Dynamic Methodology in Infancy Research

  • Dankert Vedeler
  • Andrea P. Garvey


Infancy research has been a quickly expanding field in recent decades. Since the early 1970s, an increasing body of research demonstrated that the capacities of the newborn baby were far more advanced than previously assumed. New methodologies, such as eye tracking, motor movement tracking, heart rate measurements, EEG measurements, and the like, have been used in experimental settings. Furthermore, video observations have been used to follow, for example, mother-infant interaction, both in natural settings (Trevarthen & Hubley, 1978) and experimental settings, such as in the Strange Situation developed by Ainsworth to measure infant’s attachment (Ainsworth, 1982).


Closed System Infant Development Dynamic System Approach Historical Dimension Object Permanence 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.


  1. Ainsworth, M. D. S. (1982). Attachment: Retrospect and prospect. In C. M. Parkes & J. Stevenson-Hinde (Eds.), The place of attachment in human behavior (pp. 3–30). New York: Basic Books.Google Scholar
  2. Baillargeon, R., Spelke, E. S., & Wasserman, S. (1985). Object permanence in five-month-old infants. Cognition, 20, 191–208.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  3. Bertalanffy, L. v. (1950). General system theory. New York: George Braziller.Google Scholar
  4. Brooks, R. A. (1991). Intelligence without representation. Artificial Intelligence, 47, 139–153.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Costall, A., & Leudar, I. (2004). Where is the ‘theory’ in theory of mind? Theory & Psychology, 14, 623–646.Google Scholar
  6. Doidge, N. (2007). The brain that changes itself: Stories of personal triumph from the frontiers of brain science. New York: Penguin Books.Google Scholar
  7. Dolinoy, D. C., Huang, D., & Jirtle, R. L. (2007). Maternal nutrient supplementation counteracts bisphenol A-induced DNA hypomethylation in early development. PNAS, 104, 13056–13061.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  8. Elman, J. L., Bates, E. A., Johnson, M. H., Karmillof-Smith, A., Pirisi, D., & Plunkett, K. (1999). Rethinking innateness: A connectionist perspective on development. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
  9. Fodor, J. A. (1975). The language of thought. New York: Crowell.Google Scholar
  10. Fogel, A. (1993). Developing through relationships. London: Harvester Wheatsheaf and University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
  11. Fogel, A., Dickson, L., Hsu, H., Messinger, D., Nelson-Goens, C., & Nwokah, E. (1997). Communicative dynamics of emotion. In K. C. Barrett (Ed.), The communication of emotion: Current research from diverse perspectives (pp. 5–24). San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass Inc.Google Scholar
  12. Fogel, A., & Garvey, A. (2007). Alive communication. Infant Behavior and Development, 30, 251–257.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  13. Fogel, A., Garvey, A. P., Hsu, H., & West-Stroming, D. (2006). Change processes in relationships: A relational-historical research approach. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Fogel, A., & Lyra, M. C. D. (1997). Dynamics of development in relationships. In F. Masterpasqua & P. A. Perna (Eds.), The psychological meaning of Chaos: Translating theory into practice. Washington, DC: American Psychological Association.Google Scholar
  15. Garvey, A., & Fogel, A. (2007). Dialogical change processes, emotions, and the early emergence of self. International Journal for Dialogical Science, 2, 51–76.Google Scholar
  16. Garvey, A., & Fogel, A. (2008). Emotions and communication as a dynamic developmental system. Espaco Tiempo, 2, 62–73.Google Scholar
  17. Goffman, E. (1974). Frame analysis: An essay on the organization of experience. New York: Harper & Row.Google Scholar
  18. Gottlieb, G. (2003). Probabilistic epigenesis of development. In J. Valsiner & K. J. Connolly (Eds.), Handbook of developmental psychology (pp. 3–17). London: Sage.Google Scholar
  19. Graham, D. W. (2006). Heraclite. In J. Fieser & B. Dowden (Eds.), The internet encyclopedia of philosophy. Retrieved October 26, 2008, from
  20. Horowitz, F. D., & Colombo, J. (Eds.). (1990). Infancy research: A summative evaluation and a look to the future. Detroit: Wayne State University Press.Google Scholar
  21. Johnson, M. H. (1997). Developmental cognitive neuroscience. Cambridge, MA: Blackwell.Google Scholar
  22. Kauffman, S. A. (1993). The origins of order: Self-organization and selection in evolution. New York: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  23. Kellert, S. H. (1993). In the wake of Chaos: Unpredictable order in dynamical systems. Chicago: The University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
  24. Lewis, M. D. (1995). Cognition-emotion feedback and the self-organization of developmental paths. Human Development, 38, 71–102.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Luedi, P. P., Dietrick, F. S., Weidman, J. R., Bosko, J. M., Jirtle, R. L., & Hartmink, A. J. (2007). Computational and experimental identification of nover human imprinted genes. Genome Research, 17, 1723–1730.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  26. Luenberger, D. G. (1979). Introduction to dynamic systems: Theory, models, and applications. New York: Wiley.Google Scholar
  27. Lyra, M. C. D. P. (2000). Desenvolvimento como processo de mudança em um sistema de relações historicamente construído: Contribuições do estudo da comunicação no início da vida. Reflexão e Crítica, 13, 257–268.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Maturana, H. R., & Varela, F. C. (1987). The tree of knowledge: The biological roots of human understanding. Boston, MA: Shambhala.Google Scholar
  29. Piaget, J. (1954). The construction of reality in the child. New York: Basic Books.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Piaget, J. (1963). The origins of intelligence in children. New York: Norton.Google Scholar
  31. Prigogine, I., & Stengers, I. (1984). Order out of Chaos: Man’s new dialogue with nature. New York: Bantam.Google Scholar
  32. Smith, L. B., & Breazeal, C. (2007). The dynamic lift of developmental process. Developmental Science, 10, 61–68.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  33. Smith, L. B., Thelen, E., Titzer, R., & McLin, D. (1999). Knowing in the context of acting: The task dynamics of the A-not-B error. Psychological Review, 106, 235–260.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  34. Spelke, E. S., & Kinzler, K. D. (2007). Core knowledge. Developmental Science, 10, 89–96.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  35. Spencer, J. P., Smith, L. B., & Thelen, E. (2001). Test of a dynamic systems account of the A-not-B error: The influence of prior experience on the spatial memory abilities of two-year-olds. Child Development, 72, 1327–1346.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  36. Stone, J., Smith, H., & Murphy, L. (Eds.). (1973). The competent infant: Research and commentary. New York: Basic Books.Google Scholar
  37. Thelen, E., Kelso, J. A. S., & Fogel, A. (1987). Self-organizing systems and infant motor development. Developmental Review, 7, 39–65.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Thelen, E., & Smith, L. B. (1994). A dynamic systems approach to the development of cognition and action. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
  39. Thelen, E., & Ulrich, B. D. (1991). Hidden skills: A dynamic systems analysis of treadmill stepping during the first year. Monographs of the Society for Research in Child Development, 56, 6–46.Google Scholar
  40. Trevarthen, C. (1979). Instincts for human understanding and for cultural cooperation; their development in infancy. In M. v. Cranach, K. Foppa, W. Lepenies, & D. Ploog (Eds.), Human ethology: Claims and limits of a new discipline (pp. 530–594). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  41. Trevarthen, C., & Hubley, P. (1978). Secondary intersubjectivity; confidence, confiding, and acts of meaning in the first year. In A. Lock (Ed.), Action, gesture, and symbol: The emergence of language (pp. 183–229). London: Academic Press.Google Scholar
  42. Valsiner, J. (1997). Culture and the development of children’s action: A theory of human development (2nd ed.). New York: Wiley.Google Scholar
  43. van Geert, P. (2003). Dynamic systems approaches and modeling of developmental processes. In J. Valsiner & K. J. Connolly (Eds.), Handbook of developmental psychology (pp. 640–672). London: Sage Publications.Google Scholar
  44. Vedeler, D. (1991). Infant intentionality as object directedness: An alternative to representationalism. Journal for the Theory of Social Behaviour, 21, 431–448.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. Werner, H. (1957).The concept of development. In D. B. Harris (Ed.), The concept of development (pp. 125–147). Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press.Google Scholar
  46. Witherington, D. C. (2007). The dynamic systems approach as metatheory for developmental psychology. Human Development, 50, 127–153.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media, LLC 2009

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of PsychologyNorwegian University of Science and Technology (NTNU)TrondheimNorway

Personalised recommendations