Gesell, Arnold Lucius

Cinemanalysis

Among Gesell's greatest methodological contributions was his pioneering technique, termed “cinemanalysis,” involving a longitudinal series of motion pictures. Gesell collected motion picture data of 107 infants from birth to 56 weeks and again at 6-or 12-month intervals until age 6 (and, for some infants, age 10). Gesell and his colleagues used cinemanalysis to record four types of behavior: (1) motor behavior, which included gross bodily control and fine motor skills; (2) language behavior, which included facial expressions, gestures, prelinguistic vocalization, babbling, speech, and communication with others; (3) adaptive behavior, which included hand-eye coordination, reaching for and handling objects, and drawing; and (4) personal-social behavior, which included the child's reaction to the social culture in which he or she lived, feeding, play, smiling responses to people, and responses to a mirror. Gesell used the data on these dimensions to assess relations between growth and culture in the developing child. In describing the uniqueness and inherent usefulness of cinemanalysis, Gesell asserted that

Along with the use of cinemanalysis, Gesell employed the use of his so-called photographic dome, or observation dome, for use with motion pictures and for general research and teaching about child behavior.

Theoretical Aspects of Human Development

In terms of his theoretical approaches to the study of human behavior, Gesell argued that human development is largely a matter of biological maturation rather than environmental influence. Gesell's view was that children, much like plants, simply “bloomed,” following a pattern and timetable laid out in their genes; the manner in which parents reared their young was thought to be of little importance. This viewpoint echoes the strains of the field now known as ethology, which is the scientific study of the evolutionary basis of behavior and the contributions of evolved responses to the survival and development of a species.

To demonstrate and support his theoretical preference for nature over nurture, Gesell conducted twin studies in which one twin underwent some sort of behavioral training while the other twin served as a control (twins T and C, respectively). After delineating the striking similarities between identical twins on such measures as weight curves, dentition, and Gesell's own developmental tests, Gesell gave the T twin daily practice and experience with an activity such as stair climbing from age 46 to 52 weeks. During this time, the C twin was kept in an environment that did not allow for this experience. In one case, the T twin could climb stairs in 25 seconds after the six weeks of training. At this 52-week time point, T's training was discontinued and, a week later, C's training commenced. Gesell found that the C twin, until then untrained and isolated from stairs, climbed the stairs seven times—a feat [Page 513]surpassed by T only after 5 weeks of training. Moreover, the twins were observed to climb the stairs in the same physical manner, although neither infant had seen the other complete the task. Gesell used his observations to conclude that added age alone very shortly brought an untrained twin up to a level of performance equal to the trained, but younger at the time of training, counterpart. In broader terms, it seemed to Gesell that, although outside influences (i.e., training) can sometimes speed up the development of behaviors, the effect is only temporary, and the benefits of time and biological development will erase any advantage achieved from outside influence. Gesell further globalized his findings to assert that, although both nature and nurture play a role in child development, environmental influences do not determine the ultimate rate or quality of development.

...