|
REVISIÓN BIBLIOGRÁFICA |
En las últimas décadas algunos psicólogos del desarrollo se han interesado por nuevos marcos científicos con los cuales explicar la emergencia de la novedad y la variabilidad de las acciones y comportamientos (Thelen, 2000; Lewis, 2000; van Geert, 2000). La aproximación de los sistemas dinámicos se ha constituido como un panorama común para estos investigadores, dada su riqueza matemática, su valor heurístico y las posibilidades teóricas que ofrece (van Geert y Steenbeek, 2005a; Thelen y cols., 2001; Thelen, 2005). Autoorganización, emergencia, o atractores, son sólo algunos de los términos utilizados en las investigaciones actuales en los campos del desarrollo lingüístico, emocional o social (Steenbeek y van Geert, 2005; Smith, 2005; van Dijk, 2004; Scherer, 2000). Esta investigación busca desarrollar modelos matemáticos que describan, desde los sistemas dinámicos, el desarrollo socioemocional infantil en la interacción diádica. Algunos avances se han hecho al respecto (van Geert y Steenbeek, 2005b; van Geert y van Dijk, 2002; Schutte y cols, 2003; Lavelli y Fogel, 2005; Hsu y Fogel, 2003)
1. Hsu, H.-C., & Fogel, A. (2003). Stability and transitions in mother–infant face-to-face communication during the first 6 months: A microhistorical approach. Developmental Psychology, 39(6), 1061-1082.
2. Lavelli, M., & Fogel, A. (2005). Developmental changes in the relationship between the infant’s attention and emotion during early face-to-face communication: The 2-month transition. Developmental Psychology, 41(1), 265–280.
3. Lewis, M. D. (2000). The promise of dynamic systems approaches for an integrated account of human development. Child Development, 71(1), 36-43.
4. Scherer, K. R. (2000). Emotions as episodes of subsystem synchronization driven by nonlinear appraisal processes In M. D. Lewis & I. Granic (Eds.), Emotion, development, and self-organization: Dynamic systems approaches to emotional development. Cambridge, U.K.: Cambridge University Press
5. Schutte, A. R., Spencer, J. P., & Schöner, G. (2003). Testing the Dynamic Field Theory: Working memory for locations becomes more spatially precise over development. Child Development, 74(5), 1393-1417
6. Smith, L. B. (2005). Cognition as a dynamic system: Principles from embodiment. Developmental Review, 25, 278-298.
7. Steenbeek, H., & van Geert, P. (2005). A dynamic systems model of dyadic interaction during play of two children. European Journal of Developmental Psychology, 0(0), 1-41.
8. Thelen, E. (2000). Motor development as foundation and future of developmental psychology. International Journal of Behavioral Development, 24(4), 385-397.
9. Thelen, E. (2005). Dynamic systems theory and the complexity of change. Psychoanalytic Dialogues, 15(2), 255-283.
10. Thelen, E., Schöner, G., Scheier, C., & Smith, L. B. (2001). The dynamics of embodiment: A field theory of infant perseverative reaching. Behavioral and Brain Sciences, 24, 1-86
11. van Dijk, M. (2004). Child language cuts capers: Variability and ambiguity in early child development. Groningen: University of Groningen.
12. van Geert, P. (2000). The dynamics of general developmental mechanisms: From Piaget and Vygotsky to dynamic systems models. Current Directions in Psychological Science, 9(2), 64-68.
13. van Geert, P., & Steenbeek, H. (2005a). A complexity and dynamic systems approach to developmental assessment, modeling and research. In K. W. Fischer, A. Battro & P. Lena (Eds.), Mind, brain and education. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press
14. van Geert, P., & Steenbeek, H. (2005b). Explaining after by before: Basic aspects of a dynamic systems approach to the study of development. Developmental Review, 25, 408-442.
15. van Geert, P., & van Dijk, M. (2002). Focus on Variability: New tools to study intra-individual variability in developmental data. Infant Behavior and Development, 25(4), 340-374
|
