Early Childhood Parenting Predicts Late Childhood Brain Functional Connectivity During Emotion Perception and Reward Processing

Seventy-nine 3-year olds and their mothers participated in a laboratory-based task to assess maternal hostility. Mothers also reported their behavioral regulation of their child. Seven years later, functional magnetic resonance imaging data were acquired while viewing emotional faces and completing a reward processing task. Maternal hostility predicted more negative amygdala connectivity during exposure to sad relative to neutral faces with frontal and parietal regions as well as more negative left ventral striatal connectivity during monetary gain relative to loss feedback with the right posterior orbital frontal cortex and right inferior frontal gyrus. In contrast, maternal regulation predicted enhanced cingulo-frontal connectivity during monetary gain relative to loss feedback. Results suggest parenting is associated with alterations in emotion and reward processing circuitry 7–8 years later.     

Getting What You Pay For: Children's Use of Market Norms to Regulate Exchanges

Children are sensitive to a number of considerations influencing distributions of resources, including equality, equity, and reciprocity. We tested whether children use a specific type of reciprocity norm—market norms—in which resources are distributed differentially based strictly on amount offered in return. In two studies, 195 children 5–10 years and 60 adults distributed stickers to friends offering same or different amounts of money. Overall, participants distributed more equally when offers were the same and more unequally when offers were different. Although sensitive to why friends offered different amounts of money, children increasingly incorporated market norms into their distributions with age, as the oldest children and adults distributed more to those offering more, irrespective of the reasons provided.     

Analyzing Food Science Research for Publishing Characteristics as a Model for Understanding the Needs of Researchers

Abstract

This paper provides a methodology to study the characteristics of the research output from a university department. The faculty publications and their cited references over a 10-year period were used as the basis for this study to identify their publishing patterns and the types of material they are publishing; a core set of journals and other resources they are publishing in and citing over this period; the characteristics of the journals in which they publish and cite; the degree of openness of their publications and their citation advantage; and the age of resources that are referenced.     

Effects of Manipulative Instruction on Solving Area and Perimeter Problems by Students with Learning Disabilities

Abstract. A multiple baseline design was employed to test the effect of manipulative instruction on the perimeter and area problem‐solving performance of middle and high school students who had been diagnosed with LD in the area of mathematics. Modeling, prompting/guided practice, and independent practice in conjunction with manipulative training were employed to teach both perimeter and area problem‐solving skills. Analysis of data revealed that the students rapidly acquired the problem‐solving‐skills, maintained these skills over a two‐month period, and transferred these skills to a paper and pencil problem‐solving format. This research extends previous findings by revealing that use of concrete manipulatives promotes the long‐term maintenance of skills.     

Steps Toward More Effective Implementation of the Standards for Educational and Psychological Testing

The goal of the Standards for Educational and Psychological Testing is to improve testing practices, but their impact on practice appears spotty. Self-regulation clearly fails in some instances. The establishment of an external agency to oversee testing practices and adherence to the Standards would face substantial hurdles, and the ambiguity of many of the Standards would hobble such an organization if one were created. Many of the Standards are general statements of principle, and past controversies make clear that we in the field often disagree about the reasons for them, their applicability to specific cases, and their practical meaning in specific contexts. This paper argues that the field should follow two approaches to lessen this ambiguity. First, using journals, conferences, and other vehicles, we should foster more frequent and more protracted debate about the practical meaning of key Standards, such as 13.6 and 13.7, which mandate that a decision that will have a "major impact" on a student should not be based on a single score. Second, future revisions of the Standards should use concrete examples of testing practices to clarify the meaning of the Standards, much as the legal system uses case law to clarify the meaning of the general principles embodied in statutes .