Cognitive Characteristics as Predictors of Children’s Understanding of Safety and Prevention

  • Nina M. Coppens

Abstract

An understanding of children’s characteristics that might contribute to their injury proneness should provide direction for recognizing children at risk and for taking preventive action. Compared to school-age children, preschoolers have a higher rate of accidents (Baker, O’Neill, & Karpf, 1984; International Children’s Centre, 1979). In attempting to discover the reasons for this age-related difference in proneness to accidents, consideration of other differences between these two age groups may be helpful.

Keywords

Income Preven 

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. Baker, S., O’Neill, B., & Karpf, R. (1984). The injury fact book. Lexington, MA: D.C. Heath.Google Scholar
  2. Coppens, N. (1985). Cognitive development and locus of control as predictors of preschoolers’ understanding of safety and prevention. Journal of Applied Developmental Psychology, 6, 43–55.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Drake, D. (1970). Perceptual correlates of impulsive and reflective behavior. Developmental Psychology, 2, 202–214.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Duryea, E., & Glover, J. (1982). A review of the research on reflection and impulsivity in children. Genetic Psychology Monographs, 106, 217–237.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  5. Faber, R., & Ward, S. (1977). Children’s understanding of using products safely. Journal of Marketing41, 39–46.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Ginsburg, H., & Miller, S. (1982). Sex differences in children’s risk-taking behavior. Child Development, 53, 426–428.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Gjerde, P., Block, J., & Block, J. H. (1985). Longitudinal consistency of matching familiar figures test performance from early childhood to preadolescence. Developmental Psychology, 21, 262–271.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. International Children’s Centre (1979). Prevention of child accidents at home. Paris. (ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. ED 187 479)Google Scholar
  9. Kagan, J., & Kogan, N. (1970). Individual variation in cognitive processes. In P. H., Müssen (Ed.),Carmichaels manual of child psychology (Vol. 1, pp. 1273–1365). New York: Wiley.Google Scholar
  10. Kagan, J., Rosman, B., Day, D., Albert, J., & Phillips, W. (1964). Information processing in the child: significance of analytic and reflective attitudes. Psychological Monographs: General and Applied, 78(1, Whole No. 578).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Messer, S. (1976). Reflection-impulsivity: a review. Psychological Bulletin, 83, 1026–1052.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Piaget, J. (1960). The child’s conception of physical causality. Paterson, NJ: Littlefield Adams.Google Scholar
  13. Sharp, K. (1982). Preschoolers’ understanding of temporal and causal relations. Merrill-Palmer Quarterly, 28, 427–436.Google Scholar
  14. Shultz, T., & Mendelson, R. (1975). The use of covariation as a principle of causal analysis. Child Development, 46, 394–399.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Siegelman, E. (1969). Reflective and impulsive observing behavior. Child Development, 40, 1213–1222.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Siegler R. (1975). Defining the locus of developmental differences in children’s causal reasoning. Journal of Experimental Child Psychology, 20, 512–525.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Victor, J., Halverson, C., & Montague, R. (1985). Relations between reflection-impulsivity and behavioral impulsivity in preschool children. Developmental Psychology, 21, 141–148.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media New York 1993

Authors and Affiliations

  • Nina M. Coppens
    • 1
  1. 1.College of Health ProfessionsUniversity of LowellUSA

Personalised recommendations