read 2 articles, then write 250 words response paper

PS62CH18-Phillips ARI 22 November 2010 8:34

Early Care, Education, and Child Development Deborah A. Phillips1 and Amy E. Lowenstein2 1 Department of Psychology, Georgetown University, Washington, DC 20057; email: [email protected] 2 Institute of Human Development and Social Change, New York University, New York, New York 10003; email: [email protected]

Annu. Rev. Psychol. 2011. 62:483–500

First published online as a Review in Advance on September 3, 2010

The Annual Review of Psychology is online at psych.annualreviews.org

This article’s doi: 10.1146/annurev.psych.031809.130707

Copyright c© 2011 by Annual Reviews. All rights reserved

0066-4308/11/0110-0483$20.00

Key Words

child care, Head Start, prekindergarten, public policy, developmental outcomes, ecological framework

Abstract

Children growing up in the United States today typically spend a sub- stantial portion of their early childhood years in early care and education (ECE) settings. These settings are thus an essential element of any ef- fort to understand the ecology of early development. Research aimed at identifying the short- and long-term impacts of ECE experiences has a long history, the results of which now point to three key conclusions. (a) Although parents are the most important influence on children’s de- velopment, ECE experiences have both short- and long-term impacts on a wide range of developmental outcomes that are best understood in interaction with family effects. (b) The quality of adult-child inter- actions in ECE settings is the most potent source of variation in child outcomes, although the amount of exposure to these settings also plays a role, perhaps especially with regard to social-emotional development. (c) Some children, notably those growing up in poverty, appear to be more vulnerable to variation in the quality of ECE settings than do other children. The frontiers of ECE research are addressing individ- ual differences in children’s responses to child care and approaching these settings both as sites for intervention research and as part of a wider web of important settings in young children’s lives.

483

A nn

u. R

ev . P

sy ch

ol . 2

01 1.

62 :4

83 -5

00 . D

ow nl

oa de

d fr

om w

w w

.a nn

ua lr

ev ie

w s.

or g

by S

an F

ra nc

is co

S ta

te U

ni ve

rs it

y on

0 8/

13 /1

4. F

or p

er so

na l

us e

on ly

.

PS62CH18-Phillips ARI 22 November 2010 8:34

Contents

EARLY CARE AND EDUCATION IN THE UNITED STATES . . . . . . 484

THE CURRENT LANDSCAPE OF EARLY CARE AND EDUCATION . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 485

CHILDREN’S EXPERIENCE OF EARLY CARE AND EDUCATION . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 486 Time in Care . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 486 Quality of Care . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 486

EVOLUTION OF RESEARCH ON EARLY CARE AND EDUCATION . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 488 Maternal Deprivation Framework . . 489 Ecological Framework . . . . . . . . . . . . . 489 Compensatory Education

Framework . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 490 THE EFFECTS OF EARLY CARE

AND EDUCATION . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 491 Child Care: Implications for the

Parent-Child Relationship . . . . . . . 491 Developmental Effects of Child

Care . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 491 Developmental Effects of Head

Start . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 492 Developmental Effects of Preschool

and State-Funded Pre-K . . . . . . . . 494 CONCLUSIONS AND

FUTURE DIRECTIONS . . . . . . . . . 494

EARLY CARE AND EDUCATION IN THE UNITED STATES

Second only to the immediate family, early care and education (ECE) settings are the context in which early development unfolds, starting in infancy and continuing through school entry for the vast majority of children in the United States. In 2005, 11.3 million children under the age of 5 were in some child care or early educa- tion arrangement while their mothers worked, including 1.9 million infants under the age of 1 (U.S. Bur. Census 2008). Although children have spent time outside the care of their moth-

ers throughout history (Lancaster & Lancaster 1987, Weisner & Gallimore 1977), the addition of paid ECE arrangements with nonrelatives to the repertoire of who cares for young children is a relatively new phenomenon. Parents and rela- tives continue to provide vast amounts of early child care, but 51% of preschoolers and 30% of infants and toddlers, irrespective of maternal employment status, are now in other arrange- ments (U.S. Bur. Census 2008).

The appropriately labeled “mixed delivery system” of ECE services and programs in the United States consists of a haphazard array of formal and informal arrangements, pro- grams, and funding streams. The services and programs span the dual purposes of enabling parents to work or engage in other activi- ties and to protect and foster the development and education of children. These purposes map onto distinctions between “day care” and “early education” or “preschool” that endure despite ample evidence that beneficial out- comes for children are associated with settings that provide both sensitive, nurturing adult- child interactions and support for early learning and development (Shonkoff & Phillips 2000).

This is not an accident but rather a result of multiple and conflicting values that have pro- vided the context within which ECE services have evolved in the United States. Of particu- lar significance for understanding the contem- porary landscape of ECE is the longstanding conflict between values that urge early interven- tion, as expressed in the Early Head Start and Head Start programs, and those that view child- rearing as a private family matter to be pro- tected from government intervention (Phillips 1984). Dating back to the mid-twentieth cen- tury, publicly provided care outside the family unit has been largely restricted to children of immigrant, impoverished, and minority fami- lies (Cohen 2001, Fein & Clarke-Stewart 1973, Gormley 1995, Steinfels 1973) and, on a tem- porary basis, during times of national crisis. In fact, the first federal expenditure on child care services occurred during World War II, when President Roosevelt agreed to use funds from the Lanham Act to help states pay for child care

484 Phillips · Lowenstein

A nn

u. R

ev . P

sy ch

ol . 2

01 1.

62 :4

83 -5

00 . D

ow nl

oa de

d fr

om w

w w

.a nn

ua lr

ev ie

w s.

or g

by S

an F

ra nc

is co

S ta

te U

ni ve

rs it

y on

0 8/

13 /1

4. F

or p

er so

na l

us e

on ly

.

PS62CH18-Phillips ARI 22 November 2010 8:34

centers so that an economy depleted of male workers, yet in dire need of a wartime work- force, could employ mothers. By 1948, how- ever, only California continued to support the worksite child care programs that had prolifer- ated as a result of these funds, resulting in the closure of over 2,000 centers. It was not until 1962, in the context of a welfare law, that the federal government again earmarked funds for child care, soon to be followed by the enactment of the Head Start program in 1965.

The legacy of these early actions is reflected in the lack of a coherent national ECE policy in the United States. Public policy for ECE is highly dispersed across:

� tax benefits, which support a small share of the child care costs of nonpoor families;

� income support policy in the form of sub- sidies for welfare-eligible families moving into the workforce;

� early education policy, which emphasizes early intervention and school readiness for low-income children;

� special education policy, which provides ECE services as part of early intervention services for children with special needs;

� higher education funds that support the postsecondary training and education of ECE providers/teachers; and

� defense policy, through the U.S. Mili- tary Child Care Act, which provides rela- tively high-quality child care for military families.

ECE policy in the United States is also highly decentralized, with the federal gov- ernment’s role largely restricted to providing funds, thus leaving most decisions regarding the structure and quality of ECE services, eligibility for these services, and funding priorities (e.g., to upgrade quality or serve more families) up to the states, in effect creating 50 ECE systems. Both federal and state support remain almost exclusively directed to families living in or near poverty, a notably distinct feature of child care in the United States compared to many other industrialized countries, where universal ECE is available starting at age 3 (Kamerman & Kahn 1995, Waldfogel 2006).

THE CURRENT LANDSCAPE OF EARLY CARE AND EDUCATION

This dispersal of responsibility for ECE across policy domains and levels of government is readily apparent in the contemporary landscape of ECE services. It is scattered with programs that are identified as providing early education, school readiness, and intervention services for children living in poverty, such as Early Head Start, Head Start, and the growing number of state prekindergarten (pre-K) programs for 4- year-olds; those that provide similar services to children with special needs through the In- dividuals with Disabilities Education Act; and those that are linked primarily to supporting maternal employment within the welfare sys- tem and thus focus on ensuring an adequate supply of arrangements with little regard to the quality of children’s experiences. The sem- blance of a delivery system is now emerging for low-income 4-year-olds, consisting of a mix of Head Start programs and state-funded pre-K programs, which now exist in 38 states and serve more children than Head Start serves (Barnett et al. 2008a). Three-year-olds are beginning to be embraced by this system as well. The re- maining, immense challenge concerns the lack of any comparable ECE delivery system for in- fants and toddlers.

It remains the case, nevertheless, that most families with young children, who are neither poor nor have a child with special needs, ar- range for the early care and education of their children privately and with little or no public assistance in paying for this care. On a regu- lar basis starting in 1985, the U.S. Census Bu- reau (2005a,b; 2008) has attempted to capture “Who’s Minding the Kids?”—the apt title of its recent reports on ECE arrangements. These reports make it evident that most families rely on a patchwork of arrangements over the early childhood period. These arrangements include every conceivable combination of care by moth- ers and fathers, who juggle work and nonwork schedules to maintain parental care; care by rel- atives; organized ECE in centers and preschool settings; and care by nonrelatives, including

www.annualreviews.org • Early Care and Education 485

A nn

u. R

ev . P

sy ch

ol . 2

01 1.

62 :4

83 -5

00 . D

ow nl

oa de

d fr

om w

w w

.a nn

ua lr

ev ie

w s.

or g

by S

an F

ra nc

is co

S ta

te U

ni ve

rs it

y on

0 8/

13 /1

4. F

or p

er so

na l

us e

on ly

.

PS62CH18-Phillips ARI 22 November 2010 8:34

nannies and family child care providers, who care for small groups of children in their homes. Figure 1 illustrates the regular ECE arrange- ments that families with employed mothers used in 2005. Importantly, 22% of parents of infants and toddlers and 28% of families with preschoolers relied on more than one arrange- ment simultaneously to meet their needs. Not illustrated are the arrangements used by the 29% of nonemployed mothers who also rely on regular ECE arrangements for their young children. Accurate portrayals of this patchwork have eluded researchers, who typically focus on the primary arrangement, knowing that this re- sults in a tremendous loss of information on children’s experiences.

CHILDREN’S EXPERIENCE OF EARLY CARE AND EDUCATION

Research has directed attention to the amount of time children spend in ECE settings and the quality of these settings as the aspects that ac- count for most of the variation in child impacts.

Time in Care

The most extensive data on the time young children spend in ECE settings come from the National Institute of Child Health and Human Development (NICHD) Study of Early Child Care and Youth Development (SECCYD) (NICHD Early Child Care Res. Netw. 2005a). This 10-site longitudinal study, which followed 1,364 children born in 1991 from infancy through elementary school, had as its primary purpose examining how variation in nonmaternal care and early education are related to children’s development. The study protocol involved regularly interviewing children’s parents about the arrangements they were relying upon starting at birth. The results have revealed a portrait of early, extensive, and uninterrupted (yet with frequent changes in arrangements) reliance on ECE arrangements. At the point of entry into ECE (at 3.11 months of age, on average), infants were enrolled for an average of 29 hours per week [NICHD Early

Child Care Research Network (ECCRN) 1997a]. This pattern is largely driven by maternal employment and particularly the mother’s work hours and her contribution to family income (NICHD ECCRN 1997b). A child’s first entry into ECE typically initiates an uninterrupted history of enrollment in various arrangements right up to kindergarten entry.

By 3 years of age, children in ECE averaged 34.4 hours in care per week, with 52% spending 30 or more hours on a weekly basis in their ar- rangement(s). This corresponds closely to the most recent Census data on hours in care (U.S. Bur. Census 2005), which indicate that chil- dren under the age of 5 with employed mothers spend an average of 36 hours per week in ECE arrangements, while children whose mothers are not employed spend an average of 18 hours per week in such arrangements.

Young children with special needs stand out from this pattern. They enter child care at older ages, spend less time in child care, and tend to be in informal arrangements with relatives to a greater extent than do typically developing chil- dren (Booth & Kelly 1998). This is likely the outcome of a set of factors including the dif- ficulty of working full time as the mother of a child with special needs, perceptions that these children are best cared for by their own par- ents, and a scarcity of inclusive ECE settings (Dinnebeil et al. 1998, Warfield & Hauser- Cram 1996).

Quality of Care

Extensive scholarly and popular materials have been written about the meaning of “quality” in the ECE field. The ultimate definition of qual- ity concerns those features of ECE that fos- ter positive developmental outcomes. With this as the criterion, there is fairly wide consensus about the ingredients of high-quality ECE set- tings. They are often divided into three tiers: the child-adult relationship and interactions (sometimes called “process” quality), structural features of care, and the surrounding commu- nity and policy context.

486 Phillips · Lowenstein

A nn

u. R

ev . P

sy ch

ol . 2

01 1.

62 :4

83 -5

00 . D

ow nl

oa de

d fr

om w

w w

.a nn

ua lr

ev ie

w s.

or g

by S

an F

ra nc

is co

S ta

te U

ni ve

rs it

y on

0 8/

13 /1

4. F

or p

er so

na l

us e

on ly

.

PS62CH18-Phillips ARI 22 November 2010 8:34

Adult-child relationship and interactions. The most proximal and influential aspect of quality is the nature of the relationship and interactions that transpire between the adult caregiver or teacher and the child. Across all types of settings, young children whose care- givers provide ample verbal and cognitive stim- ulation, are sensitive and responsive, and give children generous amounts of attention and support are more advanced in all realms of de- velopment compared to children who fail to re- ceive these important inputs (Cost, Quality, & Outcomes Team 1995; Lamb & Ahnert 2006; NICHD ECCRN 1998a, 2000, 2001; Phillips et al. 2006). Valid assessment of these facets of quality entails on-site observations. Some instruments assess multiple dimensions of the immediate environment that children experi- ence, as with the Early Childhood Environment Rating Scale (Harms & Clifford 1980, 1984). Some, such as the Classroom Assessment Scoring System, focus on the overall emo- tional and instructional climate of the setting (Pianta et al. 2008). Others, such as the Observational Record of the Caregiving En- vironment (NICHD ECCRN 1996), focus on interactions between the adults and children.

Regardless of the measurement instrument that is used, the overall portrait of proximal or “process” quality in the United States is one of extremely wide variation around a mean that has been characterized as “mediocre” (Natl. Sci. Counc. Dev. Child 2007, Shonkoff & Phillips 2000). For example, in the NICHD Study of Early Child Care (NICHD ECCRN 1996), one in four infant caregivers was moderately in- sensitive, only 26% were moderately or highly stimulating of cognitive development, and 19% were moderately or highly detached. This is especially troubling in light of emerging evi- dence that larger gains in cognitive-academic outcomes for children in ECE programs ac- crue when they experience care of high quality, and that improvements in ECE quality in the moderate to high range may be needed to yield long-term measurable impacts (Burchinal et al. 2010, Vandell et al. 2010).

In addition to the one-on-one relationship that the caregiver/teacher establishes with each child, her role in fostering positive social inter- actions among children in group ECE settings has received growing attention. This is the re- sult of emerging evidence that the social oppor- tunities and challenges posed by peer groups play an important role in how young children adapt and react to their ECE experiences (Fabes et al. 2003, Phillips et al. 2010).

Another aspect of this proximal tier of qual- ity concerns the stability of the ECE workforce. More stable providers and teachers have been found to engage in more appropriate, atten- tive, and engaged interactions with the chil- dren in their care (Helburn 1995, Howes et al. 1992). Unfortunately, stability is rare in this field. Turnover rates among ECE providers and teachers are among the highest of any profes- sion that is tracked by the U.S. Department of Labor (U.S. Bur. Labor Statistics 2008), hover- ing at 30% per year. In the only available lon- gitudinal study of the center-based ECE work- force, three-quarters of ECE teachers had left their jobs after four years (Whitebook & Sakai 2004). It is widely accepted that the low salaries of this workforce are a major determinant of high turnover (Whitebook & Bellm 1999). In 2008, for example, the average hourly wage of a child care worker was $9.73, with an an- nual wage of $19,264 (U.S. Dept. Labor 2009). This falls below the hourly wage of animal and pest control workers, amusement park atten- dants, hairdressers, and janitors. It also falls be- low the 2008 poverty threshold of $21,834 for a family of four with two children. Preschool teachers fare somewhat better, with an average hourly wage of $16.19 and annual earnings of $28,647, but they still earn barely half of what kindergarten teachers earn ($33.54 hourly, on average).

Structural features of ECE. The second tier of quality consists of structural features of ECE settings that are associated with sensitive and stimulating adult-child interactions and thus with improved child outcomes (Love et al. 1996,

www.annualreviews.org • Early Care and Education 487

A nn

u. R

ev . P

sy ch

ol . 2

01 1.

62 :4

83 -5

00 . D

ow nl

oa de

d fr

om w

w w

.a nn

ua lr

ev ie

w s.

or g

by S

an F

ra nc

is co

S ta

te U

ni ve

rs it

y on

0 8/

13 /1

4. F

or p

er so

na l

us e

on ly

.

PS62CH18-Phillips ARI 22 November 2010 8:34

NICHD ECCRN 2002). The most commonly studied features are (a) the experience and edu- cational backgrounds (amount, degrees, areas of specialization) of the caregivers/teachers, which are assumed to capture their professional com- petence and skill level (as well as their level of career commitment), (b) the total number of children in the setting (group size), and (c) the ratio of children to adults, which captures the demands on an individual caregiver’s time and capacity to provide sensitive care and effective early education. Extensive, but not entirely con- sistent, evidence documents the role of each of these features in supporting higher-quality care for young children. Importantly, it appears that fairly minor changes in ratios and group sizes can affect the quality of care that children re- ceive. For example, infants in centers with ratios of three or fewer children per caregiver have been found to receive significantly more sen- sitive and appropriate care (Howes et al. 1992) and to score a standard deviation above those in centers with larger ratios on a measure of com- munication skills (Burchinal et al. 1996). With regard to experience and education, there is on- going debate about the thresholds above which these qualifications are consistently linked to higher-quality care.

Community and policy context. The final tier of quality consists of the broader commu- nity and policy environment, or macrosystem, in which ECE services operate in the United States. Important elements of this environment include the regulatory and financing structures that bear on the delivery of ECE services. In every state some, but by no means all, ECE programs are required to comply with regu- lations that establish a floor of quality below which children’s safety and development are presumably compromised. States vary widely in both the stringency and enforcement of these regulations (e.g., provider-child ratios for in- fant care currently range from 1:3 to 1:12; most states permit infants and toddlers to be cared for by staff who have not completed high school), and there are no national standards to ensure even a modicum of consistency (Marsland et al.

2003, Phillips et al. 1990). Yet, children who attend ECE programs that meet recommended standards for components that are regulated (e.g., ratios, group size, provider education) have higher cognitive and language test scores (Clarke-Stewart et al. 2002, NICHD ECCRN 2001).

With regard to financing, the majority of families in the United States do not receive as- sistance with payments for ECE services de- spite relatively high costs. As of 2005, the av- erage family paid $129 weekly (which annual- izes to $6,708) for all children under 5 years of age. These payments amount to 29% of family income for those living in poverty and 6.1% of family income for those living above the poverty line (U.S. Bur. Census 2008). The relation between the immediate costs of ECE and the quality of the services that are pro- vided is enormously difficult to estimate given significant contributions of subsidies, in-kind services, and geographic variation, for exam- ple. Available data do, however, suggest that there is a positive, albeit weak, association be- tween cost and quality and that—at least for preschool-age ECE—there may be a thresh- old at a fairly low level of quality above which costs are higher than they are below this thresh- old (Levin & Schwartz 2007, Marshall et al. 2004).

EVOLUTION OF RESEARCH ON EARLY CARE AND EDUCATION

Research on ECE has evolved over time in par- allel fashion to the evolution of national policy and debates on this topic. The salience of con- cerns about maternal deprivation in an initial wave of research on ECE gave way to a more ecological approach that increasingly embed- ded efforts to understand the effects of ECE in the context of family influences on child devel- opment. At the same time, a parallel research literature, grounded in theory about compen- satory education, focused on the capacity of ECE programs and services to alter the de- velopmental trajectories of children living in poverty.

488 Phillips · Lowenstein

A nn

u. R

ev . P

sy ch

ol . 2

01 1.

62 :4

83 -5

00 . D

ow nl

oa de

d fr

om w

w w

.a nn

ua lr

ev ie

w s.

or g

by S

an F

ra nc

is co

S ta

te U

ni ve

rs it

y on

0 8/

13 /1

4. F

or p

er so

na l

us e

on ly

.

PS62CH18-Phillips ARI 22 November 2010 8:34

Maternal Deprivation Framework

Initially, research on child care was framed in the context of prior research on maternal de- privation (McCartney & Phillips 1988, Natl. Res. Counc. 1990). The central question, in effect, was whether child care—because it in- volved maternal separation—constituted a mild form of orphanage care. The basic methodol- ogy involved comparing young children who regularly spent time away from their mothers in an ECE arrangement to those who did not. Outcome measurement focused on mother- child attachment and problem behavior. In summarizing this era of research, the National Research Council (1990) concluded that child care was found to be neither inherently harmful nor beneficial. The important legacies of this initial era of research were to direct a second wave of ECE research beyond simple compar- isons of children in and not in the full-time care of their mothers to variation in the ECE envi- ronments that young children experience, and to call attention to the serious issue of selection effects, namely, effects ascribed to ECE that actually arise from the fact that families select ECE environments for their children (implying that “ECE effects” perhaps should be ascribed, at least in part, to family factors).

Ecological Framework

Not coincidentally, these new foci of ECE research emerged as ecological models were becoming prominent within developmental psychology (Bronfenbrenner 1979, Bronfen- brenner & Morris 1998). Bronfenbrenner proposed that the developing child sits at the center of an ecological web, starting with the child’s immediate setting, the microsystem, and working outward in a series of nested contexts that influence human development in complex ways. As growing numbers of young children were beginning to straddle two microsystems— the family and ECE settings—researchers be- gan to pay attention to the fact that children’s ECE experiences are the result of a multitude of decisions on the part of parents, including

whether to use nonparental care, and if so, the age at which their children will enter ECE, the type of ECE setting used, and the amount of time spent in care. These decisions, in turn, are a function of a bundle of “selection” factors in- cluding parental attitudes and values regarding ECE, family circumstances (such as maternal employment status and family income), and demographic characteristics. In an attempt to understand these selection factors, the second wave of research on ECE focused on interrelationships between the family and the ECE setting, also known as the mesosystem. Rounding out the ecological model are the exosystem and macrosystem, the outermost layers that capture the parents’ worksites, governmental systems, broad patterns of ideology, and public policies that influence the ECE setting and children’s experiences in it.

Among the most important selection factors is family income. Children from higher-income families spend more time in nonparental care than do those from lower-income families (Capizzano & Main 2005) and are more likely to be cared for in center-based settings than are their low-income peers (35% versus 26%) (Capizzano et al. 2000). In contrast, low-income children are more likely to be in relative care (28% versus 20%) or parent care (28% versus 21%) (Capizzano et al. 2000). Family income is also related to ECE quality, such that lower income is associated with lower quality in all types of arrangements except center-based programs (Galinsky et al. 1994, NICHD ECCRN 1997b, Phillips et al. 1994). In center-based arrangements, lower- and middle-income families receive lower-quality care than do families living in poverty or those with high incomes, probably as a result of access for children living in poverty (but not others) to public subsidies and programs such as Early Head Start, Head Start, and state pre-K programs ( Johnson & Brooks-Gunn 2010, NICHD ECCRN 1997b, Ryan et al. 2010). These programs are targeted to children growing up in poverty and tend to offer relatively higher-quality care and educa- tion than other programs that are available and

www.annualreviews.org • Early Care and Education 489

A nn

u. R

ev . P

sy ch

ol . 2

01 1.

62 :4

83 -5

00 . D

ow nl

oa de

d fr

om w

w w

.a nn

ua lr

ev ie

w s.

or g

by S

an F

ra nc

is co

S ta

te U

ni ve

rs it

y on

0 8/

13 /1

4. F

or p

er so

na l

us e

on ly

.

PS62CH18-Phillips ARI 22 November 2010 8:34

financially accessible to these children. There are also racial/ethnic differences in the type of ECE that parents select for their children, although these selection effects become quite small when other demographic characteristics are controlled (Singer et al. 1998). Black children are more likely than white or His- panic children to have center-based care as their primary child care arrangement (44%), Hispanic children are least likely to be in center-based care (20%), and white children fall in the middle (32%) (Capizzano et al. 2006). Hispanic parents tend to prefer relative care for their young children.

Initially, scientists attempted to address the role of selection effects by statistically controlling for family variables when modeling the effects of ECE on children’s developmental outcomes (McCartney 2006). More recently, a third wave of research on ECE has attempted to understand, rather than control for, family factors as they interact with children’s experi- ences in ECE to affect development. Efforts to assess family moderators of child care effects exemplify this third wave of research. Using an ecological approach to characterize niches defined by family and child care risk, recent findings have indicated that a high-quality, naturally occurring child care or preschool setting can protect young children from the negative behavioral (Watamura et al. 2011) and academic (Burchinal et al. 2010) impacts of a low-quality home environment (labeled a compensatory effect). Watamura et al. (2011) further reported that a high-quality home environment was consistently protective, but to a greater extent when children were also in high-quality child care, reflecting the benefit of “double protection.” Similarly, Votruba-Drzal et al. (2004) found that high-quality child care benefited low-income children’s reading skill development, but only when coupled with a stimulating home environment. It is now widely accepted that understanding child development involves capturing dynamic inter- actions, cumulative impacts, and compensatory mechanisms as they operate across the salient environments in young children’s lives, of

which the home and ECE settings are typically the most prominent and influential.

Compensatory Education Framework

Running alongside these waves of research on child care, a sister literature has examined the effects of early intervention programs for chil- dren in poverty, guided by prevailing views about compensatory education. Interest in the effects of early intervention in the lives of low- income children in the United States dates back to the late 1950s and early 1960s, when new research suggested that early environ- mental deprivation led to suboptimal cogni- tive development (Zigler & Hall 2000, Zigler & Muenchow 1992) and that early enrichment programs could counter these negative effects (Bloom 1964, Hunt 1961). Amid the national optimism and fiscal prosperity that character- ized the United States in the early 1960s, early intervention came to be seen as a means of per- manently enhancing the development of low- income children and possibly even wiping out poverty itself (Zigler & Hall 2000). In con- trast to child care in the United States, where the emphasis has historically been on providing custodial care to children while their parents work, compensatory early intervention empha- sizes school readiness and the provision of high- quality care in an attempt to compensate for suboptimal home environments.

The Head Start program is perhaps the greatest legacy of this framework. Begun in 1965, Head Start is a federally funded com- prehensive child development program whose goal is to promote the school readiness of low-income children by providing them with comprehensive services, including preschool education; medical, dental, and mental health care; nutrition services; and parent- involvement efforts (U.S. Dept. Health Human Serv. 2010a). Together with Early Head Start, created in 1994 to serve pregnant mothers and children from birth to age 3, Head Start provides comprehensive ECE services to more than one million low-income children and their families per year (Natl. Head Start Assoc. 2009).

490 Phillips · Lowenstein

A nn

u. R

ev . P

sy ch

ol . 2

01 1.

62 :4

83 -5

00 . D

ow nl

oa de

d fr

om w

w w

.a nn

ua lr

ev ie

w s.

or g

by S

an F

ra nc

is co

S ta

te U

ni ve

rs it

y on

0 8/

13 /1

4. F

or p

er so

na l

us e

on ly

.

PS62CH18-Phillips ARI 22 November 2010 8:34

Two other model demonstrations of the compensatory education approach are the Perry Preschool Project and the Abecedarian Project, begun in 1962 and 1972, respectively. These programs were designed as randomized experiments to assess the impacts of support- ing the cognitive and socio-emotional devel- opment of young, at-risk children through the provision of intensive, high-quality early edu- cation and family support services. Participants were followed through adulthood. The posi- tive, long-term impacts yielded by these pro- grams have been championed as evidence that high-quality early education programs can have long-lasting beneficial effects on low-income children’s cognitive, academic, and social and emotional functioning (Campbell et al. 2002, Schweinhart 2004). However, these carefully constructed, high-quality, and expensive pro- grams do not reflect the assortment of scaled- up ECE programs available to the majority of low-income families with young children to- day. Furthermore, demographic changes and changes in the ECE landscape over the past 40 years—notably, ongoing increases in mater- nal employment and the growing number of state pre-K programs focused on low-income children—have rendered the counterfactuals for these programs, which consisted largely of children at home with their mothers, increas- ingly irrelevant.

THE EFFECTS OF EARLY CARE AND EDUCATION

Empirical research examining the effects of ECE experiences on children has developed along three relatively unconnected strands fo- cused on child care, Head Start, and state- funded pre-K programs. Research on child care has been guided by concerns about whether the mother-infant relationship will be harmed or diminished in significance or will have reduced impacts on children’s social and cognitive de- velopment. Research on Head Start, in con- trast, has been guided by efforts to document the positive impacts of this early intervention program on children’s development, broadly

defined. The newest line of research on state pre-K programs shares more in common with Head Start than with child care research.

Child Care: Implications for the Parent-Child Relationship

One of the oldest questions about the effects of child care on children concerns whether time spent in nonparental care attenuates the effects of the family on children’s development. The evidence on this matter is clear: Associations between family factors and child outcomes do not differ between children in extensive child care and those with little to no exposure to child care (Clark-Stewart et al. 1994, NICHD EC- CRN 1998b). In response to longstanding con- cerns about whether time spent in child care (and, therefore, apart from the mother) might interfere with mother-child attachment, the ev- idence is similarly consistent. There is no sig- nificant, direct effect of child care experience (quantity, quality, or type) on children’s at- tachment security at either 15 or 36 months (NICHD ECCRN 1997c, 2001). Regardless of early care experience, maternal sensitivity is the strongest predictor of preschool attach- ment classification. Significant interactions fur- ther reveal that infants are less likely to be se- cure when low maternal sensitivity is combined with poor-quality child care, extensive hours in care, or more than one child care arrangement. These findings support a dual-risk model of de- velopment (Werner & Smith 1992).

Developmental Effects of Child Care

Efforts to identify the conditions of care that af- fect children’s development have led to a focus on the relation between child care quality and children’s cognitive and language out- comes, and on the relation between quan- tity of care and children’s social-emotional development, especially problem behavior. With regard to the first question, the Cost, Quality, and Outcomes (CQO) study of 418 children nested within 176 child care centers in four states found that high-quality care was

www.annualreviews.org • Early Care and Education 491

A nn

u. R

ev . P

sy ch

ol . 2

01 1.

62 :4

83 -5

00 . D

ow nl

oa de

d fr

om w

w w

.a nn

ua lr

ev ie

w s.

or g

by S

an F

ra nc

is co

S ta

te U

ni ve

rs it

y on

0 8/

13 /1

4. F

or p

er so

na l

us e

on ly

.

PS62CH18-Phillips ARI 22 November 2010 8:34

associated with a range of cognitive and lan- guage outcomes, even after controlling for family background characteristics such as so- cial class (Cost, Quality, & Outcomes Team 1995). Similar findings have emerged from the NICHD Study of Early Child Care.

Quality of child care was consistently but modestly related to cognitive (e.g., memory, problem-solving, letter identification, num- ber/counting) and language outcomes at 15, 24, 36, and 54 months, even after control- ling for multiple child and family characteris- tics (NICHD ECCRN 2000, 2002; NICHD & Duncan 2003). Longer-term outcomes from both the NICHD and CQO studies provide ev- idence that child care quality has modest long- term effects on children’s language ability, math ability, memory, and attention skills through kindergarten, and in some cases through the later elementary and middle-school grades (Belsky et al. 2007, NICHD ECCRN 2005b, Peisner-Feinberg et al. 2001, Vandell et al. 2010). Stronger positive effects of child care quality have sometimes been found for chil- dren from more at-risk backgrounds (Peisner- Feinberg et al. 2001). Evidence from studies of home-based care suggests that variation in the quality of these settings is also associated with variation in cognitive and language develop- ment at 15, 24, and 36 months (Clarke-Stewart et al. 2002).

The literature on naturally occurring pat- terns of child care use and children’s socio- emotional development is characterized by two conflicting stories. On the one hand, a large body of research suggests that child care is detrimental to children’s social development. On the other hand, there is growing evidence that child care programs can benefit aspects of children’s socio-emotional adjustment, espe- cially when program quality is high, and espe- cially among children from low-income fami- lies. The first “negative” pattern of findings has been borne out most consistently in results of the NICHD SECCYD. Results from this and other studies indicate that the more hours chil- dren spend in nonmaternal care, the more be- havior problems and conflict with adults they

show at age 2, age 4-1/2, in kindergarten, and in both elementary and middle school (Belsky et al. 2007; Côté et al. 2008; Loeb et al. 2007; NICHD ECCRN 1998a, 2002, 2003, 2005a; Vandell & Corasaniti 1990; Vandell et al. 2010).

In most cases, the effects remain even af- ter controlling for child care quality. However, there is emerging evidence from the NICHD study that child care quality may moderate the effect of hours in care on children’s externaliz- ing behavior. Specifically, child care hours were found to be more strongly related to external- izing behavior when children were in low- ver- sus high-quality care (McCartney et al. 2010). Recent work using the NICHD sample has also identified a specific link between the num- ber of hours spent in center-based care dur- ing the first 4-1/2 years of life and children’s teacher-reported behavior problems through sixth grade (Belsky et al. 2007), although this finding was not replicated at age 15 (Vandell et al. 2010). This pattern of findings is con- sistent with other evidence that long hours in care are more strongly related to externaliz- ing behavior when children are in care with large groups of peers (McCartney et al. 2010). Children from low-income families show a somewhat different pattern of findings in which no negative behavioral effects of center-based care are found when quality of care is controlled (Loeb et al. 2004, Votruba-Drzal et al. 2004). Furthermore, when quality is high, spending more hours in nonmaternal care actually leads to decreases in low-income children’s behavior problems (Votruba-Drzal et al. 2004).

Developmental Effects of Head Start

Since its creation, Head Start has been the sub- ject of hundreds of studies. These have gener- ally found that the program has small, short- term positive effects on children’s cognitive and social development (e.g., Lee et al. 1990, Love et al. 2006, McKey et al. 1985, Zill et al. 2003). Only in recent years have social scien- tists been able to design studies of Head Start and Early Head Start that can more credibly identify the programs’ causal impacts on child

492 Phillips · Lowenstein

A nn

u. R

ev . P

sy ch

ol . 2

01 1.

62 :4

83 -5

00 . D

ow nl

oa de

d fr

om w

w w

.a nn

ua lr

ev ie

w s.

or g

by S

an F

ra nc

is co

S ta

te U

ni ve

rs it

y on

0 8/

13 /1

4. F

or p

er so

na l

us e

on ly

.

PS62CH18-Phillips ARI 22 November 2010 8:34

development. Results of the randomized exper- imental Head Start Impact Study suggest that the program benefits low-income children’s cognitive and social development in the short term but has few longer-term effects. Benefits to cognitive development extend to assessments of vocabulary, letter-word identification, pre- academic skills, and parent-reported emergent literacy at the end of the program year (U.S. Dept. Health Human Serv. 2005). Children who entered as 3-year-olds showed somewhat stronger impacts, which also included pre-math skills, than did children who entered as 4-year- olds. Program participation was also related to reductions in parent-reported overall problem behaviors and hyperactivity for 3-year-olds but not 4-year-olds. Significant effects were quite modest in size, albeit consistent with other ev- idence on high-quality programs. However, by the end of first grade, there were few signifi- cant impacts of Head Start participation. Chil- dren who participated in the program as 4- year-olds displayed significantly higher vocab- ulary scores than children in the control group, and those who participated as 3-year-olds per- formed better on a standardized test of oral comprehension (U.S. Dept. Health Human Serv. 2010b). With regard to socio-emotional outcomes, there was some evidence that the 3- year-old cohort had closer and more positive re- lationships with their parents by the end of first grade, but findings for 4-year-olds were incon- sistent. Importantly, however, dual-language learners and children with special needs ben- efited more from Head Start participation than did other groups, with significant first-grade impacts documented for math skills, language skills (dual-language learners only), and social skills (children with special needs only).

A number of explanations have been offered for the lack of long-term effects of participation in Head Start (Natl. Forum Early Child. Policy Prog. 2010). First, it appears that the children in the control group caught up to their peers in the Head Start treatment group during the first two years of school, suggesting that chil- dren’s experiences in school might have con- tributed to the absence of program impacts at

the end of first grade. Second, the ECE experi- ences of the children in the treatment and con- trol groups were much more similar than the treatment and control conditions in most ran- domized experiments. About half of 4-year-olds and 40% of 3-year-olds in the control group were enrolled in center-based ECE soon after the study began. Furthermore, one year later, some of the 3-year-olds in the control group enrolled in Head Start, which they were free to do after the initial program year. The more similar the experiences of children in the treat- ment and control groups, the less likely it is that the two groups will differ in their outcomes. Finally, the quality of Head Start programs in the study was variable, with fewer than 5% of 4-year-olds in programs that received an “excel- lent” quality rating. More research is needed to understand which features of Head Start pro- grams and classrooms are related to children’s positive developmental outcomes and how to improve the quality of these features.

Findings from the equally rigorous, ran- domized experimental Early Head Start (EHS) Impact Study suggest that the program has both short- and longer-term effects on low-income children’s development. In the short term, EHS children performed better on measures of cog- nition, language, and socio-emotional func- tioning at age 3 than did their peers who did not receive EHS (Admin. Child. Fam. 2006). Longer-term results from the age-5 follow-up reveal that children who participated in formal ECE programs (i.e., center-based child care, Head Start, or pre-K) after age 3 showed better early reading-related skills but also increased levels of parent-reported aggressive behavior. However, those who attended EHS as infants and toddlers before entering formal care dis- played significantly lower levels of aggression than did those who did not attend EHS (Admin. Child. Fam. 2006). In short, children who expe- rienced both EHS and formal ECE programs after age 3 received the benefits of EHS and the improved reading-related skills associated with formal programs, without the increase in ag- gressive behavior. Taken together, the research on Head Start and Early Head Start suggests

www.annualreviews.org • Early Care and Education 493

A nn

u. R

ev . P

sy ch

ol . 2

01 1.

62 :4

83 -5

00 . D

ow nl

oa de

d fr

om w

w w

.a nn

ua lr

ev ie

w s.

or g

by S

an F

ra nc

is co

S ta

te U

ni ve

rs it

y on

0 8/

13 /1

4. F

or p

er so

na l

us e

on ly

.

PS62CH18-Phillips ARI 22 November 2010 8:34

that earlier enrollment in and/or greater expo- sure to these programs across the early child- hood years reaps greater benefits.

Developmental Effects of Preschool and State-Funded Pre-K

A small but burgeoning body of research has focused on the effects of participation in state- funded pre-K programs on children’s develop- mental outcomes and has found a mixture of positive and negative effects. Each of the studies discussed below used advanced statistical meth- ods to address the problem of selection bias.

Gormley et al. (2005) examined the effects of participation in Tulsa, Oklahoma’s high- quality, universal pre-K program on children’s cognitive development by comparing “young” kindergarten children who just completed pre- K to “old” pre-K children just beginning pre- K. Large impacts exceeding those reported for other state-funded pre-K programs and high- quality child care programs were found on standardized tests of early literacy and pre- math learning. The program benefited chil- dren from all racial/ethnic groups as well as children from diverse income brackets. Gorm- ley and colleagues have also reported positive impacts of pre-K participation on children’s social-emotional development in the form of reduced timidity and enhanced attentiveness in the classroom (Gormley et al. 2010). In a sepa- rate analysis focused solely on low-income chil- dren, as defined by their eligibility for either a free or reduced-price lunch, Lowenstein et al. (2009) also found that participation in pre-K was associated with lower levels of timidity and higher levels of attentiveness at kindergarten entry.

Using a sample of more than 5,000 chil- dren enrolled in state-funded pre-K pro- grams and the same methodological ap- proach used by Gormley et al. (2005), Barnett et al. (2007) estimated the ef- fects of pre-K participation on children’s learning at kindergarten entry. They found evidence of positive effects on language, liter- acy, and math skills. Effects on print aware-

ness were particularly large, followed by gains in math and language skills. There was also evi- dence of state-level variation in program effects.

Evidence from analyses of a nationally rep- resentative dataset, the Early Childhood Lon- gitudinal Study-Kindergarten Cohort (Magnu- son et al. 2007), indicates that participation in both pre-K and other types of center-based care (“preschool”), as defined by parents, was asso- ciated with higher reading and math skills at school entry, but also increased aggression and decreased self-control. By the spring of first grade, the effects on academic skills had largely disappeared, but the negative behavioral effects persisted. As in the child care literature, larger and longer-lasting effects on academic gains were found for economically disadvantaged children. Magnuson et al. (2007) also found no negative socio-emotional effects among public school children whose pre-K and kindergarten classrooms were located in the same school (as is generally the case in Tulsa), a finding that sug- gests that pre-K programs located in the pub- lic schools may generate the greatest return on public investment in early education.

CONCLUSIONS AND FUTURE DIRECTIONS

Research on the developmental effects of chil- dren’s experiences with ECE, as provided in the United States, offers an excellent exam- ple of a cumulative line of inquiry that has evolved relatively systematically over a period of decades. The legacy of this research is clear documentation that sometimes ECE environ- ments pose risks to young children, sometimes they confer benefits, but their impacts are best understood in conjunction with other potent influences—notably family resources and the quality of parental care—on early development. The driving questions for the vast majority of this research have been whether and under what conditions ECE confers risk or protec- tion. Both the amount of exposure and the qual- ity of the instructional and social transactions that form young children’s ECE experiences af- fect the trajectories they will follow when they

494 Phillips · Lowenstein

A nn

u. R

ev . P

sy ch

ol . 2

01 1.

62 :4

83 -5

00 . D

ow nl

oa de

d fr

om w

w w

.a nn

ua lr

ev ie

w s.

or g

by S

an F

ra nc

is co

S ta

te U

ni ve

rs it

y on

0 8/

13 /1

4. F

or p

er so

na l

us e

on ly

.

PS62CH18-Phillips ARI 22 November 2010 8:34

encounter formal schooling and move into the middle-childhood years.

Relatively neglected until very recently have been questions about for whom ECE confers risk or protection. The frontiers of science in this area are directed at the following ques- tions, each of which carries the potential to advance understanding of the mechanisms by which ECE experience affects the paths that children follow toward problematic or promis- ing futures:

� How do individual differences in neuro- biologically based responses to stress af- fect children’s experiences in and devel- opmental impacts of exposure to ECE settings? Neurobiological studies have implicated child care experiences in the early development of physiological pro- cesses that govern the regulation of stress (Geoffroy et al. 2006, Gunnar et al. 2010, Vermeer & van IJzendoorn 2006). Such findings point to the importance of con- sidering physiologically based processes as mediators of ECE impacts.

� How do individual differences in temper- ament affect children’s short- and longer- term responses to variation in ECE ex- periences? Using notions of biological sensitivity to context, temperament re- searchers working in collaboration with ECE researchers are beginning to iden- tify children with highly inhibited, so- cially reticent temperaments as a group for whom variation in the quality of ECE settings matters more than it does for children with other temperamental styles (Phillips et al. 2010, Pluess & Belsky 2010).

� In light of evidence that children liv- ing in poverty benefit more than others from high-quality ECE settings, what can be learned about the sensitivity of other vulnerable groups, such as children with special needs or those who are En- glish language learners, to these settings? A logical and important next step will

involve examining the role that more bi- ologically based indicators of risk (e.g., stress reactivity, temperament, special needs status) play in conjunction with more environmentally based risk factors to affect the developmental impacts of ECE (Phillips et al. 2010).

The evolving landscape of ECE for preschoolers, and especially the rapid growth in both state pre-K programs and knowledge about effective instructional approaches for young children, has opened up an additional set of new scientific questions:

� As growing numbers of 4-year-olds spend time in formal ECE settings that are explicitly designed to prepare them for kindergarten entry, a language around is- sues of “alignment” has emerged in the ECE field. There is a pressing need to op- erationalize this construct and assess the variety of ways in which explicit bridges can be built across pre-K and kinder- garten settings to support children’s suc- cessful transition to school and help them maintain the academic and social gains made in pre-K (Bogard & Takanishi 2005).

� Along the same lines, there is a press- ing need to consider ECE environments as part of a broader matrix of important settings in young children’s lives, includ- ing child welfare agencies and health and mental health care systems.

� Both Head Start and pre-K programs have become popular “laboratories” for implementing and evaluating a new gen- eration of early intervention strategies. These initiatives emphasize the integra- tion of early literacy and social-emotional curricula as well as support for early self- regulatory skills (Barnett et al. 2008b, Bierman et al. 2008, Diamond et al. 2007). New findings in this area shed light on promising avenues for future research and effective program design (e.g., Raver et al. 2009).

www.annualreviews.org • Early Care and Education 495

A nn

u. R

ev . P

sy ch

ol . 2

01 1.

62 :4

83 -5

00 . D

ow nl

oa de

d fr

om w

w w

.a nn

ua lr

ev ie

w s.

or g

by S

an F

ra nc

is co

S ta

te U

ni ve

rs it

y on

0 8/

13 /1

4. F

or p

er so

na l

us e

on ly

.

PS62CH18-Phillips ARI 22 November 2010 8:34

SUMMARY POINTS

1. There is no coherent system of early care and education in the United States, but rather a mixed delivery system in which different options ranging from next-door neighbors to school-based pre-K programs are available to and preferred by families with differing needs and resources, children of different ages, and groups defined by race, ethnicity, and culture.

2. The typical young child in the United States enters ECE within the first few months of life, spends the better part of most days there, and changes arrangements fairly frequently prior to school entry—a portrait that is driven largely by mothers’ employment patterns.

3. The quality of ECE arrangements varies tremendously around an average that has been repeatedly characterized and documented to be mediocre with regard to their capacity to promote positive developmental outcomes.

4. Research on child care has focused on how various features, notably the timing and amount of exposure, type and stability of care, and level of quality, affect the typical course of development.

5. Results suggest that sometimes ECE experiences pose risks to young children, sometimes they confer benefits, but most often they play a less powerful—albeit significant and cumulative—role in the context of family influences. Indeed, it is now widely recognized that ECE effects are most appropriately studied in interaction with family effects on early development.

6. Future research on ECE should explore the contribution of individual differences among children (e.g., in temperamental styles, stress reactivity, special needs status), include measurement of regulatory capacities and stress responses, include children with spe- cial needs, examine ECE-elementary school alignment, and continue work that embeds promising early childhood interventions within a range of ECE settings.

DISCLOSURE STATEMENT

The authors are not aware of any affiliations, memberships, funding, or financial holdings that might be perceived as affecting the objectivity of this review.

LITERATURE CITED Admin. Child. Fam. 2006. Preliminary Findings from the Early Head Start Prekindergarten Followup. Washington,

DC: U.S. Dept. Health Human Serv. Barnett WS, Epstein DJ, Friedman AH, Boyd JS, Hustedt JT. 2008a. The State of Preschool 2008. New

Brunswick, NJ: Rutgers Grad. School Educ. Barnett WS, Jung K, Wong V, Cook T, Lamy C. 2007, October. Effects of Five State Prekindergarten Programs

on Early Learning. http://nieer.org/docs/?DocID=129 Barnett WS, Jung K, Yarosz DJ, Thomas J, Hornbeck A, et al. 2008b. Educational effects of the Tools of the

Mind curriculum: a randomized trail. Early Child. Res. Q. 23(3):299–313 Belsky J, Vandell DL, Burchinal M, Clarke-Stewart KA, McCartney K, et al. 2007. Are there long-term effects

of early child care? Child Dev. 78(2):681–701 Bierman KL, Domitrovich CE, Nix RL, Gest SD, Welsh JA, et al. 2008. Promoting academic and social-

emotional school readiness: the Head Start REDI Program. Child Dev. 79(6):1802–17 Bloom BS. 1964. Stability and Change in Human Characteristics. New York: Wiley

496 Phillips · Lowenstein

A nn

u. R

ev . P

sy ch

ol . 2

01 1.

62 :4

83 -5

00 . D

ow nl

oa de

d fr

om w

w w

.a nn

ua lr

ev ie

w s.

or g

by S

an F

ra nc

is co

S ta

te U

ni ve

rs it

y on

0 8/

13 /1

4. F

or p

er so

na l

us e

on ly

.

PS62CH18-Phillips ARI 22 November 2010 8:34

Bogard K, Takanishi R. 2005. PK-3: An aligned and coordinated approach to education for children 3 to 8 years old. SRCD Soc. Policy Rep. 19(3):3–23

Booth CL, Kelly JF. 1998. Child care characteristics of infants with and without special needs. Early Child. Res. Q. 13:603–21

Bronfenbrenner U. 1979. The Ecology of Human Development: Experiments by Nature and Design. Cambridge, MA: Harvard Univ. Press

Bronfenbrenner U, Morris PA. 1998. The ecology of developmental processes. In Handbook of Child Psychology: Theoretical Models of Human Development, Vol. 1, ed. R Lerner, pp. 993–1028. New York: Wiley. 5th ed.

Burchinal MR, Roberts JE, Nabors LA, Bryant DM. 1996. Quality of center child care and infant cognitive and language development. Child Dev. 67:606–20

Burchinal MR, Vandergrift N, Pianta R, Mashburn A. 2010. Threshold analysis of association between child care quality and child outcomes for low-income children in pre-kindergarten programs. Early Child. Res. Q. 25(2):166–76

Campbell FA, Ramey CT, Pungello E, Sparling J, Miller-Johnson S. 2002. Early childhood education: young adult outcomes from the Abecedarian Project. Appl. Dev. Sci. 6(1):42–57

Capizzano J, Adams G, Ost J. 2006. Caring for children of color: the child care patterns of white, black, and Hispanic children under 5. Occas. Pap. No. 72: Exec. Summary. Washington, DC: Urban Inst.

Capizzano J, Adams G, Sonenstein F. 2000. Child Care Arrangements for Children Under Five: Variation Across States. Washington, DC: Urban Inst.

Capizzano J, Main R. 2005. Many young children spend long hours in child care. Snapshots of America’s families. Ser. No. 22. Washington, DC: Urban Inst.

Clarke-Stewart KA, Gruber C, Fitzgerald L. 1994. Children at Home and in Day Care. Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum Clarke-Stewart KA, Vandell DL, Burchinal M, O’Brien M, McCartney K. 2002. Do regulable features of

child-care homes affect children’s development? Early Child. Res. Q. 17:52–86 Cohen SS. 2001. Championing Child Care. New York: Columbia Univ. Press Cost, Quality, & Outcomes Team. 1995. Cost, Quality, and Child Outcomes in Child Care Centers. Denver: Univ.

Colorado Côté SM, Borge AI, Geoffroy M-C, Rutter M, Tremblay RE. 2008. Nonmaternal care in infancy and

emotional/behavioral difficulties at 4 years old: moderation by family risk characteristics. Dev. Psychol. 44(1):155–68

Diamond A, Barnett WS, Thomas J, Munro S. 2007. Preschool program improves cognitive control. Science 318:1387–88

Dinnebeil LA, McInerney W, Fox C, Juchartz-Pendry K. 1998. An analysis of the perceptions and characteris- tics of child care personnel regarding inclusion of young children with special needs in community-based programs. Topics Early Child. Spec. Educ. 18:118–28

Fabes RA, Hanish LD, Martin CL. 2003. Children at play: the role of peers in understanding the effects of child care. Child Dev. 74:1039–43

Fein G, Clarke-Stewart A. 1973. Day Care in Context. New York: Wiley Galinksy E, Howes C, Kontos S, Shinn M. 1994. The Study of Children in Family Child Care and Relative Care.

New York: Families & Work Inst. Geoffroy M-C, Cote SM, Parent S, Seguin JR. 2006. Daycare attendance, stress, and mental health. Can. J.

Psychiatry 51(9):607–15 Gormley WT. 1995. Everybody’s Children: Child Care as a Public Problem. Washington, DC: Brookings Inst. Gormley WT, Gayer T, Phillips D, Dawson B. 2005. The effects of universal pre-K on cognitive development.

Dev. Psychol. 41(6):872–84 Gormley WT, Phillips DA, Newmark K, Perper K. 2010. Social-Emotional Effects of Early Childhood Education

Programs in Tulsa. Child Dev. In press Gunnar MR, Kryzer E, Van Ryzin MJ, Phillips DA. 2010. The rise in cortisol in family day care: associations

with aspects of care quality, child behavior, and child sex. Child Dev. 81(3):853–70 Harms T, Clifford R. 1980. Early Childhood Environment Rating Scale. New York: Teachers College Press Harms T, Clifford R. 1984. The Family Day Care Rating Scale. New York: Teachers College Press Helburn SW, ed. 1995. Cost, Quality, and Outcomes in Child Care Centers: Technical Report. Denver: Univ.

Colorado Dept. Econ.

www.annualreviews.org • Early Care and Education 497

A nn

u. R

ev . P

sy ch

ol . 2

01 1.

62 :4

83 -5

00 . D

ow nl

oa de

d fr

om w

w w

.a nn

ua lr

ev ie

w s.

or g

by S

an F

ra nc

is co

S ta

te U

ni ve

rs it

y on

0 8/

13 /1

4. F

or p

er so

na l

us e

on ly

.

PS62CH18-Phillips ARI 22 November 2010 8:34

Howes C, Phillips DA, Whitebook M. 1992. Thresholds of quality: implications for the social development of children in center-based child care. Child Dev. 63:449–60

Hunt JM. 1961. Intelligence and Experience. New York: Ronald Press Johnson AD, Brooks-Gunn J. 2010. Child care subsidies: Do they impact the quality of care children experience?

Presented at Am. Educ. Finance Assoc., Richmond VA Kamerman SB, Kahn AJ. 1995. Starting Right: How America Neglects Its Youngest Children and What We Can

Do About It. New York: Oxford Univ. Press Lamb ME, Ahnert L. 2006. Nonparental child care: context, concepts, correlates, and consequences. In

Handbook of Child Psychology: Vol. 4. Child Psychology in Practice, vol. ed. W Damon, RM Lerner, KA Renninger, IE Sigel, pp. 950–1016. Hoboken, NJ: Wiley. 6th ed.

Lancaster JB, Lancaster CS. 1987. The watershed: change in parental investment and family formation strategies in the course of human evolution. In Parenting Across the Life-Span: Biosocial Perspectives, ed. JB Lancaster, J Altmann, A Rossi, LR Sherrod, pp. 187–205. Hawthorne, NH: Aldine de Gruyter

Lee VE, Brooks-Gunn J, Schnur E, Liaw F. 1990. Are Head Start effects sustained? A longitudinal follow-up comparison of disadvantaged children attending Head Start, no preschool, and other preschool programs. Child Dev. 61:495–507

Levin HM, Schwartz HL. 2007. What is the cost of a preschool program? Presented at the AEFA 2007 Annu. Conf., Baltimore, MD

Loeb S, Bridges M, Bassok D, Fuller B, Rumberger RW. 2007. How much is too much? The influence of preschool centers on children’s social and cognitive development. Econ. Educ. Rev. 26:52–66

Loeb S, Fuller B, Kagan SL, Carrol B. 2004. Child care in poor communities: early learning effects of type, quality, and stability. Child Dev. 75:47–65

Love JM, Tarullo LB, Raikes H, Chazan-Cohen R. 2006. Head Start: What do we know about its effectiveness? What do we need to know? In Handbook of Early Childhood Development, ed. K McCartney, D Phillips, pp. 550–75. Malden, MA: Blackwell

Love JM, Schochet PZ, Meckstroth AL. 1996. Are They in Any Real Danger? What Research Does—and Doesn’t— Tell Us About Child Care Quality and Children’s Well-Being. Princeton, NJ: Mathematica Policy Research, Inc.

Lowenstein AE, Phillips DA, Gormley WT. 2009. Fostering the socio-emotional adjustment of low-income children: the effects of universal pre-K and Head Start in Oklahoma. Paper presented at bienn. meet. Soc. Res. Child Dev., Denver, CO

Magnuson K, Ruhm C, Waldfogel J. 2007. Does prekindergarten improve school preparation and perfor- mance? Econ. Educ. Rev. 26:33–51

Marshall N, Creps CL, Burstein NR, Roberts J, Dennehy J, et al. 2004. The Cost and Quality of Full Day, Year-Round Early Care and Education in Maine: Preschool Classrooms. Wellesley Cent. Women, Muskie Inst. Univ. So. Maine, Abt Assoc.

Marsland K, Zigler E, Martinez A. 2003. Regulation of Infant and Toddler Child Care: Are State Requirements for Centers Adequate? Unpubl. manuscr. New Haven, CT: Yale Univ.

McCartney K. 2006. The family–child-care mesosystem. In Families Count: Effects on Child and Adolescent Development, ed. A Clarke-Stewart, J Dunn, pp. 155–75. New York: Cambridge Univ. Press

McCartney K, Burchinal M, Clarke-Stewart A, Bub KL, Owen MT, et al. 2010. Testing a series of causal propositions relating time in child care to children’s externalizing behavior. Dev. Psychol. 46:1–17

McCartney K, Phillips D. 1988. Motherhood and child care. In The Different Faces of Motherhood, ed. B Birns, DF Hay, pp. 157–84. New York: Plenum

McKey RH, et al. 1985. The Impact of Head Start on Children, Families, and Communities. Final report of the Head Start Evaluation, Synthesis, and Utilization Project. Washington, DC: U.S. Dept. Health Human Serv.

Natl. Forum Early Child. Policy Prog. 2010. Understanding the Head Start Impact Study. Retrieved March 28, 2010, from http://www.developingchild.harvard.edu/

Natl. Head Start Assoc. 2009. Basic Head Start Facts. Retrieved March 19, 2010, from http://www.nhsa.org/files/static_page_files/399A3EB7-1D09-3519-ADB004D2DAFA33DD/ BasicHeadStartFacts.pdf

Natl. Res. Counc. 1990. Who Cares for American’s Children? Child Care Policy for the 1990’s. Washington, DC: Natl. Acad. Press

498 Phillips · Lowenstein

A nn

u. R

ev . P

sy ch

ol . 2

01 1.

62 :4

83 -5

00 . D

ow nl

oa de

d fr

om w

w w

.a nn

ua lr

ev ie

w s.

or g

by S

an F

ra nc

is co

S ta

te U

ni ve

rs it

y on

0 8/

13 /1

4. F

or p

er so

na l

us e

on ly

.

PS62CH18-Phillips ARI 22 November 2010 8:34

Natl. Sci. Counc. Dev. Child. 2007. How Early Child Care Affects Later Development. Science Briefs. http://www.developingchild.net

NICHD Early Child Care Res. Netw. 1996. Characteristics of infant child care: factors contributing to positive caregiving. Early Child. Res. Q. 11:269–306

NICHD Early Child Care Res. Netw. 1997a. Child care in the first year of life. Merrill-Palmer Q. 43(3):340–60 NICHD Early Child Care Res. Netw. 1997b. Poverty and patterns of child care. In Consequences of Growing

up Poor, ed. J Brooks-Gunn, G Duncan, pp. 100–31. New York: Russell Sage NICHD Early Child Care Res. Netw. 1997c. The effects of infant child care on infant-mother attachment

security: results of the NICHD Study of Early Child Care. Child Dev. 68:860–79 NICHD Early Child Care Res. Netw. 1998a. Early child care and self-control, compliance, and problem

behavior at twenty-four and thirty-six months. Child Dev. 69:1145–70 NICHD Early Child Care Res. Netw. 1998b. Relations between family predictors and child outcomes: Are

they weaker for children in child care? Dev. Psychol. 34:1119–28 NICHD Early Child Care Res. Netw. 2000. The relation of child care to cognitive and language development.

Child Dev. 71:960–80 NICHD Early Child Care Res. Netw. 2001. Child care and family predictors of preschool attachment and

stability from infancy. Dev. Psychol. 37:847–62 NICHD Early Child Care Res. Netw. 2002. Early child care and children’s development prior to school entry:

results from the NICHD Study of Early Child Care. Am. Educ. Res. J. 39:133–64 NICHD Early Child Care Res. Netw. 2003. Does amount of time spent in child care predict socio-emotional

adjustment during the transition to kindergarten? Child Dev. 74:976–1005 NICHD Early Child Care Res. Netw. 2005a. Child Care and Child Development: Results from the NICHD Study

of Early Child Care and Youth Development. New York: Guilford NICHD Early Child Care Res. Netw. 2005b. Early child care and children’s development in the primary

grades: results from the NICHD Study of Early Child Care. Am. Educ. Res. J. 43:537–70 NICHD Early Child Care Res. Netw. 2005c. Predicting individual differences in attention, memory, and

planning in first graders from experiences at home, child care, and school. Dev. Psychol. 41:99–114 NICHD Early Child Care Res. Netw., Duncan GJ. 2003. Modeling the impacts of child care quality on

children’s preschool cognitive development. Child Dev. 74:1454–75 Peisner-Feinberg ES, Burchinal MR, Clifford RM, Culkin ML, Howes C, et al. 2001. The relation of preschool

child-care quality to children’s cognitive and social developmental trajectories through second grade. Child Dev. 72(5):1534–53

Phillips D. 1984. Day care: promoting collaboration between research and policymaking. J. Appl. Dev. Psychol. 5:91–113

Phillips D, Fox N, Gunnar M. 2010. Same place, different experiences: bringing individual differences to research in child care. Child Dev. Perspect. In press

Phillips D, Lande J, Goldberg M. 1990. The state of child care regulation: a comparative analysis. Early Child. Res. Q. 5:151–79

Phillips D, McCartney K, Sussman A. 2006. Child care and early development. In Handbook of Early Childhood Development, ed. K McCartney, D Phillips, pp. 471–89. Malden, MA: Blackwell

Phillips DA, Voran M, Kisker E, Howes C, Whitebook M. 1994. Child care for children in poverty: opportunity or inequity? Child Dev. 65:472–92

Pianta RC, LaParo K, Hamre B. 2008. Classroom Assessment Scoring System Manual. Baltimore, MD: Brookes Publ.

Pluess M, Belsky J. 2010. Differential susceptibility to parenting and quality child care. Dev. Psychol. 46(2):379– 90

Raver CC, Jones SM, Li-Grining C, Zhai F, Metzger MW, Solomon B. 2009. Targeting children’s behavior problems in preschool classrooms: a cluster-randomized controlled trial. J. Consult. Clin. Psychol. 77:302– 16

Ryan RM, Johnson AD, Rigby DE, Brooks-Gunn J. 2010. The impact of child care subsidy use on child care quality. Early Child. Res. Q. Manuscript under review

Schweinhart LJ. 2004. The High/Scope Perry Preschool Study Through Age 40: Summary, Conclusions, and Fre- quently Asked Questions. Ypsilanti, MI: High/Scope Educ. Res. Found.

www.annualreviews.org • Early Care and Education 499

A nn

u. R

ev . P

sy ch

ol . 2

01 1.

62 :4

83 -5

00 . D

ow nl

oa de

d fr

om w

w w

.a nn

ua lr

ev ie

w s.

or g

by S

an F

ra nc

is co

S ta

te U

ni ve

rs it

y on

0 8/

13 /1

4. F

or p

er so

na l

us e

on ly

.

PS62CH18-Phillips ARI 22 November 2010 8:34

Shonkoff JP, Phillips DA, eds. 2000. From Neurons to Neighborhoods: The Science of Early Childhood Development. Washington, DC: Natl. Acad. Press

Singer JD, Fuller B, Keiley MK, Wolf A. 1998. Early child-care selection: variation by geographic location, maternal characteristics, and family structure. Dev. Psychol. 34(5):1129–44

Steinfels MO. 1973. Who’s Minding the Children: The History and Politics of Day Care in America. New York: Simon & Schuster

U.S. Bur. Labor Statistics. 2008. Occupational Projections and Training Data, 2008-09 Edition. Washington, DC: U.S. Dept. Labor

U.S. Census Bur. 2005a. Who’s Minding the Kids? Child Care Arrangements: Winter 2002. Washington, DC: U.S. Dept. Commerce

U.S. Census Bur. 2005b. Who’s Minding the Kids? Child Care Arrangements: Spring 2002. Washington, DC: U.S. Dept. Commerce

U.S. Census Bur. 2008. Who’s Minding the Kids? Child Care Arrangements: Spring 2005 Detailed Tables. Wash- ington, DC: U.S. Dept. Commerce

U.S. Dept. Health Human Serv. 2005. Head Start Impact Study: First Year Findings. Washington, DC: U.S. Dept. Health Human Serv.

U.S. Dept. Health Human Serv. 2010a. About Head Start. http://eclkc.ohs.acf.hhs.gov/hslc/About% 20Head%20Start

U.S. Dept. Health Human Serv. Jan. 2010b. Head Start Impact Study: Final Report. Washington, DC: U.S. Dept. Health Human Serv.

U.S. Dept. Labor. Aug. 2009. National Compensation Survey: Occupational Earnings in the United States, 2008. Washington, DC: U.S. Dept. Labor, U.S. Bur. Labor Statistics

Vandell DL, Belsky J, Burchinal M, Steinberg L, Vandergrift N, NICHD Early Child Care Res. Netw. 2010. Do effects of early child care extend to age 15 years? Results from the NICHD Study of Early Child Care and Youth Development. Child Dev. 81(3):737–56

Vandell DL, Corasaniti MA. 1990. Variations in early child care: Do they predict subsequent social, emotional, and cognitive differences? Early Child. Res. Q. 5(4):555–72

Vermeer HJ, van IJzendoorn MH. 2006. Children’s elevated cortisol levels at daycare: a review and meta- analysis. Early Child. Res. Q. 21:390–401

Votruba-Drzal E, Coley RL, Chase-Lansdale PL. 2004. Child care and low-income children’s development: direct and moderated effects. Child Dev. 75:296–312

Waldfogel J. 2006. Early childhood policy: a comparative perspective. In Handbook of Early Childhood Develop- ment, ed. K McCartney, D Phillips, pp. 576–94. Malden, MA: Blackwell

Warfield MD, Hauser-Cram P. 1996. Child care needs, arrangements, and satisfaction of mothers of children with developmental disabilities. Mental Retard. 34:294–301

Watamura SE, Phillips DA, Morrissey TW, McCartney K, Bub K. 2011. Double jeopardy: poorer social- emotional outcomes for children in the NICHD SECCYD experiencing home and child care environ- ments that confer risk. Child Dev. In press

Weisner T, Gallimore R. 1977. My brother’s keeper: child and sibling caretaking. Curr. Anthropol. 19(2):169– 90

Werner EE, Smith RS. 1992. Overcoming the Odds. Ithaca, NY: Cornell Univ. Press Whitebook M, Bellm D. 1999. Taking on Turnover: An Action Guide for Child Care Center Teachers and Directors.

Washington, DC: Cent. Child Care Workforce Whitebook M, Sakai L. 2004. By a Thread: How Child Care Centers Hold on to Teachers, How Teachers Build

Lasting Careers. Kalamazoo, MI: Upjohn Inst. Employ. Res. Zigler E, Hall N. 2000. Child Development and Social Policy. Boston: McGraw-Hill Zigler E, Muenchow S. 1992. Head Start: The Inside Story of America’s Most Successful Educational Experiment.

New York: Basic Books Zill N, Resnick G, Kim K, O’Donnell K, Sorongon A, et al. 2003. Head Start FACES 2000: A Whole-Child

Perspective on Program Performance. Washington, DC: U.S. Dept. Health Human Serv.

500 Phillips · Lowenstein

A nn

u. R

ev . P

sy ch

ol . 2

01 1.

62 :4

83 -5

00 . D

ow nl

oa de

d fr

om w

w w

.a nn

ua lr

ev ie

w s.

or g

by S

an F

ra nc

is co

S ta

te U

ni ve

rs it

y on

0 8/

13 /1

4. F

or p

er so

na l

us e

on ly

.

PS62CH18-Phillips ARI 22 November 2010 8:34

Figure 1 Early care and education arrangements of children of employed mothers (2005). Totals sum to more than 100% due to inclusion of children in more than one arrangement. Charts do not include children who are not in any regular arrangement (12% of infants and toddlers and 10.7% of preschoolers). Source: U.S. Bureau of the Census. 2008. Who’s Minding the Kids? Child Care Arrangements: Spring 2005 Detailed Tables. Washington, DC: U.S. Dept. Commerce.

www.annualreviews.org • Early Care and Education C-1

A nn

u. R

ev . P

sy ch

ol . 2

01 1.

62 :4

83 -5

00 . D

ow nl

oa de

d fr

om w

w w

.a nn

ua lr

ev ie

w s.

or g

by S

an F

ra nc

is co

S ta

te U

ni ve

rs it

y on

0 8/

13 /1

4. F

or p

er so

na l

us e

on ly

.

PS62-FrontMatter ARI 15 November 2010 17:50

Annual Review of Psychology

Volume 62, 2011 Contents

Prefatory

The Development of Problem Solving in Young Children: A Critical Cognitive Skill Rachel Keen � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � 1

Decision Making

The Neuroscience of Social Decision-Making James K. Rilling and Alan G. Sanfey � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � �23

Speech Perception

Speech Perception Arthur G. Samuel � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � �49

Attention and Performance

A Taxonomy of External and Internal Attention Marvin M. Chun, Julie D. Golomb, and Nicholas B. Turk-Browne � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � �73

Language Processing

The Neural Bases of Social Cognition and Story Comprehension Raymond A. Mar � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � 103

Reasoning and Problem Solving

Causal Learning and Inference as a Rational Process: The New Synthesis Keith J. Holyoak and Patricia W. Cheng � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � 135

Emotional, Social, and Personality Development

Development in the Early Years: Socialization, Motor Development, and Consciousness Claire B. Kopp � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � 165

Peer Contagion in Child and Adolescent Social and Emotional Development Thomas J. Dishion and Jessica M. Tipsord � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � 189

vi

A nn

u. R

ev . P

sy ch

ol . 2

01 1.

62 :4

83 -5

00 . D

ow nl

oa de

d fr

om w

w w

.a nn

ua lr

ev ie

w s.

or g

by S

an F

ra nc

is co

S ta

te U

ni ve

rs it

y on

0 8/

13 /1

4. F

or p

er so

na l

us e

on ly

.

PS62-FrontMatter ARI 15 November 2010 17:50

Adulthood and Aging

Psychological Wisdom Research: Commonalities and Differences in a Growing Field Ursula M. Staudinger and Judith Glück � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � 215

Development in the Family

Socialization Processes in the Family: Social and Emotional Development Joan E. Grusec � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � 243

Psychopathology

Delusional Belief Max Coltheart, Robyn Langdon, and Ryan McKay � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � 271

Therapy for Specific Problems

Long-Term Impact of Prevention Programs to Promote Effective Parenting: Lasting Effects but Uncertain Processes Irwin N. Sandler, Erin N. Schoenfelder, Sharlene A. Wolchik,

and David P. MacKinnon � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � 299

Self and Identity

Do Conscious Thoughts Cause Behavior? Roy F. Baumeister, E.J. Masicampo, and Kathleen D. Vohs � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � 331

Neuroscience of Self and Self-Regulation Todd F. Heatherton � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � 363

Attitude Change and Persuasion

Attitudes and Attitude Change Gerd Bohner and Nina Dickel � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � 391

Cross-Country or Regional Comparisons

Culture, Mind, and the Brain: Current Evidence and Future Directions Shinobu Kitayama and Ayse K. Uskul � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � 419

Cognition in Organizations

Heuristic Decision Making Gerd Gigerenzer and Wolfgang Gaissmaier � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � 451

Structures and Goals of Educational Settings

Early Care, Education, and Child Development Deborah A. Phillips and Amy E. Lowenstein � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � 483

Contents vii

A nn

u. R

ev . P

sy ch

ol . 2

01 1.

62 :4

83 -5

00 . D

ow nl

oa de

d fr

om w

w w

.a nn

ua lr

ev ie

w s.

or g

by S

an F

ra nc

is co

S ta

te U

ni ve

rs it

y on

0 8/

13 /1

4. F

or p

er so

na l

us e

on ly

.

PS62-FrontMatter ARI 3 November 2010 10:34

Psychophysiological Disorders and Psychological Dimensions on Medical Disorders

Psychological Perspectives on Pathways Linking Socioeconomic Status and Physical Health Karen A. Matthews and Linda C. Gallo � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � 501

Psychological Science on Pregnancy: Stress Processes, Biopsychosocial Models, and Emerging Research Issues Christine Dunkel Schetter � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � 531

Research Methodology

The Development of Autobiographical Memory Robyn Fivush � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � 559

The Disaggregation of Within-Person and Between-Person Effects in Longitudinal Models of Change Patrick J. Curran and Daniel J. Bauer � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � 583

Thirty Years and Counting: Finding Meaning in the N400 Component of the Event-Related Brain Potential (ERP) Marta Kutas and Kara D. Federmeier � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � 621

Indexes

Cumulative Index of Contributing Authors, Volumes 52–62 � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � 000

Cumulative Index of Chapter Titles, Volumes 52–62 � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � � 000

Errata

An online log of corrections to Annual Review of Psychology articles may be found at http://psych.AnnualReviews.org/errata.shtml

viii Contents

A nn

u. R

ev . P

sy ch

ol . 2

01 1.

62 :4

83 -5

00 . D

ow nl

oa de

d fr

om w

w w

.a nn

ua lr

ev ie

w s.

or g

by S

an F

ra nc

is co

S ta

te U

ni ve

rs it

y on

0 8/

13 /1

4. F

or p

er so

na l

us e

on ly

.

AnnuAl Reviews it’s about time. Your time. it’s time well spent.

AnnuAl Reviews | Connect with Our experts Tel: 800.523.8635 (us/can) | Tel: 650.493.4400 | Fax: 650.424.0910 | Email: [email protected]

New From Annual Reviews: Annual Review of Organizational Psychology and Organizational Behavior Volume 1 • March 2014 • Online & In Print • http://orgpsych.annualreviews.org

Editor: Frederick P. Morgeson, The Eli Broad College of Business, Michigan State University The Annual Review of Organizational Psychology and Organizational Behavior is devoted to publishing reviews of the industrial and organizational psychology, human resource management, and organizational behavior literature. Topics for review include motivation, selection, teams, training and development, leadership, job performance, strategic HR, cross-cultural issues, work attitudes, entrepreneurship, affect and emotion, organizational change and development, gender and diversity, statistics and research methodologies, and other emerging topics.

Complimentary online access to the first volume will be available until March 2015. TAble oF CoNTeNTs: • An Ounce of Prevention Is Worth a Pound of Cure: Improving

Research Quality Before Data Collection, Herman Aguinis, Robert J. Vandenberg

• Burnout and Work Engagement: The JD-R Approach, Arnold B. Bakker, Evangelia Demerouti, Ana Isabel Sanz-Vergel

• Compassion at Work, Jane E. Dutton, Kristina M. Workman, Ashley E. Hardin

• Constructively Managing Conflict in Organizations, Dean Tjosvold, Alfred S.H. Wong, Nancy Yi Feng Chen

• Coworkers Behaving Badly: The Impact of Coworker Deviant Behavior upon Individual Employees, Sandra L. Robinson, Wei Wang, Christian Kiewitz

• Delineating and Reviewing the Role of Newcomer Capital in Organizational Socialization, Talya N. Bauer, Berrin Erdogan

• Emotional Intelligence in Organizations, Stéphane Côté • Employee Voice and Silence, Elizabeth W. Morrison • Intercultural Competence, Kwok Leung, Soon Ang,

Mei Ling Tan • Learning in the Twenty-First-Century Workplace,

Raymond A. Noe, Alena D.M. Clarke, Howard J. Klein • Pay Dispersion, Jason D. Shaw • Personality and Cognitive Ability as Predictors of Effective

Performance at Work, Neal Schmitt

• Perspectives on Power in Organizations, Cameron Anderson, Sebastien Brion

• Psychological Safety: The History, Renaissance, and Future of an Interpersonal Construct, Amy C. Edmondson, Zhike Lei

• Research on Workplace Creativity: A Review and Redirection, Jing Zhou, Inga J. Hoever

• Talent Management: Conceptual Approaches and Practical Challenges, Peter Cappelli, JR Keller

• The Contemporary Career: A Work–Home Perspective, Jeffrey H. Greenhaus, Ellen Ernst Kossek

• The Fascinating Psychological Microfoundations of Strategy and Competitive Advantage, Robert E. Ployhart, Donald Hale, Jr.

• The Psychology of Entrepreneurship, Michael Frese, Michael M. Gielnik

• The Story of Why We Stay: A Review of Job Embeddedness, Thomas William Lee, Tyler C. Burch, Terence R. Mitchell

• What Was, What Is, and What May Be in OP/OB, Lyman W. Porter, Benjamin Schneider

• Where Global and Virtual Meet: The Value of Examining the Intersection of These Elements in Twenty-First-Century Teams, Cristina B. Gibson, Laura Huang, Bradley L. Kirkman, Debra L. Shapiro

• Work–Family Boundary Dynamics, Tammy D. Allen, Eunae Cho, Laurenz L. Meier

Access this and all other Annual Reviews journals via your institution at www.annualreviews.org.

A nn

u. R

ev . P

sy ch

ol . 2

01 1.

62 :4

83 -5

00 . D

ow nl

oa de

d fr

om w

w w

.a nn

ua lr

ev ie

w s.

or g

by S

an F

ra nc

is co

S ta

te U

ni ve

rs it

y on

0 8/

13 /1

4. F

or p

er so

na l

us e

on ly

.

AnnuAl Reviews it’s about time. Your time. it’s time well spent.

AnnuAl Reviews | Connect with Our experts Tel: 800.523.8635 (us/can) | Tel: 650.493.4400 | Fax: 650.424.0910 | Email: [email protected]

New From Annual Reviews:

Annual Review of Statistics and Its Application Volume 1 • Online January 2014 • http://statistics.annualreviews.org

Editor: Stephen E. Fienberg, Carnegie Mellon University Associate Editors: Nancy Reid, University of Toronto

Stephen M. Stigler, University of Chicago The Annual Review of Statistics and Its Application aims to inform statisticians and quantitative methodologists, as well as all scientists and users of statistics about major methodological advances and the computational tools that allow for their implementation. It will include developments in the field of statistics, including theoretical statistical underpinnings of new methodology, as well as developments in specific application domains such as biostatistics and bioinformatics, economics, machine learning, psychology, sociology, and aspects of the physical sciences.

Complimentary online access to the first volume will be available until January 2015. table of contents: • What Is Statistics? Stephen E. Fienberg • A Systematic Statistical Approach to Evaluating Evidence

from Observational Studies, David Madigan, Paul E. Stang, Jesse A. Berlin, Martijn Schuemie, J. Marc Overhage, Marc A. Suchard, Bill Dumouchel, Abraham G. Hartzema, Patrick B. Ryan

• The Role of Statistics in the Discovery of a Higgs Boson, David A. van Dyk

• Brain Imaging Analysis, F. DuBois Bowman • Statistics and Climate, Peter Guttorp • Climate Simulators and Climate Projections,

Jonathan Rougier, Michael Goldstein • Probabilistic Forecasting, Tilmann Gneiting,

Matthias Katzfuss • Bayesian Computational Tools, Christian P. Robert • Bayesian Computation Via Markov Chain Monte Carlo,

Radu V. Craiu, Jeffrey S. Rosenthal • Build, Compute, Critique, Repeat: Data Analysis with Latent

Variable Models, David M. Blei • Structured Regularizers for High-Dimensional Problems:

Statistical and Computational Issues, Martin J. Wainwright

• High-Dimensional Statistics with a View Toward Applications in Biology, Peter Bühlmann, Markus Kalisch, Lukas Meier

• Next-Generation Statistical Genetics: Modeling, Penalization, and Optimization in High-Dimensional Data, Kenneth Lange, Jeanette C. Papp, Janet S. Sinsheimer, Eric M. Sobel

• Breaking Bad: Two Decades of Life-Course Data Analysis in Criminology, Developmental Psychology, and Beyond, Elena A. Erosheva, Ross L. Matsueda, Donatello Telesca

• Event History Analysis, Niels Keiding • Statistical Evaluation of Forensic DNA Profile Evidence,

Christopher D. Steele, David J. Balding • Using League Table Rankings in Public Policy Formation:

Statistical Issues, Harvey Goldstein • Statistical Ecology, Ruth King • Estimating the Number of Species in Microbial Diversity

Studies, John Bunge, Amy Willis, Fiona Walsh • Dynamic Treatment Regimes, Bibhas Chakraborty,

Susan A. Murphy • Statistics and Related Topics in Single-Molecule Biophysics,

Hong Qian, S.C. Kou • Statistics and Quantitative Risk Management for Banking

and Insurance, Paul Embrechts, Marius Hofert

Access this and all other Annual Reviews journals via your institution at www.annualreviews.org.

A nn

u. R

ev . P

sy ch

ol . 2

01 1.

62 :4

83 -5

00 . D

ow nl

oa de

d fr

om w

w w

.a nn

ua lr

ev ie

w s.

or g

by S

an F

ra nc

is co

S ta

te U

ni ve

rs it

y on

0 8/

13 /1

4. F

or p

er so

na l

us e

on ly

.