The Present study aimed at investigating (1) the extent to which ‘dependency structure’ as revealed by a questionnaire corresponds with what a self-reported personal history has to say, and (2) relying on the latter, the nature of the development of dependency from young childhood.
Method
Questionnaire. This consists of 24 statements describing concrete dependent behavior, from “I want to be with A all the time” (classed as ‘seeking physical proximity’) to “If I were to lose A, my life would be meaningless” (‘seeking psychic support’). Six possible objects of dependency, e. g., mother, father, love object or most intimate friend of the opposite sex, are chosen and Ss must make separate ratings for each of them on a 5-point scale. The dependency object with the highest total score is designated as the focus of dependency. This questionnaire had been used in the previous studies.
Personal history. Before and after writing the personal history, Ss were shown a list of 113 items which should be covered. These items are concerned with daily life, family relations, school and teacher, peer relations, etc. from brith to the present. Ss were asked to spend at least two hours writing. They are not allowed to refer to the list during, but were encouraged to add any descriptions the list reminded them of afterwards.
Ss. 104 female college sophtnores, who had been given the questionnaire three times, wrote the personal history. Out of them, 18 cases were selected whose focus of dependency had been clear and fairly stable.
Findings
1. Self-reported descriptions of interpersonal relations after college entrance generally correponded with dependency structures obtained by the questionnaire. Foci of dependency independently determined by the two measuring procedures were identical in 17 of thel8 selected.
2. Self-reported past interpersonal relations have many common features according to their focus of dependency. Though we have to be careful in interpreting this since the past in one's personal history is colored by the present, this finding suggests that dependency structures do not appear Suddenly but develop gradually and rather predictably even from young childhood. Divided into two types, family and non-family type, according to the focus of dependency, they show clear differences in selfreported interpersonal behavior. Ss belonging to the family type, including mother-focus-type and mother- father-focus-type, reported passive and negative tendencies in social behavior already in young childhood: they disliked going to kindergarten, had few friends, had difficulty in adjusting to shool, etc. These tendencies have continued to exit up to the present. On the contrary, non-family type Ss, mostly love object-type and intimate friend-type, reported active interpersonal behavior common to all stages of development; taking elementary shool age as an example, they were active and tended to be leaders had many friends, had at least one friend of the opposite sex, etc.
Discussion
The self-reported personal history with its minimal restrictions on mode of responding allow the respondent to express himself freely. Though the questionnaire leaves little freedom on the part of the respondent, since he is allowed to choose one of five answer alternative for the set of predeter mined statements, its close correspondence with the self-reported history, as seen in (1), renders it an independetly effective means of ‘reconstructing’ dependency structures. As both rely on introspection, neither can claim to offer an objectively valid picture of a person's dependency pattern.
The continuity describing under (2) may derive from common environmmental determinants working throughout growth, e. g., the presence of a grandmother living with the family, and/or the mediating function of dependency structure once formed.

View full abstract

The present study was designed to test Kagan's hypothesis that children's identification with a mo- Kiel who possessed intellectual characteristics world facilitate their receptivity to learning.
Forty subjects (24 boys and 16 girls) of grade 2 in an elementary school were matched individually on the basis of sex, IQ, and personality traits and assigned to two experimental groups, and twenty subjects (12 boys and 8 girls) to a control.
The experiment was composed of two sessions: 1) affiliative interactions between a child and a female model, and 2) a later test to examine the occurrence of identification.
In the interaction session, half the experimental Ss individually performed the prepared learning materials affiliatively with the model perceived to possess intellectual characteristics (affiliative group). The remaining experimental Ss performed them alone, though the model was present in the experimental situation (non-affiliative group). This session was consisted of three-20 minute interactions separated by an interval of approximately 10 days. At the end of each interaction, S's cognition of similarity between him (her) and the model was rated by the experimenter on scales during interview.
About one week after the last interaction, the test session ran as follows. First, the experimenter introduced two models to Ss, one was the familiar model in the former session and another a newly introduced, model strange to Ss, and then he instructed the task. The task, a vocabulary test of 25 words unknown to Ss, was to see whether they answered it in imitation of the model or not. On every word, the experimenter asked both models to define it and to display their prescheduled answers to Ss in turn. Immediately after their answering, Ss were asked to choose one of their answers or to write down Ss' own answers, and to check a reason of their choices or answerings on the prearranged four-choice sheet.
The results supported the hypothesis roughly. That is:
1. The effects of interactions was revealed at the end of interaction session. Ss of affiliative group showed significantly higher score in perceived similarity to the familiar model than Ss of non-affiliative group.
2. In the test, the affiliative group tended to answer in imitation of the familiar model, but nonaffiliative and control groups didn't. Control Ss rather tended to raly on the strange model and the non-affiliative Ss followed both models to the same extant.
3. Analyses of individual data of the affiliativegroup revealed that six Ss (2boys and 4 girls) werejudged that the identification with the familiar model occurred.
Finally, as for sex difference, we could not find no statistical significance. But there was a tendency that, in affiliative group, girls showed higher score in perceived similarity and more often answered in imitation of the familiar model in the test than. boys.

View full abstract

The present study aimed mainly at demonstrating the effect of two different sensory-motor cues on trausformation of spatial representation in children. A simplified version of Piaget's “-mountainsexperiment” was undertaken here through experiments I and II.
Experiment I
The subjects were 30 boys and 30 girls. They were ranged in age from 4 ; 8 to 6 ; 9. In place of three mountains three objects, i. e., a cube, a bowling pin, and a cylinder, were used. The experiment ran as follows ; the three experimental situations were put into practice.
(A) To predict the object's locations of a covered landscape after having turned the turn-table for 180 degrees on which the objects were arranged.
(B) To predict the object's locations of a covered landscape after a child removed around turntable for 180 degrees.
(C) To identify object's locations (perspectives) from the opposite position, in which a doll stood.(The Piaget-type task)
Generally, moving around himself was more effective on the transformation of image than turning the stimulus frame, and (C) was most difficultfor children. There were no significant differencesbetween younger and older children.
Experiment II
The subjects were 23 boys and 29 girls at the age of 7. In the pre-test, the same materials as Experiment I were used according to the Piaget-type procedure. Ss were divided into four homogeneous groups according to the pre-test score. Each group had different experience at the next interim test.
Group I: After the subjects turned the table for 90 or 180 degrees and then observed each objects' location during 15 seconds, they turned the table back to the original position and then reconstructed what they had seen.
Group II: After the subjects removed around the turn-table for 90 or 180 degrees and then observed each objects' locations during 15 seconds, they went back to their original place and then reconstructed what they had seen.
Group III: Having verbalized right-left and before-behind relations from various positions, they predicted the perspective landscape from another visual point (doll's position).
Group IV: The subjects had the smile task as Group III except for verbalization. It was a kind of delayed memory task for Group I and II. The results of the interim test were as follows. The score of Group I was the best of the four. The score of Group I was significantly better than that of Group II.
Immediately after the interim test, the post-test (the same task as the pretest) was administered. Its results of it were as follows. Among four groups, only Group II showed significant progress from the pre-test to the post-test. It was interesting that only Group II that had no observational effect showed significant progress in the post-test,.
In general, through the interim and post-test, verbalizing effect had not found, and there were no significant difference between Group III and Group IV. In conclusion, it was most effective for the child's experience to remove himself for 90or 180 degrees and confirm the sight by their own eyes in the interim test.

View full abstract

For the purpose of investigating the developmental aspects of the concept of “life” in children, the author interviewed (or questionnared) 154 children of age 5 through 11, and asked them questions with the intention of discovering the clues they use to identify life and how these clueschange with age. As it is a prerequisite to any such undertaking that the investigator has a fixed frameof reference to analyse data, the author employed the set of objective criteria for identifying life used in modern biology, and classified the observed subjective criteria of children (the clues) against them. The questions used wre of the following two kinds:
1.“Is a X living? Or, is it not?” After the answer,“Why do you think so?” Where X is an object running over the following 10 items: Animals: dog, chicken, grasshopper Plant: tulip Things in the sky: cloud, moon Thing on the ground: stone Manufactured object: ca ndle Machines: bicycle, watch
2. Is this rabbit (flower) living? Or, is it not?This question was repeated over a live rabbit, a toy rabbit operated by a battery, a realflower and an artificial flower. After this each Swas asked about the differences between the natural object and the artificial object (separately for the rabbit and for the flower). This second class of questions were intended to throw light into thesupposedly fuzzy distinctions in children between living vs. non-living and active vs. inactive. The major results are as follows:
1. There are more clues than just “movement” as Piaget insists which children use for identifying life. With 5-7 age olds, the three clues of thehighest frequencies are “movement,”“food and water intake” and “morphological characteristics.” At the 9th year of age, the third clue is replaced by “growth and development,” a fact that reflects the deepening of the understanding of children with age concerning the essential natures of life. This developmental tendency is apparent in the children's responses in the whole, both in quality and in quantity.
2. With younger children inadequate criteria like movement,“change” and function ften leagd them to confuse lifeless objects with living objects. As they grow older, these inadequate clues are replaced by more valid ones like.spontaneous movement, “food intake,” “morphological charac teristics” and “development.”
3. Only 35% of the children of age 5 correctly distinguish the living status of the real rabbit from the toy rabbit, even though none of them failedto call “a dog” alive. This seems to suggest not only that there are mixtures of developmental stages even within the same age group, but also that there are the correct identification of life under the correct although one or two cluse and a rather loose usage of the word “living” extended to active but non-living objects.
4. The correct identification of “tulip” and “chrysanthemum” as living is comparatively delayed, apparently for their lack of movements. Their correct recognition comes later as children learn to use the three clues: “growing,” “suction of water” and “withering.”

View full abstract

[in Japanese]

View full abstract