Cognitive Development of Young Children in Institutions with Different Social Environment

In the Russian Federation institutional care (IC) has been the most prevalent form of care for orphans and vulnerable children. At the same time, it has been noted that children who had experienced early IC characterized by psychosocial deprivation often showed delays in cognitive functioning. Ways of solving this problem are intervention programs designed to improve traditional IC and decrease child deprivation. In Russia the main project on the improvement of IC was held in Saint-Petersburg (The St. Petersburg — USA Orphanage Research Team, 2008), where one of the baby homes (BH) was restructured to create a family-like social environment. Since The Saint-Petersburg — USA Orphanage research project, conducted 15 years ago, there has been no comparison study of children’s cognitive development in BH with different social environments that would indicate the influence of a familylike social environment in IC on a child’s level of cognitive development. Herewith our research was conducted to compare the cognitive development of children in different BH: traditional and familylike institutions. Tests Methods included the Mullen Scales of Early Learning (MSEL, 1995), and the Vineland Behavior Adaptive Scales (VABS, 2005). The sample included 25 children in the age range from 5 to 28 months: 13 children from BHA, aged 5 to 28 months (M=18.46, SD=6.47) and 12 children from BHB aged 6 to 28 months (M=16.67, SD=6.34). Results showed that children from family-like orphanage (BHA) showed higher scores on cognitive development (F=5.09, p=.03) and in particularly the MSEL Visual Reception Scale (F =6.54, p=.01), and the VABS Expressive Communication Scale (F=12.91, p=.000) compared to children from traditional BH (BHB). The results emphasize the importance of a family-like social environment in institutions both for cognitive development and the mental health of young children.

Фаликман М.В. Когнитивная наука в XXI веке: организм, социум, культура // Психологический журнал Международного университета природы, общества и человека «Дубна». 2012. № 3. С. 31–37.

Логинов Н.И., Спиридонов В.Ф. Воплощенное познание как современный тренд развития когнитивной психологии // Вестн. С.-Петерб. ун-та. Психология и педагогика. 2017. Т. 7. Вып. 1. С. 25–42.

Dreyfus H. Alchemy and AI. Santa-Monica, Calif.: RAND Corporation, 1965. 94 p.

Дрейфус Х. Чего не могут вычислительные машины. М.: Прогресс, 1978. 310 с.

Zahavi D., Gallagher S. The phenomenological mind. London: Routhledge, 2008. 244 р.

Мерло-Понти М. Феноменология восприятия / пер. с франц.; под ред. И.С.Вдовиной, С.Л. Фокина. М.: Ювента, 1999. 608 c.

Varela F.J., Thompson E., Rosch E. The embodied mind: Cognitive science and human experience. Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press, 1991. 308 р.

Thomasson A.L. Introspection and phenomenological method // Phenomenology and the Cognitive Sciences. 2003. Vol. 2, N 3. P. 239–254.

Husserl E. The crisis of European sciences and transcendental phenomenology: An introduction to phenomenological philosophy. Evanston: Northwestern University Press, 1970. 407 р.

Husserl E. Phenomenology and the foundations of the sciences. Vol. 3. Berlin: Springer Science & Business Media, 2001. 357 р.

Husserl E. Aufsätze und Vorträge (1911–1921). Dordrecht: Martinus NijHoff, 1987. 225 S. (Husserliana XXV).

Husserl E. Ideas: General introduction to pure phenomenology. London: Routledge, 2012. 377 р.

Gallagher S., Schmicking D. Handbook of phenomenology and cognitive science. Berlin: Springer, 2010. 688 р.

Varela F.J. Neurophenomenology: A methodological remedy for the hard problem // Journal of consciousness studies. 1996. Vol. 3, N 4. Р. 330–349.

Канеман Д. Модели ограниченной рациональности: вклад психологии в поведенческую экономику // Когнитивная психология: история и современность. М.: Ломоносовъ, 2011. С. 368– 384.

Лофтус Э. Ложные воспоминания // Когнитивная психология: история и современность: Хрестоматия / под ред. М.В.Фаликман, В.Ф.Спиридонова. М.: Ломоносовъ, 2011. С. 303–311.

Нисбетт Р.Э., Уилсон Т.Д. Говорим больше, чем знаем: вербальные отчеты о психических процессах // Когнитивная психология: история и современность: Хрестоматия / под ред. М.Фаликман и В.Спиридонова. M. : Ломоносовъ, 2011. С. 177–195.

Саймонс Д., Левин Д. Неспособность к обнаружению изменений, происходящих с людьми в ходе реальных взаимодействий // Когнитивная психология: история и современность: Хрестоматия / под ред. М.В.Фаликман, В.Ф.Спиридонова. М.: Ломоносовъ, 2011. С. 281–288.

Lutz A. Toward a neurophenomenology as an account of generative passages: A first empirical case study // Phenomenology and the Cognitive Sciences. 2002. Vol. 2. Р. 133–167.

Chaminade T., Decety J. Leader or follower? Involvement of the inferior parietal lobule in agency // Neuroreport. 2002. Vol. 13, N 15. Р. 1975–1978.

Gallagher S. Self reference and schizophrenia // Exploring the self. Amsterdam: John Benjamins Publishing Company, 2000. Р. 203–239.

Gallagher S. Philosophical conceptions of the self: implications for cognitive science // Trends in cognitive sciences. 2000. Vol. 4, N 1. Р. 14–21.

Hesslow G. The current status of the simulation theory of cognition // Brain research. 2012. Vol. 1428. Р. 71–79.

Barsalou L.W. Grounded cognition // Annu. Rev. Psychol. 2008. Vol. 59. Р. 617–645.

Kilner J.M., Paulignan Y., Blakemore S.J. An interference effect of observed biological movement on action // Current biology. 2003. Vol. 13, N 6. Р. 522–525.

Kaschak M.P., Madden C.J., Therriault D.J., Yaxley R.H., Aveyard M., Blanchard A.A., Zwaan R.A. Perception of motion affects language processing // Cognition. 2005. Vol. 94, N 3. Р.79 — 89.

Proffitt D.R., Stefanucci J., Banton T., Epstein W. The role of effort in perceiving distance // Psychological Science. 2003. Vol. 14, N 2. Р. 106–112.

Schurmann M., Raij T., Fujiki N., Hari R. Mind’s ear in a musician: where and when in the brain // Neuroimage. 2002. Vol. 16. Р. 434–440.

Zatorre R.J., Halpern A.R., Perry D.W., Meyer E., Evans A.C. Hearing in the mind’s ear: a PET investigation of musical imagery and perception // J.Cogn. Neurosci. 1996. Vol. 8. Р. 29–46.

Decety J., Grèzes J. The power of simulation: imagining one’s own and other’s behavior // Brain research. 2006. Vol. 1079. N 1. Р. 4–14.

Gallese V. The shared manifold hypothesis. From mirror neurons to empathy // Journal of consciousness studies. 2001. Vol. 8, N 5–6. Р. 33–50.

Gallese V. Embodied simulation: From neurons to phenomenal experience // Phenomenology and the cognitive sciences. 2005. Vol. 4, N 1. Р. 23–48.

Gallese V., Caruana F. Embodied simulation: beyond the expression/experience dualism of emotions // Trends in cognitive sciences. 2016. Vol. 20, N 6. Р. 397–398.

Dijkstra K., Post L. Mechanisms of embodiment // Frontiers in Psychology. 2015. Vol. 6. Р. 1525.

Kelso J. S., Holt K.G., Kugler P.N., Turvey M.T. On the Concept of Coordinative Structures as Dissipative Structures: II.Empirical Lines of Convergence // Advances in Psychology. 1980. Vol. 1. Р. 49–70.

Гибсон Д.Д. Экологический подход к зрительному восприятию. М.: Прогресс, 1988. 465 с.

Chemero A. Radical embodied cognitive science // Review of General Psychology. 2013. Vol. 17, N 2. Р. 145.

Beer R.D. A dynamical systems perspective on agent-environment interaction // Artificial intelligence. 1995. N 72, N 1–2. Р. 173–215.

Beer R.D. Dynamical approaches to cognitive science // Trends in cognitive sciences. 2000. Vol. 4, N 3. Р. 91–99.

Braun M. Differential equations and their applications (4th ed.). New York: Springer Verlag, 1994. 319 р.

Johnson J. S., Spencer J.P., Schöner G. Moving to higher ground: The dynamic field theory and the dynamics of visual cognition // New Ideas in Psychology. 2008. Vol. 26, N 2. Р. 227–251.

Piaget J. The construction of reality in the child. New York: Basic, 1954. 289 р.

Smith L.B., Thelen E., Titzer R., McLin D. Knowing in the context of acting: the task dynamics of the A-not-B error // Psychological review. 1999. Vol. 106, N 2. Р. 235.

Thelen E., Schöner G., Scheier C., Smith L.B. The dynamics of embodiment: A field theory of infant perseverative reaching // Behavioral and brain sciences. 2001. Vol. 24, N 1. Р. 1–34.

Erlhagen W., Schöner G. Dynamic field theory of movement preparation // Psychological review. 2002. Vol. 109, N 3. Р. 545.

Smith L.B., Thelen E. Development as a dynamic system // Trends in cognitive sciences. 2003. Vol. 7, N 8. Р. 343–348.

Schöner G. Learning and recall in a dynamic theory of coordination patterns // Biological Cybernetics. 1989. Vol. 62, N 1. Р. 39–54.

Schöner G., Kelso J. S. Dynamic pattern generation in behavioral and neural systems // Science. 1988. Р. 1513–1520.

Ditzinger T. Optical illusions: examples for nonlinear dynamics in perception // In Nonlinear Dynamics in Human Behavior. Berlin; Heidelberg: Springer, 2010. Р. 179–191.

Schöner G., Thelen E. Using dynamic field theory to rethink infant habituation // Psychological review. 2006. Vol. 113, N 2. Р. 273.

Van Orden G.C. Nonlinear dynamics and psycholinguistics // Ecological Psychology. 2002. Vol. 14, N 1–2. Р. 1–4.

Koster E.H., Fang L., Marchetti I., Ebner-Priemer U., Kirsch P., Huffziger S., Kuehner C. Examining the relation between mood and rumination in remitted depressed individuals: A dynamic systems analysis // Clinical Psychological Science. 2015. Vol. 3, N 4. Р. 619–627.

Stephen D.G., Dixon J.A., Isenhower R.W. Dynamics of representational change: Entropy, action, and cognition // Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance. 2009. Vol. 35, N 6. Р. 1811.

Stamovlasis D., Tsaparlis G. Applying catastrophe theory to an information processing model of problem solving in science education // Science Education. 2012. Vol. 96, N 3. Р. 392–410.

Lewis M.D. The promise of dynamic systems approaches for an integrated account of human development // Child development. 2000. Vol. 71, N 1. Р. 36–43.

Thelen E., Smith L.B. Dynamic systems theories // Handbook of child psychology. 1998. Vol. 1. Р. 258–312.

Fogel A. Developing through relationships. Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1993. 307 р.

van Geert P. A dynamic systems model of basic developmental mechanisms: Piaget, Vygotsky, and beyond // Psychological review. 1998. Vol. 105, N 4. Р. 634.

Randerath J., Goldenberg G., Spijkers W., Li Y., Hermsdörfer J. From pantomime to actual use: how affordances can facilitate actual tool-use // Neuropsychologia. 2011. Vol. 49, N 9. Р. 2410–2416.

Iani C., Baroni G., Pellicano A., Nicoletti R. On the relationship between affordance and Simon effects: Are the effects really independent? // Journal of Cognitive Psychology. 2011. Vol. 23, N 1. Р. 121– 131.

Tipper S.P., Paul M.A., Hayes A.E. Vision-for-action: The effects of object property discrimination and action state on affordance compatibility effects // Psychonomic bulletin & review. 2006. Vol. 13, N 3. Р. 493–498.

Kostov K., Janyan A. Reversing the affordance effect: negative stimulus-response compatibility observed with images of graspable objects // Cognitive processing. 2015. Vol. 16, N 1. Р. 287–291.

Massaro D.W. An information-processing analysis of perception and action // Relationships between perception and action. Berlin; Heidelberg: Springer, 1990. Р. 133–166.

Barsingerhorn A.D., Zaal F.T., Smith J., Pepping G.J. On possibilities for action: The past, present and future of affordance research // Avant. 2012. Vol. 3, N 2. Р. 54–69.

Warren W.H. Perceiving affordances: visual guidance of stair climbing // Journal of experimental psychology: Human perception and performance. 1984. Vol. 10, N 5. Р. 683.

Mark L. S., Vogele D. A biodynamic basis for perceived categories of action: A study of sitting and stair climbing // Journal of Motor Behavior. 1987. Vol. 19, N 3. Р. 367–384.

Mark L. S., Balliett J.A., Craver K.D., Douglas S.D., Fox T. What an actor must do in order to perceive the affordance for sitting // Ecological Psychology. 1990. Vol. 2, N 4. Р. 325–366.

Pufall P.B., Dunbar C. Perceiving whether or not the world affords stepping onto and over: A developmental study // Ecological Psychology. 1992. Vol. 4, N 1. Р. 17–38.

Jiang Y., Mark L. S. The effect of gap depth on the perception of whether a gap is crossable // Perception & Psychophysics. 1994. Vol. 56, N 6. Р. 691–700.

van der Meer A.L. Visual guidance of passing under a barrier // Early Development and Parenting. 1997. Vol. 6, N 34. Р. 149–158.

Wagman J.B., Malek E.A. Perception of affordances for walking under a barrier from proximal and distal points of observation // Ecological Psychology. 2008. Vol. 20, N 1. Р. 65–83.

Wagman J.B., Malek E.A. Geometric, kinetic-kinematic, and intentional constraints influence willingness to pass under a barrier // Experimental Psychology. 2009. Vol. 56, N 6. Р. 409–417.

Stefanucci J.K., Geuss M.N. Duck! Scaling the height of a horizontal barrier to body height // Attention, Perception, Psychophysics. 2010. Vol. 72, N 5. Р. 1338–1349.

Warren Jr W.H., Whang S. Visual guidance of walking through apertures: body-scaled information for affordances // Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance. 1987. Vol. 13, N 3. Р. 371.

Kinsella-Shaw J.M., Shaw B., Turvey M.T. Perceiving ‘Walk-on-able’ Slopes // Ecological Psychology. 1992. Vol. 4, N 4. Р. 223–239.

Konczak J., Meeuwsen H.J., Cress M.E. Changing affordances in stair climbing: The perception of maximum climbability in young and older adults // Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance. 1992. Vol. 18, N 3. Р. 691.

Thill S., Caligiore D., Borghi A.M., Ziemke T., Baldassarre G. Theories and computational models of affordance and mirror systems: an integrative review // Neuroscience & Biobehavioral Reviews. 2013. Vol. 37, N 3. Р. 491–521.

Hamilton A.F., Grafton S.T. The motor hierarchy: from kinematics to goals and intentions // Attention and performance / ed. Y.Rosetti, M.Kawato, P.Haggard. New York: Oxford University Press, 2007. Р. 658.

Kilner J.M., Friston K.J., Frith C.D. Predictive coding: an account of the mirror neuron system // Cognitive Processing. 2007. Vol. 8, N 3. Р. 159–166.

Creem-Regehr S.H., Lee J.N. Neural representations of graspable objects: are tools special? // Cognitive Brain Research. 2005. Vol. 22, N 3. Р. 457–469.

Borghi A.M., Riggio L. Sentence comprehension and simulation of object temporary, canonical and stable affordances // Brain Research. 2009. Vol. 1253. Р. 117–128.

Simon J.R. Reactions toward the source of stimulation // Journal of experimental psychology. 1969. Vol. 81, N 1. Р. 174.

Tucker M., Ellis R. On the relations between seen objects and components of potential actions // Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human perception and performance. 1998. Vol. 24, N 3. Р. 830.

Pellicano A., Iani C., Borghi A.M., Rubichi S., Nicoletti R. Simon-like and functional affordance effects with tools: The effects of object perceptual discrimination and object action state // The Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology. 2010. Vol. 63, N 11. Р. 2190–2201.

Prinz W. Perception and action planning // European journal of cognitive psychology. 1997. Vol. 9, N 2. Р. 129–154.

Knoblich G., Prinz W. Linking perception and action: An ideomotor approach // Higher-order motor disorders. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2005. Р. 79–104. 87.

Джеймс У. Принципы психологии. М.: Педагогика, 1991. 368 с.

Müsseler J. Focusing and the process of pronominal resolution // Focus and coherence in discourse processing. London: Walter de Gruyter, 1995. Р. 52–73.

Müsseler J., Hommel B. Blindness to response-compatible stimuli // Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance. 1997. Vol. 23, N 3. Р. 861–871.

Ellis R., Tucker M. Micro-affordance: The potentiation of components of action by seen objects // British journal of psychology. 2000. Vol. 91, N 4. Р. 451–471.

Phillips J.C., Ward R. SR correspondence effects of irrelevant visual affordance: Time course and specificity of response activation // Visual cognition. 2002. Vol. 9, N 4–5. Р. 540–558.

Tucker M., Ellis R. Action priming by briefly presented objects // Acta psychologica. 2004. Vol. 116, N 2. Р. 185–203.