One of the earliest challenges for infants and their parents is developing a diurnal sleep–wake cycle. Although the human biological rhythm is circadian by nature, its development varies across cultures, based in part on “zeitgebers” (German: literally “time‐givers”) or environmental cues. This study uses the developmental niche framework by Super and Harkness to address two different approaches to getting the baby on a schedule. 33 Dutch and 41 U.S. mothers were interviewed when their babies were 2 and 6 months old. A mixed‐methods analysis including counts of themes and practices as well as the examination of actual quotes shows that Dutch mothers emphasized the importance of regularity in the baby's daily life and mentioned practices to establish regular schedules for the baby's sleeping, eating, and time outside more than American mothers did. The U.S. mothers, in contrast, discussed regularity less often and when they did, they emphasized that their baby should develop his or her own schedule. Furthermore, actual daily schedules, based on time allocation diaries kept by the mothers, revealed greater regularity among the Dutch babies. Discussion focuses on how culture shapes the development of diurnal rhythms, with implications for “best practices” for infant care.

No abstract

The present study explored cultural differences in parental beliefs about motor development across 2 Western cultures: Israel and the Netherlands. Can 2 cultural models be distinguished regarding infant motor development in Israel and the Netherlands or are parental beliefs about motor development similar across these cultures? Using a questionnaire containing closed and open questions, beliefs of 206 Israeli and 198 Dutch parents of first-born children between 2 and 7 months old were analyzed. Based on both quantitative and qualitative analyses, distinct cultural models were found showing that the Dutch attributed a bigger role to maturation and children's own pace than to stimulation. The Israeli parents found stimulation of motor development important and discussed active stimulation more elaborately. When discussing supportive activities, the Israeli parents mentioned specific activities, whereas the Dutch parents used more general, vague expressions about support. Moreover, the Israeli parents discussed the need for expert advice and advice from relatives and other parents more than the Dutch parents, who rely on their own observations, books, or websites more often. The cultural background was the strongest predictor of parental beliefs about motor development. Parental education, age, children's birth weight, gender, and having seen a physical therapist showed weaker relations with parental beliefs. Altogether, 2 distinguishing cultural models can be found, raising the question whether infant motor development can be approached similarly across Western cultures. Besides this implication for science, practitioners should also be aware of differences between cultures and between parents. (PsycINFO Database Record

This study explores the protective effects of family cohesion and school belongingness against the negative consequences of bullying. 481 immigrant and nonimmigrant US middle‐school students (Mage = 13.28(0.87), 49% female; 36% ethnic minority) self‐reported their experiences being bullied, school belongingness, family cohesion, and socioemotional well‐being measured as externalizing, internalizing, and prosocial behaviors. First‐ or second‐generation immigrant youth (n = 72) came from 30 countries in Europe, Asia, Africa, South America, and the Caribbean. Family cohesion served as a protective factor for both immigrant and nonimmigrant youth, but for different outcomes of bullying experiences. For immigrant youth who experienced more bullying, having a more cohesive family was associated with decreased levels of internalizing problems. Additionally, stronger school belongingness and especially family cohesion related to more prosocial behaviors among more frequently bullied immigrant youth. Nonimmigrant youth who experienced bullying, however, reported fewer externalizing problems when they had stronger family cohesion and especially school belongingness. The findings highlight the importance of considering the interacting systems in which immigrant youth are embedded and suggest that family cohesion as a protective factor may work differently for immigrant than for nonimmigrant youth experiencing bias‐based bullying.

No abstract