Metacognition and Learning

https://doi.org/10.1007/s11409-019-09213-8

Recognizing early childhood as a critical time

Nancy E. Perry 1

Received: 30 September 2019 / Accepted: 2 October 2019/

Abstract
Research in educational and developmental psychology offers evidence that children are
developing basic capacities (i.e., executive functions) for self-regulating long before they
receive formal instruction in school. Importantly, the evidence indicates self-regulation is
a strong predictor of outcomes in early childhood and across the lifespan. This comment
considers contributions from four studies published in the special issue of Metacognition
and Learning, titled “Self-Regulation and Co-Regulation in Early Childhood: Develop-
ment, Assessment and Supporting Factors.” The studies reveal 2–3-year-old children’s
spontaneous use of strategies to support success on delay tasks and individual differences
in 5–7-year-old children’s ability beliefs and goal orientations. They also signal important
differences in parents’ scaffolding/co-regulation of children’s self-regulation. All studies
point to the particular importance of attending to developmental trajectories of children
judged “at risk” in their development of self-regulation and supporting parents to develop
strategies for co-regulating children in the context of challenging tasks. Considerations
for future research are raised.

Keywords Self-regulation . Co-regulation . Scaffolding . Self-regulated learning . Executive

Researchers in educational and developmental psychology are amassing evidence that basic
capacities (i.e., executive functions) for self-regulating cognition, emotion, behavior, and
learning are developing long before children receive formal instruction about learning in
school (Bronson 2000; Diamond 2016; Whitebread and Basilio 2012). Research in develop-
mental psychology has focused on children’s development of basic executive functions—
working memory, focused attention, and inhibitory control—as supports for higher-order
processes that are the focus of research on self-regulation and self-regulated learning (SRL)
in educational psychology (Diamond 2016; Perry et al. 2018). According to Diamond, these

* Nancy E. Perry
nancy.perry@ubc.ca

1
University of British Columbia, Vancouver, Canada
basic processes come on line during the preschool years and enable cognitive flexibility and
adaptability, which are critical for the execution of higher-order executive processes, including
reasoning, problem-solving, and planning. These higher-order processes align with models
used to characterize older students’ SRL in educational psychology (e.g., Winne and Hadwin
1998; Zimmerman and Campillo 2003).
Developmental studies also highlight children’s development of effortful and voluntary
control (Blair and Diamond 2008; Eisenberg and Spinrad 2004). Especially, they emphasize
emotion and behavior regulation as important milestones in children’s development toward
self-regulation during the preschool years. These capacities emerge along with children’s
increasing self and other awareness, helping them to think effectively and act adaptively in a
wide range of contexts, including those they find challenging, boring, or overly exciting.
Similarly, educational psychologists stress the role of metacognition (awareness of person,
task, and strategy variables; Flavell 1979) and strategic action in self-regulation. Less attention
has been paid to the emotional side of self-regulation in educational psychology, but more
emphasis has been placed on what motivates self-regulation, particularly what beliefs, values,
and expectations influence learners’ choices about how to self-regulate (e.g., Dweck 2002;
Perry et al. 2019). Together, these fields are informing understandings about self-regulation
involving a set of coordinated processes developing across the early years through adolescence
and into adulthood.
Importantly, the evidence from research on self-regulation suggests it is a strong predictor
of children’s early adjustment to and achievement in school, but also links self-regulation to
positive and negative outcomes through adolescence and adulthood. For example, general and
special education teachers point to self-regulation as a significant source of achievement
differences across grades and subject areas (Zimmerman and Schunk 2011; Perry et al.
2018). Kindergarten teachers report that children who struggle in their development of self-
regulation have difficulty following directions, completing academic tasks, managing emo-
tions, and relating positively to peers (Rimm-Kaufman et al. 2000). When these difficulties
persist into adolescence and adulthood, they are associated with academic problems, but also
poor decision-making and risk-taking, and problems with relationships, employment, and
health (Butler 2004; Butler and Schnellert 2015; Moffitt et al. 2011). These findings support
efforts to chart the developmental trajectory of processes associated with productive forms of
self-regulation and understand how best to support them, even before children enter school.
The articles in this themed issue contribute to this body of work.
Specifically, the four studies reported in this issue examined factors associated with
developing self-regulation in children aged 1–7 years from multiple perspectives (researchers’,
parents’, teachers’, and children’s), in a range of settings (laboratory, children’s homes,
daycare, and kindergarten), using a variety of measures. A strength of these studies is their
use of direct and indirect measures and triangulation of findings across measures. All of the
studies operationalized children’s developing self-regulation through inhibition but three
studies also included global measures of behavioral self-regulation/self-control (Campagnoni,
Karlen, & Merki; Gärtner, Vetter, Schäferling, Reuner & Hertel; and Mulder, Van
Ravenswaaij, Verhagen, Moerbeek, & Leseman). Two of the studies examined qualities of
parental support for children’s self-regulation (Gärtner et al. and Neale & Whitebread), and one
study investigated the role of motivational beliefs and goal orientations in children’s develop-
ment of inhibition and classroom-based self-regulation (Campagnoni, Karlen, & Merki). My
comments about this suite of studies is organized in two main sections, titled “Contributions”
and “Considerations,” respectively, to address two questions: (a) What do these studies teach
Recognizing early childhood as a critical time for developing and...

us about young children developing capacities for self-regulation? and (b) What more do we
need to know to understand and support young children’s developing capacities for this
essential skill?

Contributions

Mulder et al. examined what behaviors/strategies 2- and 3-year-old children used during delay
of gratification tasks (snack delay and gift delay) and how those behaviors related to delay
success. They focused on children’s spontaneous strategy use, moving beyond assessments of
basic processes that dominate the literature about young children’s self-regulation and asking
whether very young children can enlist more sophisticated self-regulatory processes to meet a
goal—can they be strategic? Mulder et al. developed an elaborate coding scheme that attended
to children’s visual, verbal, and motor actions during each second of a 60-s delay period,
providing micro-data on what children were doing throughout the task. The majority of
children in the study (> 70%) were successful in delaying gratification in both tasks and
successful children were observed using both visual and motor strategies to achieve their goal.
Most interesting, for me, was the finding that successful children tended to initiate strategy use
within the first 10 s of the delay period, suggesting they moved to control or regulate their
behavior quickly. In contrast, unsuccessful children tended to abandon the goal of delaying
gratification just as quickly (within the first 10 s) and consistently (80% of the children who
failed the snack task also failed the gift task).
Mulder et al. take up two important questions for researchers seeking to advance knowledge
about self-regulation as a developmental process. First, what does self-regulation, or strategic
action, look like when you are 2 or 3 years old? Do the tactics children used in Mulder et al.’s
study, characterized as shifting attention and hand-withholding, count? Mulder et al. argue, and
I agree, they do, if they are intentionally applied to support successful goal attainment/task
completion. Second, what prompted the successful children’s strategy use? Mulder et al. argue
it could not have been metacognition, because metacognition takes time for reflection. Ten
seconds seems enough time, to me, for children to have what Flavell (1979) referred to as a
metacognitive experience. It seems possible children who enacted strategies recognized the
challenge of the task immediately and took steps to control that challenge with strategies,
demonstrating some level of person in relation to task awareness, and strategy awareness and
control (i.e., metacognition). More research is needed to test these interpretations and a critical
task for researchers is designing developmentally appropriate activities that present opportu-
nities for children to reveal their metacognition and strategic action in reliable ways.
The two studies that focused on parents’ support for self-regulation offer a number of
insights about how caregivers can bolster children’s development in this area. Neale and
Whitebread examined parental scaffolding of children’s play over time and with infants at 12,
18, and 24 months of age. Like Mulder et al., and more than previous studies on this topic,
they developed a very detailed/micro-coding scheme to reveal parents’ “propensity to scaf-
fold” (time spent scaffolding), the type of support provided (direct or contingent), and
consistency of mothers’ support for the infants/toddlers’ engagements with ring toys (and/or
cups at 12 months). They observed propensity to scaffold as an individual difference among
parents that related to children’s effortful control and general cognitive development. Mothers
who demonstrated a propensity to scaffold infants at 12 months also spent more time than
other parents scaffolding their infants at 18 and 24 months. Contingent scaffolding at 12
months predicted children’s effortful control at 24 months (measured through inhibition) and,
importantly, children of “consistently contingent” mothers performed better on the grasping
and delay tasks and had higher ratings on the global measure of cognitive development (BSID
researcher ratings) than children who received contingent support inconsistently.
Consistency appeared to be particularly important for children judged “at risk” in their
development of effortful control/self-regulation at the start of the study (six children in total
received low scores on the grasping task). A subset of the children in this group (3) who
received consistently contingent scaffolding from mothers during the play tasks increased their
scores on the inhibition tasks (grasping and delay tasks) by one standard deviation over the
course of the study and ended with final scores above the mean for all child participants. In
contrast, children receiving inconsistently contingent support during the play tasks remained
behind the total group in their development of effortful control throughout the study. Another
important insight from Neale and Whitebread’s study is that parents appeared to provide more
suitable support when children were successful than when they were not. Specifically, parents
appropriately withdrew support when children were successful but did not increase support
when they struggled with the ring sort/cup stacking tasks. Future research should seek ways of
helping caregivers develop strategies for recognizing and scaffolding challenging aspects of
these and other tasks. For example, Neale and Whitebread observed a reciprocal feedback loop
between successful children and their parents whereby mothers’ contingent interventions
supported children’s success and children’s success seemed to prompt mothers’ contingent
responses. Ideally, the same reciprocal contingency would be observed for children who were
less successful during the play tasks.
The results of Gärtner et al.’s study similarly point to a need to focus on children who are at
risk in their development of self-regulation, but also on parents reporting “negative” ap-
proaches to co-regulation (NCR) and/or experiencing low efficacy for supporting their children
in this regard. These researchers related parents’ self-reported positive and negative co-
regulation and domain-specific and global self-efficacy (DSSE and DGSE) for supporting
children’s self-regulation to children’s inhibitory control (parent ratings, BRIEF-IN; snack
delay task). Positive co-regulation referred to parents’ efforts to support children during
cognitively and emotionally challenging situations—I interpret efforts that reflect warm,
responsive, contingent parenting styles. Negative co-regulation, in contrast, referred to overly
controlling, perhaps harsh, and hostile parenting behaviors. Parents reporting low DSSE and
NCR tended to rate their children lower on inhibitory control (BRIEF-IN) and on the cognitive
measure than parents reporting PCR and DSSE.
PCR did not surface as a strong predictor of children’s inhibitory control in this study. The
researchers suggest this may be because parents’ ratings of their co-regulation were, on
average, quite high (positive response bias) or due to children’s high rate of success on the
task (ceiling effects). I wonder if the BRIEF, with its emphasis on problem behavior, was not
sensitive enough to the effects of PCR. The authors refer to observations of parent-child
interactions prior to the snack delay task, but these are not described in any detail. This
additional direct evidence of parents’ PCR and NCR could be useful for teasing apart the
relative importance of PCR and NCR (and as a function of DSSE) for supporting children’s
self-regulation. The authors rightly point out that more research is needed to understand the
relationship between parents’ personal attributes (e.g., self-efficacy, stress levels, knowledge of
self-regulation, and how to support it) and co-regulatory actions and children’s development of
capacities linked to self-regulation. Other research suggests these relationships are complex
and, likely, due to a multitude of factors, including but not limited to the following: children’s
Recognizing early childhood as a critical time for developing and...

temperament and disabilities; parent/familial stress; and parents’ mental health and personal
capacities for self-regulation (Babcock 2014; Calkins and Johnson 1998; Diamond 2016;
Moffitt et al. 2011; Vernon-Feagans et al. 2016).
Compagnoni et al. examined how motivation is implicated in children’s development of
executive functions (inhibition) and classroom-based self-regulation (CBSR). Specifically,
they related kindergarten children’s (ages 5–7, in Switzerland) ability beliefs (fixed versus
malleable) and goal orientations (mastery versus performance orientation) to their performance
on a standardized inhibition task (Head, Toes, Knees, Shoulders, HTKS) and teacher ratings of
their day-to-day behavioral self-regulation in the classroom (using the published CBSR scale).
Focusing on motivational correlates of young children’s self-regulation is rare, particularly in
the developmental literature and in studies that focus on executive functions/effortful control.
Compagnoni et al.’s findings corroborate results from previous studies that have taken this
focus (e.g., Perry 1998; Smiley and Dweck 1994; Stipek et al. 1995; Turner 1995), signaling
even very young children differ in their beliefs about ability and goal orientations and these
“mindsets” may serve as risk or protective factors for developing self-regulation and learning.
Campagnoni et al.’s analyses help to illuminate how particular aspects of motivation
(beliefs, goal orientations) and self-regulation (basic and high-order functions) might interact
and influence decisions children make about how to engage with tasks. In their study, mastery
goal orientations were associated with higher ratings of behavioral self-regulation, but only
when paired with a malleable view of abilities. Self-regulation mediated the relationship
between motivational beliefs and achievement, and successful self-regulation was related to
the strength of children’s executive functions. These findings warrant further investigations of
how motivational strengths and vulnerabilities contribute to developing self-regulation. For
example, children who have a fixed view of ability and adopt performance, particularly
avoidance (Pintrich 2000), goal orientations may not engage in productive forms of self-
regulation when it is needed, putting them at risk for developing self-regulation and learning.
In contrast, a malleable view of ability and a mastery goal orientation may serve as protective
factors, particularly when children are struggling, because they are associated with persistence
and self-regulation in the context of challenging tasks (Dweck 2002). As an extension to this
study, and building from the other articles in this issue, investigating how parents and teachers
support (or thwart) children’s motivation for self-regulation (including executive functions)
seems a fruitful area for future research.

Considerations

The studies in this themed issue contribute a more nuanced understanding of self-regulation in
very young children by combining theory and research from both developmental and educa-
tional psychology. Also, they inspire further consideration and investigation to advance
understandings in this very important area of child development and learning. First, much of
the research involving very young children focuses on the development of basic executive
functions, particularly inhibition, or behavioral aspects of self-regulation. Given widespread
agreement that self-regulation is a complex and multi-componential construct, requiring both
basic and higher-order processes, it seems research with young children should take a broader
view. In this issue, Mulder et al. provide evidence concerning 2- and 3-year children’s
spontaneous use of strategies to support their successful completion of a delay task and
Compagnoni et al. demonstrate complex relationships among motivational beliefs, goal
orientations, executive functions, and behavioral self-regulation for children aged 5–7. Re-
searchers should continue to include these and other higher-order processes in studies of
trajectories for young children’s self-regulation and in order to create comprehensive and
integrative models of self-regulation.
A challenge for researchers studying young children’s development of self-regulation is
designing authentic and developmentally appropriate tasks that provide opportunities for
young children to demonstrate what they know and can do in this domain. Much of the
research involving young children is carried out in laboratories using standardized measures
that are poor reflections of children’s self-regulation in their daily activities. The authors of the
studies in this issue used tasks that are common in children’s everyday lives (e.g., the grasping
task, delay tasks), observed children in familiar situations and settings (playing with parents,
meeting with researchers in their school), and enlisted the support of persons most knowl-
edgeable (parents and teachers) to obtain global assessments of children’s self-regulation. Now
I would challenge them, and others, to go further. As a second extension of the research
reported in this issue, I advocate more studies of children developing self-regulation in
naturalistic contexts (homes, daycare centers, schools) using embedded tasks for this purpose.
Neuman and Roskos (1997) provide an excellent example of how this can be done. They
captured 3 and 4-year-old children’s knowledge of literacy routines by embedding three
relevant play settings in their preschool classroom: a post office, a restaurant, and a doctor’s
office. They observed children in these settings once a week over 7 months and coded their
activity to reflect declarative, procedural, and strategic knowledge relevant to carrying out
activities in these contexts (e.g., mailing a letter in the post office; taking customer orders in the
restaurant; looking through magazines in the doctor’s office). With regard to strategic knowl-
edge, Neuman and Roskos observed these young children adapting literacy tools to serve their
purposes and applying appropriate strategies to solve problems or cope with challenges.
Particularly appealing in these examples is the direct link from independent to dependent
variables, which can inform robust and ecologically valid supports/interventions that will build
capacity in caregivers to support children’s development of self-regulation, a third area in need
of consideration and investigation.
The studies involving parents (Neale & Whitebread; Gärtner et al.) suggest they would
benefit from opportunities to develop knowledge and skills to scaffold/co-regulate their
children. Support for parents seems particularly critical for children who are at risk in their
development of self-regulation and for parents who lack confidence in this area. The results of
both studies point to the benefits of contingent responding—characterizing support that is
responsive and provides “just enough and just in time” guidance as most effective (Perry &
Rahim, 2011). Moreover, the results of Neale and Whitebread’s study emphasize the need for
consistency in scaffolding and suggest directive support supplied contingently can benefit
learners in some situations (e.g., when a task is brand new or when a challenge is becoming a
distraction from the main goal of a task). All of these issues point to a need for parents to
develop some sophisticated understandings of when and how to support their children to
regulate and why the nature and timing of their support is so important. Currently, we do not
have good examples of how to support parents and other caregivers to promote self-regulation
in children before they enter school. This is an important area for future research.
Finally, a particular limitation of research on motivation and self-regulation is the lack of
diversity in the populations studied—the studies in this issue are representative of the research
done thus far (i.e., their samples are predominantly from a majority culture and mid to high
SES communities). A small body of research involving more diverse groups indicates self-
Recognizing early childhood as a critical time for developing and...

regulation is an asset that crosses sociodemographic boundaries (McClelland & Wanless 2012;
Perry et al. 2017). Much more research is needed to test this assumption. For example,
researchers need to question the relevance of particular practices for promoting self-
regulation and SRL in children from linguistically and culturally diverse communities, and
the extent to which tasks we use to assess self-regulation disadvantage particular groups (even
boys, as a focus on self-control/compliance may disadvantage them, more than girls, in the
early years). Constructs such as co- and socially shared regulation (Hadwin et al. 2018) might
be particularly relevant for some groups of children and, perhaps most critically, more research
is needed about highly vulnerable children and families to learn more about how the particular
stressors they experience directly and indirectly impact their capacity to support or develop
self-regulation.

Conclusions

In closing, the articles in this themed issue build on research in the developmental and
educational psychology fields demonstrating that early childhood is a critical time for the
development of capacities associated with self-regulation. Moreover, they highlight the im-
portance of helping caregivers to develop knowledge and skills known to support (and not
thwart) children’s development in this domain. Importantly, advances in theory, research, and
practice in this tremendously important area require broad and integrative views of self-
regulation and SRL.

Compliance with ethical standards

Conflict of interest The author declares that she has no conflict of interest.

Research involving human participants or animals My submission is not primary research so this does not
apply.

Informed consent As above, this does not apply to my submission.

References

Babcock, E.D. (2014). Rethinking poverty. Stanford Social Innovation Review, Fall, 59–60.
Blair, C., & Diamond, A. (2008). Biological processes in prevention and intervention: the promotion of self-
regulation as a means of preventing school failure. Development and Psychopathology, 20(3), 899–911.
Bronson, M. B. (2000). Self-regulation in early childhood: nature and nurture. New York: Guilford Press.
Butler, D. L. (2004). Adults with learning disabilities. In B. Y. L. Wong (Ed.), Learning about Learning
Disabilities (3rd ed., pp. 565–598). Toronto: Academic.
Butler, D., & Schnellert, L. (2015). Success for students with learning disabilities: what does self-regulation have
to do with it? In T. Cleary (Ed.), Self-regulated learning interventions with at-risk populations: academic,
mental health, and contextual considerations (pp. 89–111). Washington, DC: American Psychological
Association Press.
Calkins, S. D., & Johnson, M. C. (1998). Toddler regulation of distress to frustrating events: temperamental and
maternal correlates. Infant Behavior and Development, 21(3), 379–395.
Diamond, A. (2016). Why assessing and improving executive functions early in life is critical. In P. McCardle, L.
Freund, & J. A. Griffin (Eds.), Executive function in preschool-age children: integrating measurement,
neurodevelopment and translational research (pp. 11–43). Washington, DC: American Psychological
Association.
Dweck, C. S. (2002). The development of ability conceptions. In A. Wigfield & J. S. Eccles (Eds.), A Vol. in the
educational psychology series. Development of achievement motivation (pp. 57–88). San Diego: Academic
Press.
Eisenberg, N., & Spinrad, T. L. (2004). Emotion-related regulation: Sharpening the definition. Child
Development, 75(2), 334–339.
Flavell, J. H. (1979). Metacognition and cognitive monitoring. American Psychologist, 34, 906–911.
Hadwin, A., Jarvela, S., & Miller, M. (2018). Self-regulation, co-regulation and shared regulation in collaborative
learning environments. In D. H. Schunk & J. A. Greene (Eds.), Handbook of self-regulation of learning and
performance (2nd ed., pp. 83–106). New York: Routledge.
McClelland, M. M., & Wanless, S. B. (2012). Growing up with assets and risks: the importance of self-regulation
for academic achievement. Research in Human Development, 9(4), 278–297.
Moffitt, T. E., Arseneault, L., Belsky, D., Dickson, N., Hancox, R. J., Harrington, H., et al. (2011). A gradient of
childhood self-control predicts health, wealth, and public safety. Proceedings of the National Academy of
Sciences of the United States of America, 108(7), 2693–2698.
Neuman, S. B., & Roskos, K. (1997). Literacy knowledge in practice: contexts of participation for young writers
and readers. Reading Research Quarterly, 32, 10–32.
Perry, N. E. (1998). Young children’s self-regulated learning and contexts that support it. Journal of Educational
Psychology, 90(4), 715–729.
Perry, N. E. & Rahim, A. (2011). Studying self-regulated learning in classrooms. In B. J. Zimmerman & D. H.
Schunk (Eds.), Handbook of selfregulation of learning and performance (pp. 122-136). New York:
Routledge.
Perry, N. E., Yee, N., Mazabel Ortega, S., Määttä, E., & Lisaingo, S. (2017). Using self-regulated learning as a
framework for creating inclusive classrooms for ethnically and linguistically diverse learners in Canada. In
N. J. Cabrera & B. Leyendecker (Eds.), Handbook of positive development of minority children (pp. 361–
377). New York: Springer.
Perry, N. E., Hutchinson, L. R., Yee, N., & Määttä, E. (2018). Advances in understanding young children’s self-
regulation of learning. In D. H. Schunk & J. Greene (Eds.), Handbook of self-regulated learning and
performance (2nd ed., pp. 457–472). New York: Routledge.
Perry, N. E., Lisiango, S. & Ford, L. (2019). Understanding the role of motivation in children’s self-regulation for
learning. In D. Whitebread (Senior Ed.), The Sage handbook of developmental psychology and early
childhood education (pp. XXX-XXX). London: Sage.
Pintrich, P. R. (2000). Multiple goals, multiple pathways: the role of goal orientation in learning and achievement.
Journal of Educational Psychology, 92, 544–555.
Rimm-Kaufman, S. E., Pianta, R. C., & Cox, M. J. (2000). Teachers’ judgments of problems in the transition to
kindergarten. Early Childhood Research Quarterly, 15(2), 147–166.
Smiley, P. A., & Dweck, C. S. (1994). Individual differences in achievement goals among young children. Child
Development, 65, 1723–1743.
Stipek, D., Feiler, R., Daniels, D., & Milburn, S. (1995). Effects of different instructional approaches on young
children’s achievement and motivation. Child Development, 66(1), 209–223.
Turner, J. C. (1995). The influence of classroom contexts on young children’s motivation for literacy. Reading
Research Quarterly, 30, 410–441.
Vernon-Feagans, L., Willoughby, M., & Garrett-Peters, P. (2016). Predictors of behavioral regulation in kinder-
garten: household chaos, parenting, and early executive functions. Developmental Psychology, 52, 430.
Whitebread, D., & Basilio, M. (2012). The emergence and early development of self-regulation in young
children. Profesorado: Revista de Curriculum y Formacion del Profesorado, 16(1), 15–33 Retrieved
September 22, 2019 from https://pdfs.semanticscholar.org/6301/5de23ad3f0461e39cc5fcbf864f6a851c93a.
pdf?_ga=2.38283883.974842346.1569151886-1097003464.1569151886.
Winne, P. H., & Hadwin, A. F. (1998). Studying as self-regulated engagement in learning. In D. Hacker, J.
Dunlosky, & A. Graesse (Eds.), Metacognition in educational theory and practice (pp. 277–304). Hillsdale:
Lawrence Erlbaum.
Zimmerman, B. J., & Campillo, M. (2003). Motivating self-regulated problem solvers. In J. E. Davidson & R. J.
Sternberg (Eds.), The psychology of problem solving (pp. 233–262). Cambridge: Cambridge University
Press.
Zimmerman, B. J., & Schunk, D. H. (2011). Self-regulated learning and performance. In B. J. Zimmerman & D.
H. Schunk (Eds.), Handbook of self-regulation of learning and performance (pp. 1–12). New York:
Routledge.

Publisher’s note Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and
institutional affiliations.