The Myth of Universal Sensitive Responsiveness: Comment on Mesman et al. (2017)
This article considers claims of Mesman et al. (2017) that sensitive responsiveness as defined by Ainsworth, while not uniformly expressed across cultural contexts, is universal. Evidence presented demonstrates that none of the components of sensitive responsiveness (i.e., which partner takes the le...
Gespeichert in:
| Veröffentlicht in: | Child development 2018-09, Vol.89 (5), p.1921-1928 |
|---|---|
| Hauptverfasser: | , , , , , , , , |
| Format: | Artikel |
| Sprache: | eng |
| Schlagworte: | |
| Online-Zugang: | Volltext |
| Tags: |
Tag hinzufügen
Keine Tags, Fügen Sie den ersten Tag hinzu!
|
| container_end_page | 1928 |
|---|---|
| container_issue | 5 |
| container_start_page | 1921 |
| container_title | Child development |
| container_volume | 89 |
| creator | Keller, Heidi Morelli, Gilda Vicedo, Marga Scheidecker, Gabriel Bard, Kim Chaudhary, Nandita Rosabal-Coto, Mariano Murray, Marjorie Gottlieb, Alma |
| description | This article considers claims of Mesman et al. (2017) that sensitive responsiveness as defined by Ainsworth, while not uniformly expressed across cultural contexts, is universal. Evidence presented demonstrates that none of the components of sensitive responsiveness (i.e., which partner takes the lead, whose point of view is primary, and the turn-taking structure of interactions) or warmth are universal. Mesman and colleagues' proposal that sensitive responsiveness is "providing for infant needs" is critiqued. Constructs concerning caregiver quality must be embedded within a nexus of cultural logic, including caregiving practices, based on ecologically valid childrearing values and beliefs. Sensitive responsiveness, as defined by Mesman and attachment theorists, is not universal. Attachment theory and cultural or cross-cultural psychology are not built on common ground. |
| doi_str_mv | 10.1111/cdev.13031 |
| format | Article |
| fullrecord | <record><control><sourceid>jstor_proqu</sourceid><recordid>TN_cdi_proquest_miscellaneous_1990485966</recordid><sourceformat>XML</sourceformat><sourcesystem>PC</sourcesystem><jstor_id>45046818</jstor_id><sourcerecordid>45046818</sourcerecordid><originalsourceid>FETCH-LOGICAL-c3961-b280a59d46110d27902f9217926c49e8d7e39a0ea9f8dfb43fe194f98c542f393</originalsourceid><addsrcrecordid>eNp9kE1LHEEQhptgiKvJxXukwYsGZlP9MT1TucmqiaAIiXptemeqcZaZ6c307Mr-e9usesjBuhQvPPVSPIwdCJiKNN-rmtZToUCJD2witCmy0ki9wyYAgJlCCbtsL8ZFitKg-sR2JaoclTATdnP7QPx6Mz7w4Pld36xpiK7lf6iPzZgS_01xGVJYU08x_uCz0HXUjzz0_Jpi53pOI3ftlB9LEMXJZ_bRuzbSl5e9z-4uzm9nv7Krm5-Xs9OrrFJoRDaXJbgca22EgFoWCNKjFAVKU2mksi5IoQNy6Mvaz7XyJFB7LKtcS69Q7bPjbe9yCH9XFEfbNbGitnU9hVW0AhF0maMxCT36D12E1dCn76wUABq0lEWivm2paggxDuTtcmg6N2ysAPus2T5rtv80J_jwpXI176h-Q1-9JkBsgcempc07VXZ2dn7_Wvp1e7OIYxjebnQO2pSiVE8hBo2F</addsrcrecordid><sourcetype>Aggregation Database</sourcetype><iscdi>true</iscdi><recordtype>article</recordtype><pqid>2100404227</pqid></control><display><type>article</type><title>The Myth of Universal Sensitive Responsiveness: Comment on Mesman et al. (2017)</title><source>Applied Social Sciences Index & Abstracts (ASSIA)</source><source>Jstor Complete Legacy</source><source>Education Source</source><source>Wiley Online Library Journals Frontfile Complete</source><creator>Keller, Heidi ; Morelli, Gilda ; Vicedo, Marga ; Scheidecker, Gabriel ; Bard, Kim ; Chaudhary, Nandita ; Rosabal-Coto, Mariano ; Murray, Marjorie ; Gottlieb, Alma</creator><creatorcontrib>Keller, Heidi ; Morelli, Gilda ; Vicedo, Marga ; Scheidecker, Gabriel ; Bard, Kim ; Chaudhary, Nandita ; Rosabal-Coto, Mariano ; Murray, Marjorie ; Gottlieb, Alma</creatorcontrib><description>This article considers claims of Mesman et al. (2017) that sensitive responsiveness as defined by Ainsworth, while not uniformly expressed across cultural contexts, is universal. Evidence presented demonstrates that none of the components of sensitive responsiveness (i.e., which partner takes the lead, whose point of view is primary, and the turn-taking structure of interactions) or warmth are universal. Mesman and colleagues' proposal that sensitive responsiveness is "providing for infant needs" is critiqued. Constructs concerning caregiver quality must be embedded within a nexus of cultural logic, including caregiving practices, based on ecologically valid childrearing values and beliefs. Sensitive responsiveness, as defined by Mesman and attachment theorists, is not universal. Attachment theory and cultural or cross-cultural psychology are not built on common ground.</description><identifier>ISSN: 0009-3920</identifier><identifier>EISSN: 1467-8624</identifier><identifier>DOI: 10.1111/cdev.13031</identifier><identifier>PMID: 29359316</identifier><language>eng</language><publisher>United States: Wiley for the Society for Research in Child Development</publisher><subject>Attachment ; Attachment theory ; Caregivers ; Childrearing practices ; COMMENTARIES ; Cross-cultural psychology ; Cultural factors ; Responsiveness ; Theorists</subject><ispartof>Child development, 2018-09, Vol.89 (5), p.1921-1928</ispartof><rights>2018 The Society for Research in Child Development, Inc.</rights><rights>2018 The Authors. Child Development © 2018 Society for Research in Child Development, Inc.</rights><rights>Child Development © 2018 The Society for Research in Child Development, Inc.</rights><lds50>peer_reviewed</lds50><oa>free_for_read</oa><woscitedreferencessubscribed>false</woscitedreferencessubscribed><citedby>FETCH-LOGICAL-c3961-b280a59d46110d27902f9217926c49e8d7e39a0ea9f8dfb43fe194f98c542f393</citedby><cites>FETCH-LOGICAL-c3961-b280a59d46110d27902f9217926c49e8d7e39a0ea9f8dfb43fe194f98c542f393</cites></display><links><openurl>$$Topenurl_article</openurl><openurlfulltext>$$Topenurlfull_article</openurlfulltext><thumbnail>$$Tsyndetics_thumb_exl</thumbnail><linktopdf>$$Uhttps://www.jstor.org/stable/pdf/45046818$$EPDF$$P50$$Gjstor$$H</linktopdf><linktohtml>$$Uhttps://www.jstor.org/stable/45046818$$EHTML$$P50$$Gjstor$$H</linktohtml><link.rule.ids>314,776,780,799,1411,27901,27902,30976,45550,45551,57992,58225</link.rule.ids><backlink>$$Uhttps://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/29359316$$D View this record in MEDLINE/PubMed$$Hfree_for_read</backlink></links><search><creatorcontrib>Keller, Heidi</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Morelli, Gilda</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Vicedo, Marga</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Scheidecker, Gabriel</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Bard, Kim</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Chaudhary, Nandita</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Rosabal-Coto, Mariano</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Murray, Marjorie</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Gottlieb, Alma</creatorcontrib><title>The Myth of Universal Sensitive Responsiveness: Comment on Mesman et al. (2017)</title><title>Child development</title><addtitle>Child Dev</addtitle><description>This article considers claims of Mesman et al. (2017) that sensitive responsiveness as defined by Ainsworth, while not uniformly expressed across cultural contexts, is universal. Evidence presented demonstrates that none of the components of sensitive responsiveness (i.e., which partner takes the lead, whose point of view is primary, and the turn-taking structure of interactions) or warmth are universal. Mesman and colleagues' proposal that sensitive responsiveness is "providing for infant needs" is critiqued. Constructs concerning caregiver quality must be embedded within a nexus of cultural logic, including caregiving practices, based on ecologically valid childrearing values and beliefs. Sensitive responsiveness, as defined by Mesman and attachment theorists, is not universal. Attachment theory and cultural or cross-cultural psychology are not built on common ground.</description><subject>Attachment</subject><subject>Attachment theory</subject><subject>Caregivers</subject><subject>Childrearing practices</subject><subject>COMMENTARIES</subject><subject>Cross-cultural psychology</subject><subject>Cultural factors</subject><subject>Responsiveness</subject><subject>Theorists</subject><issn>0009-3920</issn><issn>1467-8624</issn><fulltext>true</fulltext><rsrctype>article</rsrctype><creationdate>2018</creationdate><recordtype>article</recordtype><sourceid>7QJ</sourceid><recordid>eNp9kE1LHEEQhptgiKvJxXukwYsGZlP9MT1TucmqiaAIiXptemeqcZaZ6c307Mr-e9usesjBuhQvPPVSPIwdCJiKNN-rmtZToUCJD2witCmy0ki9wyYAgJlCCbtsL8ZFitKg-sR2JaoclTATdnP7QPx6Mz7w4Pld36xpiK7lf6iPzZgS_01xGVJYU08x_uCz0HXUjzz0_Jpi53pOI3ftlB9LEMXJZ_bRuzbSl5e9z-4uzm9nv7Krm5-Xs9OrrFJoRDaXJbgca22EgFoWCNKjFAVKU2mksi5IoQNy6Mvaz7XyJFB7LKtcS69Q7bPjbe9yCH9XFEfbNbGitnU9hVW0AhF0maMxCT36D12E1dCn76wUABq0lEWivm2paggxDuTtcmg6N2ysAPus2T5rtv80J_jwpXI176h-Q1-9JkBsgcempc07VXZ2dn7_Wvp1e7OIYxjebnQO2pSiVE8hBo2F</recordid><startdate>201809</startdate><enddate>201809</enddate><creator>Keller, Heidi</creator><creator>Morelli, Gilda</creator><creator>Vicedo, Marga</creator><creator>Scheidecker, Gabriel</creator><creator>Bard, Kim</creator><creator>Chaudhary, Nandita</creator><creator>Rosabal-Coto, Mariano</creator><creator>Murray, Marjorie</creator><creator>Gottlieb, Alma</creator><general>Wiley for the Society for Research in Child Development</general><general>Blackwell Publishing Ltd</general><scope>NPM</scope><scope>AAYXX</scope><scope>CITATION</scope><scope>7QJ</scope><scope>7TK</scope><scope>8BJ</scope><scope>FQK</scope><scope>JBE</scope><scope>U9A</scope><scope>7X8</scope></search><sort><creationdate>201809</creationdate><title>The Myth of Universal Sensitive Responsiveness: Comment on Mesman et al. (2017)</title><author>Keller, Heidi ; Morelli, Gilda ; Vicedo, Marga ; Scheidecker, Gabriel ; Bard, Kim ; Chaudhary, Nandita ; Rosabal-Coto, Mariano ; Murray, Marjorie ; Gottlieb, Alma</author></sort><facets><frbrtype>5</frbrtype><frbrgroupid>cdi_FETCH-LOGICAL-c3961-b280a59d46110d27902f9217926c49e8d7e39a0ea9f8dfb43fe194f98c542f393</frbrgroupid><rsrctype>articles</rsrctype><prefilter>articles</prefilter><language>eng</language><creationdate>2018</creationdate><topic>Attachment</topic><topic>Attachment theory</topic><topic>Caregivers</topic><topic>Childrearing practices</topic><topic>COMMENTARIES</topic><topic>Cross-cultural psychology</topic><topic>Cultural factors</topic><topic>Responsiveness</topic><topic>Theorists</topic><toplevel>peer_reviewed</toplevel><toplevel>online_resources</toplevel><creatorcontrib>Keller, Heidi</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Morelli, Gilda</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Vicedo, Marga</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Scheidecker, Gabriel</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Bard, Kim</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Chaudhary, Nandita</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Rosabal-Coto, Mariano</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Murray, Marjorie</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Gottlieb, Alma</creatorcontrib><collection>PubMed</collection><collection>CrossRef</collection><collection>Applied Social Sciences Index & Abstracts (ASSIA)</collection><collection>Neurosciences Abstracts</collection><collection>International Bibliography of the Social Sciences (IBSS)</collection><collection>International Bibliography of the Social Sciences</collection><collection>International Bibliography of the Social Sciences</collection><collection>MEDLINE - Academic</collection><jtitle>Child development</jtitle></facets><delivery><delcategory>Remote Search Resource</delcategory><fulltext>fulltext</fulltext></delivery><addata><au>Keller, Heidi</au><au>Morelli, Gilda</au><au>Vicedo, Marga</au><au>Scheidecker, Gabriel</au><au>Bard, Kim</au><au>Chaudhary, Nandita</au><au>Rosabal-Coto, Mariano</au><au>Murray, Marjorie</au><au>Gottlieb, Alma</au><format>journal</format><genre>article</genre><ristype>JOUR</ristype><atitle>The Myth of Universal Sensitive Responsiveness: Comment on Mesman et al. (2017)</atitle><jtitle>Child development</jtitle><addtitle>Child Dev</addtitle><date>2018-09</date><risdate>2018</risdate><volume>89</volume><issue>5</issue><spage>1921</spage><epage>1928</epage><pages>1921-1928</pages><issn>0009-3920</issn><eissn>1467-8624</eissn><abstract>This article considers claims of Mesman et al. (2017) that sensitive responsiveness as defined by Ainsworth, while not uniformly expressed across cultural contexts, is universal. Evidence presented demonstrates that none of the components of sensitive responsiveness (i.e., which partner takes the lead, whose point of view is primary, and the turn-taking structure of interactions) or warmth are universal. Mesman and colleagues' proposal that sensitive responsiveness is "providing for infant needs" is critiqued. Constructs concerning caregiver quality must be embedded within a nexus of cultural logic, including caregiving practices, based on ecologically valid childrearing values and beliefs. Sensitive responsiveness, as defined by Mesman and attachment theorists, is not universal. Attachment theory and cultural or cross-cultural psychology are not built on common ground.</abstract><cop>United States</cop><pub>Wiley for the Society for Research in Child Development</pub><pmid>29359316</pmid><doi>10.1111/cdev.13031</doi><tpages>8</tpages><oa>free_for_read</oa></addata></record> |
| fulltext | fulltext |
| identifier | ISSN: 0009-3920 |
| ispartof | Child development, 2018-09, Vol.89 (5), p.1921-1928 |
| issn | 0009-3920 1467-8624 |
| language | eng |
| recordid | cdi_proquest_miscellaneous_1990485966 |
| source | Applied Social Sciences Index & Abstracts (ASSIA); Jstor Complete Legacy; Education Source; Wiley Online Library Journals Frontfile Complete |
| subjects | Attachment Attachment theory Caregivers Childrearing practices COMMENTARIES Cross-cultural psychology Cultural factors Responsiveness Theorists |
| title | The Myth of Universal Sensitive Responsiveness: Comment on Mesman et al. (2017) |
| url | https://sfx.bib-bvb.de/sfx_tum?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&ctx_tim=2025-02-15T08%3A52%3A54IST&url_ver=Z39.88-2004&url_ctx_fmt=infofi/fmt:kev:mtx:ctx&rfr_id=info:sid/primo.exlibrisgroup.com:primo3-Article-jstor_proqu&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:journal&rft.genre=article&rft.atitle=The%20Myth%20of%20Universal%20Sensitive%20Responsiveness:%20Comment%20on%20Mesman%20et%20al.%20(2017)&rft.jtitle=Child%20development&rft.au=Keller,%20Heidi&rft.date=2018-09&rft.volume=89&rft.issue=5&rft.spage=1921&rft.epage=1928&rft.pages=1921-1928&rft.issn=0009-3920&rft.eissn=1467-8624&rft_id=info:doi/10.1111/cdev.13031&rft_dat=%3Cjstor_proqu%3E45046818%3C/jstor_proqu%3E%3Curl%3E%3C/url%3E&disable_directlink=true&sfx.directlink=off&sfx.report_link=0&rft_id=info:oai/&rft_pqid=2100404227&rft_id=info:pmid/29359316&rft_jstor_id=45046818&rfr_iscdi=true |