyond the overall balance: The significance of particular tasks and procedures
for perceptions of fairness in household work distributions. Journal of Social Justice Research,
11, 359376.
Goodnow, J.J. (1999). Ethnicity: Spotlight on child, family and community interconnections. In J.M.
Bowes & A. Hayes (Eds.), Children, families, communities: Australian interconnections. Mel-
bourne: Oxford University Press.
Goodnow, J.J. (2002). Parents knowledge and expectations: Using what we know. In M. Bornstein
(Ed.), Handbook of parenting (2nd ed., Vol. 3, pp. 439469). Mahwah NJ: Erlbaum.
Goodnow, J.J., Cashmore, J., Cotton, S., & Knight, R. (1984). Mothers developmental timetables in
two cultural groups. International Journal of Psychology, 19, 193205.
Goodnow, J.J., & Collins, W.A. (1990). Development according to parents. Hove UK: Erlbaum.
Goodnow, J.J., Miller, P.J., & Kessel, F. (1995). Cultural practices as contexts for development. San
Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
Goodnow, J.J., & Lawrence, J.A. (2001). Work contributions to the family: Developing a conceptual
and research framework. In A. Fuligni (Ed.), Family obligations and assistance during adoles-
cence (pp. 522). San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
Goodnow, J.J., Lawrence, J.A., Ryan, J., Karantzas, G., & King, K. (2002). Extending studies of col-
laborative cognition by way of caregiving situations. International Journal of Behavioral Devel-
opment, 26, 1625.
Goodnow, J.J., & Warton, P.M. (1992). Contexts and cognitions: Taking a pluralist view. In P. Light &
G. Butterworth (Eds.), Context and cognition (pp. 85112). Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Grusec, J.E., Goodnow, J.J., & Cohen, L. (1996). Household work and the development of concern for
others. Developmental Psychology, 32, 9991007.
Hatano, G., & Oura, Y. (April, 2001). Apparently solitary activities have others in mind. Paper pre-
sented at biennial meeting of the Society for Research in Child Development, Minneapolis.
Lawrence, J.A., Goodnow, J.J., Woods, K., & Karantzas, G. (2001). Family distributions of caregiving
tasks: The place of gender and availability. Under review.
Liddell, C. (in press). Emic perspectives on risks for children in Africa. Developmental Review.
McHale, S.M., Crouter, A.C., & Whiteman, S.D. (in press). The family contexts of gender development
in childhood and adolescence. Social Development.
Miller, P. (April 2001). New insights from developmental cultural psychology: What the study of intra-
cultural variation can contribute. Paper presented at biennial meeting of the Society for Research
in Child Development. Minneapolis.
Miller, P.J., & Sperry, L.L. (1988). Early talk about the past: The origins of conversational stories about
personal experiences. Journal of Child Language, 15, 293315.
Rogoff, B., Mistry, J., Goncu, A., & Mosier, C. (1993). Guided participation in cultural activity by
toddlers and caregivers. Monographs of the Society for Research in Child Development, 58, No.
236.
Werner, E.E. (1995). Resilience in development. Current Directions in Psychological Science, 4, 81
85.
Wertsch, J. (1991). Voices of the mind. Cambridge MA: Harvard University Press.

Using Analyses of Culture Human Development 245

2002;45:237245