No description available.

Enabling-relation action sequences (ERASs) have long provided researchers an index of infants’ short- and long-term memories. Reproduction of these sequences demonstrates that infants are capable of attending to, encoding, retaining, and retrieving modeled actions in the sequence. Bauer and colleagues (e.g., 2000) have established considerable literature on infants’ memorial capacities using this paradigm. There is little research, however, on the extent to which infants produce primacy- versus recency-type effects in reproducing specific target actions in the sequence.Researchers have also not considered whethe exogenous and endogenous factors contribute to infants’ reproduction of target actions, or their focus on early versus late actions in the sequence. Our investigation explored whether an exogenous distracter, alone or combined with endogenous (temperament) factors, accounts for infants’ reproduction of individual steps in an ERAS. Twenty-seven 21-month olds (15 girls) observed an experimenter in our lab model a version of the “make-a-gong” action sequence, comprising five steps: 1) extend the rod, 2) lay the rod across two hooks, 3) hang the gong on the rod, 4) assemble the drumstick, and 5) strike the gong with the drumstick. Half observed the model while distracted by a peripheral “Mister Monkey” toy. Each was administered the Early Childhood Behavior Questionnaire, assessing three temperament dimensions: Negative Affectivity, Surgency, and Effortful Control. When distracted, infants were significantly more likely to first attempt Target Action #4 (TA4) than any other target action [c2(1) = 4.14, p = .042], suggesting that when attentional resources are compromised, as when attending to an exogenous distracter, infants are likely to attempt recently observed steps in a modeled sequence. Success at TA4 did not differ between distracted and undistracted infants; however, we found that temperament was a significant predictor of success on TA4, but not on any other target action. Specifically, Negative Affectivity (r = -.48, p = .011) and Surgency (r = .40, p = .039) were associated with successful reproduction of TA4; however, distraction condition moderated neither effect. These results show that exogenous and endogenous factors can impact infants’ reproduction of ERASs, and perhaps infants’ memory-based performance more generally. Though this conclusion awaits replications in other settings, that the presence of an exogenous distraction produced a recency effect implies that infants may allocate their attention differently according to how distracting their surroundings are. Also, that surgency and negative affectivity correlated with infants’ success on one of the steps suggests that recall may be subject to the influence of infants’ temperamental reactivity. Future research should attempt to discern whether effects linked to TA4 are unique to that specific target action, or are instead a reflection of a recency effect.

It is estimated that US children 2 to 18 years of age spend an average of 5.5 hours, daily, using media of all types. 1 During these years, it is estimated they will have viewed over 200,000 acts of violence just on television. 2 In this issue of the Southern Medical Journal, Dr. Robert DuRant and colleagues reported on their findings that an increased frequency of watching professional wrestling on television was associated with an increase in reported date fighting and other violent behaviors, risky sexual behavior, and smoking cigarettes, among a multistate random sample of adolescents aged 16 to 20 years. 3 In this cross-sectional study, 22.4% of males and 13.6% of females reported watching professional wrestling on television during the 2 weeks before the survey. Prior research, including experimental and longitudinal studies, has consistently demonstrated strong associations between exposure to media violence and desensitization to violence, greater acceptance of violence as a means of solving problems, and violent behavior, as well as depression, anxiety, and sleep disturbance. 4

No description available.

No description available.

No description available.

No description available.

No description available.

No description available.

No description available.