INFORMATION TO USERS
This reproduction was made from a copy of a document sent to us for microfilming. While the most advanced technology has been used to photograph and reproduce this document, the quality of the reproduction is heavily dependent upon the quality of the material submitted.
The following explanation of techniques is provided to help clarify markings or notations which may appear on this reproduction.
1.The sign or “target” for pages apparently lacking from the document photographed is “Missing Page(s)”. If it was possible to obtain the missing page(s) or section, they are spliced into the film along with adjacent pages. This may have necessitated cutting through an image and duplicating adjacent pages to assure complete continuity.
2. When an image on the film is obliterated with a round black mark, it is an indication of either blurred copy because of movement during exposure, duplicate copy, or copyrighted materials that should not have been filmed. For blurred pages, a good image of the page can be found in the adjacent frame. If copyrighted materials were deleted, a target note will appear listing the pages in the adjacent frame.
3. When a map, drawing or chart, etc., is part of the material being photographed, a definite method of “sectioning” the material has been followed. It is customary to begin filming at the upper left hand corner of a large sheet and to continue from left to right in equal sections with small overlaps. If necessary, sectioning is continued again—beginning below the first row and continuing on until complete.
4. For illustrations that cannot be satisfactorily reproduced by xerographic means, photographic prints can be purchased at additional cost and inserted into your xerographic copy. These prints are available upon request from the Dissertations Customer Services Department.
5. Some pages in any document may have indistinct print. In all cases the best available copy has been filmed.
University Microfilms International 300 N. Zeeb Road Ann Arbor, Ml 48106
8311795
Schaff, Wendy Talbott
THE DEVELOPMENT OF A METHOD TO ASSESS RECIPROCITY IN THE SOCIAL INTERACTIONS OF PARENTS AND THEIR HIGH-RISK INFANTS
The Ohio State University Ph.D. 1983
University Microfilms International300 N. Zeeb Road, Ann Arbor, MI 48106
Copyright 1982 by Schaff, Wendy Talbott All Rights Reserved
THE DEVELOPMENT OF A METHOD
TO ASSESS RECIPROCITY IN THE SOCIAL INTERACTIONS
OF PARENTS AND THEIR HIGH-RISK INFANTS
DISSERTATION
Presented in Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements for
the Degree Doctor of Philosophy in the Graduate
School of The Ohio State University
By
Wendy Talbott Schaff, B.A., M.A.
A * * * *
The Ohio State University
1982
Reading Committee: Approved By
Henry Leiand
Charles Wenar / Adviser Barbara Newman Department of Psychology ACKNOWLEDGEMENT
I wish to express special appreciation to the parents and infants who participated in this project and permitted me to videotape examples of their social interaction styles; to Dr.
Timothy Donoghue and the Graduate Student Alumni Research Award
Committee for funding this project; to Professor Henry Leland for his excellent guidance during both the conceptualization and implementation of this project; to Nancy Perrin for her statisti cal consultation; to Mary Kellar for typing the manuscript; and to my family, especially Mark, for encouraging and enabling me to pursue my interests. VITA
1949 Born, San Francisco, California
1972 B.A., Magna Cum Laude, Connecticut College, Honors in Anthropology and Sociology.
1974 M.A., The University of Connecticut.
1972-1976 Faculty, The Learning Activities Center Program, Pine Point School, Stonington, Connecticut; Intern, Faculty, and Intern ship Coordinator, The Center for Open Education, The University of Connecticut.
1976-1977 Research Associate, The Nisonger Center for Mental Retardation and Developmental Disabilities, The Ohio State University.
1977 - Present Psychology Staff, Franklin County (Ohio) Board of Mental Retardation and Develop mental Disabilities.
MAJOR FIELDS OF STUDY
Major Field: Developmental Psychology
Studies in life-span developmental Professors George Thompson, psychology, clinical psychology, Charles Wenar, John Horrocks, and measurement techniques. Fred Damarin
Specialty Area: Developmental Disabilities
Studies in etiology, diagnosis and Professors Henry Leland and assessment, habilitation planning, Barbara Edmunson psychotherapeutic techniques, in fancy through adulthood.
iii TABLE OF CONTENTS
Page ACKNOWLEDGMENTS ...... ii
VITA...... iii
LIST OF T A B L E S ...... vi
LIST OF FIGURES...... ix
Chapter
I. INTRODUCTION ...... 1
Parent-Infant Reciprocity ...... 2 Reciprocity With High-Risk Infants .... 3 Purpose of the Study ...... 6 Influences Upon Project Design ...... 7 Hypothetical Research Questions ...... 9 Limitations of the S t u d y ...... 10 Special Definitions ...... 11
II. REVIEW OF THE LITERATURE...... 12
The Transactional View of Parent-Infant Interactions ...... 12 Research Methods in Studies of Parent-Infant Interactions ...... 20 Studies of Social Interactions Between High-Risk Infants and Their Parents .... 29 Summary...... 34
III. METHODOLOGY...... 36
O v e r v i e w ...... 36 Phase #1: Videotaping The Social Interactions Of Parent-High-Risk Infant D y a d s ...... 36 Phase #2: Developing A Method For Assessing Reciprocity ...... 43 Phase #3: Collecting Empirical Data On The Reciprocal Interaction Patterns Of Parent-High-Risk Infant Dyads ...... 62 Phase #4: Data A n a l y s i s ...... 63
iv Page
IV. RESULTS ...... 65
Hypothetical Research Question #1 ...... 66 Hypothetical Research Question #2 ...... 73 Hypothetical Research Question#3 ...... 77 Hypothetical Research Question #4 ...... 93
V. SUMMARY AND DISCUSSION...... 109
Operationalizing the Concept of Reciprocity: Model-Building Issues .... 109 Comments Upon Methodology ...... 112 Implications for Early Intervention .... 115 Topics for Future R e s e a r c h ...... ' 119
APPENDIXES
A. A.P.A. Standards and Reciprocity Project Design ...... 123
B. Format for Presentation of Project in Parent Group Meetings, Project Summary Sheet, Parent Consent Form ...... 133
C. Listing of Parent Social Behaviors ...... 139
D. Listing of Infant Social Behaviors ...... 153
E. Validity Study Questionnaire ...... 161
F. Reciprocal Interaction Patterns Checksheet . . 165
G. First Page of Sample Protocol, Reciprocal Interaction Patterns Checksheet...... 168
H. Reciprocity Index ...... 171
I. Reciprocity Index Data for Each Dyad, Home and Early Intervention Program ...... 174
J. Validity Study Data for Each D y a d ..... 235
K. Instructions for Coding Sequence Patterns. . . 281
BIBLIOGRAPHY ...... 287
v LIST OF TABLES
Table Page
1. Demographic Data on Parents...... 38
2. Diagnostic Data on I n f a n t s ...... 39
3. Demographic Data on Infants...... 40
4. Percent Agreement for 3 Observer Pairs, Listing of Parent Social Behaviors ...... 52
5. Combined Percent Agreement for 3 Observer Pairs, Listing of Parent Social Behaviors ...... 53
6. Percent Agreement for 3 Observer Pairs, Listing of Infant Social Behaviors ...... 53
7. Combined Percent Agreement for 3 Observer Pairs, Listing of Infant Social Behaviors...... 54
8. Reciprocal Interaction Patterns Across Different Settings, Sequence Patterns ...... 67
9. Reciprocal Interaction Patterns Across Different Settings, Rate of interaction ...... 67
10. Reciprocal Interaction Patterns Across Different Settings, Social Interaction Repetoire of Parents . . . 69
11. Parental Gestures/Body Movements in Different S e t t i n g s ...... 70
12. Reciprocal Interaction Patterns Across Different Settings, Social Interaction Repertoire of Infants . . . 72
13. Individual Differences in Reciprocal Interaction Patterns, Sequence Patterns and Rates of Interaction. . 74
14. Individual Differences in Reciprocal Interaction Patterns, Social Interaction Repertoire of Parents . . . 75
vi Table Page
15. Individual Differences in Reciprocal Interaction Patterns, Social Interaction Repertoire of Infants . . . 76
16. Parent Characteristics and Reciprocal Interaction Patterns, Sequence Patterns ...... 78
17. Infant Characteristics and Reciprocal Interaction Patterns, Sequence Patterns ...... 78
18. Demographic Characteristics and Reciprocal Interaction Patterns, Sequence Patterns ...... 79
19. Parent Characteristics and Reciprocal Interaction Patterns, Rate of Interaction...... 81
20. Infant Characteristics and Reciprocal Interaction Patterns, Rate of Interaction...... 82
21. Demographic Characteristics and Parent Social Interaction Repertoire, Correlation Matrix, p = .001 . . 84
22. Demographic Characteristics and Infant Social Interaction Repertoire, Correlation Matrix, p = .001 . . 85
23. Demographic Characteristics and Parent Social Interaction Repertoire, Correlation Matrix, .001 £ p 1 . 0 5 ...... 86
24. Demographic Characteristics and Infant Social Interaction Repertoire, Correlation Matrix, .001 ^ p < . 0 5 ...... 87
25. Demographic Characteristics and Parent Social Interaction Repertoire, Correlation Matrix, .05 f p = . 1 5 ...... 88
26. Demographic Characteristics and Infant Social Interaction Repertoire, Correlation Matrix, .05 < p < . 1 5 ...... 89
27. Demographic Characteristics and Social Interaction Repertoires, Frequency of Significant Correlations.. . 90
28. Demographic Characteristics and Social Interaction Repertoires, r = .20, p £ .001...... 91
29. Sample Trends in Reciprocal Interaction Patterns, Sequence Patterns and Rates of Interaction...... 93
vii Table Page
30. Cluster Summary for Parent Social Behaviors ...... 99
31. Cluster Summary for Infant Social Behaviors ...... 100
32. Cluster Listing for Parent Social Behaviors ...... 101
33. Cluster Listing for Infant Social Behaviors ...... 103
34. Shortened Version of Parent Social Interaction Repertoire...... 105
35. Shortened Version of Infant Social Interaction Repertoire...... 107
viii LIST OF FIGURES
Figure Page
1. A Model of Parent-Infant Interaction ...... 19
2. Child's Consequent Matrix ...... 28
3. Mother's Consequent Matrix ...... 28
4„ Page One of the Listing of Parent Social Behaviors...... 49
5. Components of Reciprocal Interaction Patterns Checksheet ...... 57
6. Examples of Social Interaction Sequence Patterns: Dialogues and Monologues ...... 59
7. Method for Indicating How the First Parent and Infant Behaviors in an Observation Period are Noted in the Sequence Columns of the Checksheet. . . 61
ix CHAPTER I
INTRODUCTION
Early social interactions between parents and infants provide a foundation for effective parent-child communication patterns and mutual affectional ties. Recent microanalytic studies (Lewis & Lee-Painter,
1974; Thomas & Martin, 1976; Bakeman & Brown, 1977; Vietze, Abernathy,
Ashe, & Faulstich, 1978; Thoman, Becker, & Freese, 1978; Brazelton,
Kozlowski, & Main, 1974) and clinical projects (Trout, 1978; Field,
1979; Emde & Brown, 1978; Klaus & Kennell, 1976; Fraiberg, 1971;
Stone & Chesney, 1978; DiVitto & Goldberg, 1979; Alfasi, 1982) have provided evidence that the specific social interaction behaviors of parents and infants exert an immediate and compelling influence upon the partner's choice of social responses. Each response becomes an elicitor or initiator of further social interaction, as the parent and infant continue to guide and shape each other's social interaction be haviors through a transactional process. Over time, each parent-infant dyad develops customary patterns of communication and its own, unique interaction style (Lewis & Lee-Painter, 1974).
Healthy patterns of social interaction typically feature an alert, attentive baby who orients to the parent's face and voice. The care taker sensitively "reads" the infant's cues and responds in an appro priate and predictable manner, often slowing down and exaggerating facial movements and speech, and imitating or highlighting the infant's
1 behaviors (Field, 1979). Harmonious relationships between infants and parents are characterized by synchronous body movements (Brazel- ton, et. al., 1974) , behavioral indicators of attachment and bonding
(Klaus & Kennell, 1976), and a high degree of reciprocity (Goldberg,
1977; Field, 1977; Emde & Brown, 1978; Parke, 1978).
PARENT-INFANT RECIPROCITY
In the psychological literature, reciprocity has been defined as the manner in which parents and infants "mutually regulate" each other
(Parke, 1978) and provide each other with "contingency experiences"
(Goldberg, 1977; Field, 1977). Reciprocity has acquired a positive connotation because the mere existence of a smoothly functioning sys tem of social feedback and mutual contingency experiences is likely to be rewarding for both partners (Emde & Brown, 1978; Goldberg, 1977).
When reciprocity occurs naturally in the social interactions of a parent and infant, it enhances their mutual enjoyment of each other. If both partners generally receive positive and appropriate feedback from each other, they will be motivated to continue inter acting in the future (Goldberg, 1977). Repeated experiences with re ciprocal interaction patterns are likely to strengthen their mutual feelings of attachment and bonding (Emde & Brown, 1978; Klaus &
Kennel, 1976). A secure attachment relationship during infancy en ables a child to extend social-emotional relationships beyond the parent-infant dyad and promotes the development of motivation, curi osity, and independence during the latter toddler stage (Sroufe, 1978).
A parent who feels effective in interacting with his/her infant is 3 likely to be relatively satisfied with the parenting role and self- confident about being able to fulfill the child's needs in the future
(Seashore, Leifer, Barnett, & Leiderman, 1973).
Conversely, an absence of reciprocity can be debilitating to the parent-infant relationship. An impaired system of social feedback can develop when either the parent or the infant is unresponsive, un predictable, or communicates in ways which are difficult for the part ner to interpret or accept. This situation creates the potential for one or both partners to feel frustrated, disappointed, ineffective, and less motivated to interact in the future (Goldberg, 1977).
RECIPROCITY WITH HIGH-RISK INFANTS
Observations of high-risk infants and their parents suggest that these dyads are especially vulnerable to difficulties in establishing reciprocal patterns of social interaction (Stone & Chesney, 1978; Emde
& Brown, 1978; Field, 1979; Trout, 1978; Klaus & Kennell, 1976; Frai- berg, 1971; Greenberg, 1971; DiVitto & Goldberg, 1979; Alfasi, 1982).
High-risk infants are babies who have a high probability of demonstrat ing transient or persisting developmental problems, arising from medi cal complications during birth or the neonatal period; congenital and organic disorders; or negative environmental factors such as inade quate stimulation or nutrition, emotional neglect, or physical abuse.
These causes may occur singly or in combination, and impair the func tioning of infants in different ways, to different degrees. Typically, high-risk infants and their parents experience some amount of physi cal and psychological separation due to repeated or extended 4 hospitalization of the child (Leifer, Leiderman, Barnett & Williams,
1972; Barnett, Leiderman, Grobstein & Klaus, 1970) or the interven tions of child protection agencies. Clinically astute researchers have noted atypical behaviors among both infants and parents within this population, which may contribute to interactional asynchrony in individual cases. These include interactive deficits of the child, such as dampened or disordered social responses (Emde & Brown, 1978;
Stone & Chesney, 1978; Greenberg, 1971; Fraiberg, 1971; Alfasi, 1982); anxiety and grief reactions among parents which may complicate the bonding process (Klaus & Kennell, 1976; Drotar, Baskiewicz, Irvin,
Kennell, & Klaus, 1975; Emde & Brown, 1978); and interaction-distorting parental behaviors, such as overstimulation (Stern, 1974; Brazelton et. al., 1974), intrusiveness (Field, 1977), lack of positive affect
(Alfasi, 1982), and insufficient, extreme, or abusive child care (Green berg, 1971).
Investigators have described instances in which parents who were apparently sensitive and responsive to their other children had diffi culties developing reciprocal interaction patterns with their high-risk infants (Stone & Chesney, 1978; Emde & Brown, 1978). Goldberg con tends that a high-risk infant
... has the potential for 'trapping' an initially re- responsive parent in cycles of ineffective interaction by generating parental feelings of failure and help lessness. This suggests that whenever parents are con fronted with an infant of limited competence the po tential risks of interactive failure are high.
(Goldberg, 1977, p. 174)
On the other hand, an unusually sensitive parent may be able to establish reciprocal patterns of interaction with a severely impaired infant
through carefully analyzing the infant's cues and responding contin
gently in a mode (visual, auditory, and/or tactile-kinesthetic) which
the infant can understand (Goldberg, 1977; Fraiberg, 1971; Stone &
Chesney, 1978).
Helping parents to establish reciprocal patterns of interaction with their high-risk infants would appear to be a productive focus for
early intervention programs serving these infants and families. Yet
strengthening parent-child relationships is rarely a stated goal of early intervention programs in this country. Most programs follow a
"split model" of stimulation, treatment, and training for the infants, combined with educational and peer support activities for the parents
(Tjossem, 1976; Caldwell, 1977). A few programs emphasize that train ing parents in activities which are developmentally appropriate for
their infants may encourage mutual enjoyment of the activity and
thereby stimulate positive parent-infant interactions. Skeptics
argue that the continual exposure of parents and high-risk infants
to the many different professionals who work in early intervention
programs may actually compound disturbances in the parent-infant af-
fectional relationship by undermining parental self-confidence and
further interfering with the attachment process (Lacoste, 1978).
Early intervention professionals who are interested in, or concerned
about, parent-infant interaction styles are handicapped by a lack of
objective, clinical methods for assessing dyadic interaction patterns. The techniques which have been used in microanalytic studies are gen
erally impractical for clinical settings; and often the findings cannot
be interpreted within a conceptual framework that would suggest strat
egies for enhancing parent-infant reciprocity..
Reciprocity appears to be an intriguing focus for the study of
parent-infant interactions, yet both the concept and its application
to clinical purposes are still largely unexplored. At the present time,
there are no standard behavioral definitions or well-structured guide
lines that clinicians can use to document the extent and nature of
reciprocity in parent-infant interactions.
PURPOSE OF THE STUDY
The underlying rationale for this project was the fact that high-
risk infants and their parents are particularly vulnerable to interac
tional disturbances, which may impede the development of effective
parent-child communication patterns and mutual affectional ties. The
enhancement of reciprocity in the social interactions of parents and
their high-risk infants offers an intriguing focus for early interven
tion efforts, yet objective and prescriptive guidelines in this area
are virtually nonexistent.
Some objective means of measuring the reciprocity that currently
exists in parent-infant interaction patterns is a prerequisite to de
veloping intervention strategies and to evaluating their effective ness. Therefore, the purpose of this project was to develop a practi
cal, clinical method of assessing reciprocity in the naturally occuring social interactions of high-risk infants and their parents.
INFLUENCES UPON PROJECT DESIGN
The investigator wanted to incorporate both quantitative and qualitative dimensions of reciprocity into the assessment process.
The quantitative dimension would describe the extent of reciprocity by measuring the proportions of parent and infant social behaviors that comprise reciprocal versus nonreciprocal patterns of interaction.
The qualitative dimension would describe the nature of those interac tions by illuminating the behavioral repetoires of the parent and in fant, i.e., the kinds of social communicative behaviors they typically use with each other. This information would be useful for sensitizing parents to the existing parent-infant social interaction patterns, as well as for evaluating the effectiveness of intervention strategies designed to increase reciprocity in parent-infant interactions. Also, the specificity of this data would be helpful in designing future in tervention strategies for individual dyads to:
1) increase the extent of reciprocity by increasing
the proportion of dyadic social interaction pat
terns which are reciprocal; and
2) enhancing the nature of reciprocity, by expanding
the social communicative repetoires of the parent
and infant, and increasing their use of social
interaction behaviors which are positively rein
forcing to each other. An important influence upon the design and procedures of this method were the recommendations of Bakeman and Brown (1977) that new methods of assessing the social interaction style of parents and in fants should meet the following criteria:
a) require essentially no interference from the ob servers ;
b) be grounded in specifiable behaviors; yet
c) not depend upon particular behaviors; that is, be essentially 'content free'; and
d) reveal the structure of the interaction, perhaps in ways that might not be immediately evident to the observer's senses.
(Bakeman & Brown, 1977, p. 195)
Ideally, such methods would combine the global, subjective, qualita tive concerns, which are typical of rating scales, with the more spe cific, objective, and quantitative orientation of systematic observa tional approaches (Ibid.).
Another important influence upon the methodology of this project were the recommendations of the American Psychological Association
(A.P.A.) for developers of new assessment procedures. These recom mendations are published in the A.P.A.'s Standards for Educational and Psychological Tests (1974). A description of how this project addressed major guidelines of the Standards is contained in Appendix A.
A final influence upon the project design was the goal that the end product - the method for assessing reciprocity - would be useful to professionals working with high-risk infants and their families.
This goal required the assessment method to have the following characteristics:
1) account for a wide variety of parent and infant
social interaction behaviors, both normal and
atypical;
2) require minimal staff training and equipment for
implementation in homes, clinics, or early inter
vention program settings;
3) yield concrete information that can be shared with
parents; and
4) provide direction for the future development of
behavioral strategies to increase reciprocity in
the social interaction patterns of individual
parent-infant dyads.
HYPOTHETICAL RESEARCH QUESTIONS
The following hypothetical questions were explored during the course of this project. The findings are presented in Chapter IV
(Results).
1) Will the reciprocal interaction patterns of parent-
high-risk infant dyads be similar across different
settings?
2) Will the reciprocal interaction patterns of parent-
high-risk infant dyads show individual differences?
3) Will the reciprocal interaction patterns of parent-
high-risk infant dyads be related to standard demo
graphic variables? 10
4) Can the reciprocal interaction patterns of parent-
high-risk infant dyads be interpreted for applied
clinical purposes?
LIMITATIONS OF THE STUDY
This project represents a preliminary effort to develop a practi cal, clinical method for objectively measuring reciprocity in the social interactions of parents and their high-risk infants. The scar city of previous work in this field necessitated some subjective de cisions regarding definitions, the choice of target behaviors, the selection of observational and recording procedures, and the methods of data interpretation.
Like any assessment procedure, this method is useful only if the data are used to provide services. This method generates a wealth of systematized quantitative and qualitative information about the social interaction styles of individual parent-high-risk infant dyads. The next step in the evolution of this approach is to use this data to design intervention strategies to enhance reciprocity in the social interactions of individual parent-high-risk infant dyads. 11 SPECIAL DEFINITIONS
Developmental Delay - a lag in one or several aspects of development,
including sensory, motor, cognitive, communicative, social, emo
tional, or adaptive behaviors.
Early Intervention Program - a multidisciplinary program designed to
ameliorate the developmental delays of high-risk infants and
young children through a combination of educational and thera
peutic activities for the child and family.
High-Risk Infant - an infant who has a high probability of demonstrat
ing transient or persisting developmental delays, due to a vari
ety of causes occurring singly or in combination, including medical complications during birth or the neonatal period; con
genital and organic disorders; or debilitating environmental
factors.
Reciprocity - a balanced system of social exchange and mutual contin
gency experiences operating between two individuals. CHAPTER II
REVIEW OF THE LITERATURE
The literature review pertaining to the development of this method is divided into three parts. The first section describes the transac tional model of parent-infant interactions which provides a theoreti cal framework for considering reciprocity in parent-infant interac tions. The second section covers methods that researchers have used to study parent-infant interactions from a transactional perspective.
The third section reviews the findings from recent studies of paren tal interactions with high-risk infants.
THE TRANSACTIONAL VIEW OF PARENT-INFANT INTERACTIONS
In his comprehensive 1978 article about the progress, paradigms, and problems in parent-infant research, Ross Parke identified three stages in the evolution of theory and research designs. During the first stage, which began in the late 1930's and lasted over thirty years, investigators studied parental influences on the social and per sonality development of children. According to Parke, the publication of Bell's classic paper in 1968 about the "bidirectionality" of so cialization effects between children and parents ushered in a second phase, one in which researchers explored the capacities of infants for social interactions. Research conducted during these first two phases reflected an underlying "unidirectional" model of socialization 13 which attributed primary significance to either the attitudes and ac tions of parents £r the behavioral characteristics of infants in de termining the nature of the evolving parent-infant relationships. In the mid-1970's, a third phase emerged in parent-infant studies which focused on "the reciprocal nature of the interactive process" (Parke,
1978, p. 70). This new perspective, which currently dominates the field, reflects an "interactionalist" or "transactional" model of the socialization process (Lewis & Lee-Painter, 1974).
Michael Lewis, whose work generally is regarded as exemplary of the interactionalist or transactional perspective, has described three models of caregiver-infant interaction which are currently in use.
These models contain different assumptions about the nature of inter action between a caregiver and infant. Even though a researcher might not explicitly ascribe to one of these models, "the nature of the model of the caregiver-infant relationship is often implicitly given in the observation and measurement techniques of the study"
(Lewis & Lee-Painter, 1974, p. 21).
The elemental model, which is the most pervasive, underlies stud ies which investigate the relationship between two elements (e.g., infant behaviors and parent behaviors). These studies often describe the relationship between behaviors at two or more points in time (e.g., the relationship between maternal vocalizations at Time 1 and child vocalizations at Time 2). Studies based upon the elemental model be come implicitly interactive when researchers consider variations in individual behaviors or developmental consequences (Lewis & Lee-Painter,
1974). 14
The second major type of model, the simple interaction model,
describes the behaviors of two elements in interaction at the same
point in time. This cause-and-effect model emphasizes the immediate
impact of one individual's behavior upon the other. According to the
researcher's orientation, the same behavior might be labeled as either
an elicitor/initiator or a response/reinforcer (Ibid.).
The third type of model is best represented by a continuous flow
diagram. It assumes that all behavior is interactive, and that it is
impossible to determine the starting point, cause, or direction of an
interaction. Thus, a specific behavior may appear to be the initiator
in a series of interaction behaviors, when in fact it might be a re
sponse to a previous (larger) interaction. Both the second and third
types of models assume that only the last behavior of one member of a dyad is responsible for the next behavior of the other member (a Mar kovian sequence); this issue is open to debate (Ibid.).
Lewis acknowledged that there are several model-building issues
to challenge theoreticians. For one, it is difficult to define a logi
cal point of entry into an ongoing stream of interaction behaviors.
Another issue is the need to develop more models to describe the un derlying structures of interactions, independent of the particular be haviors which are involved (e.g., Bakeman & Brown's behavioral dialogues,
1977; or Brazelton, Kozlowski & Main's attention-withdrawal cycles,
1974). Also, researchers are still searching for adequate systems of measurement to describe the dynamics of interactive relationships.
"Frequency of occurence, interaction direction density and sequence 15
must all be incorporated for us to understand truly the dynamics of
interaction. Unfortunately, this may be an extremely complex task"
(Lewis & Lee-Painter, 1974, p. 45).
Thomas and Martin (1976), Parke (1978), and Pederson (1975), among
others, have identified tangential influences on the parent-infant re
lationship which they believe must be included in any complete model
of parent-infant interactions. These influences include the immedi
ate context of the interactions, the parent's and infant's own past
behaviors, parental attitudes, values, and perceptions; and the impact
of the spouse upon the parent-infant relationship.
Thomas and Martin (1976) described how the immediate context of
parent-infant interactions influences researchers' assumptions about
the motivations of parents and infants, as well as researchers' selec
tions and definitions of behavioral variables. For example, in a so
cial or play situation, a researcher might assume that both members
of the dyad are attempting to continue interactions with each other;
therefore, relevant observational variables might include smiling,
looking, touching, and vocalizing. In contrast, within a caregiving
situation, a researcher might assume that the parent's chief motive
is to soothe and quiet a distressed infant, i.e., to terminate the in
teraction, which would suggest a different group of observational var
iables.
Parke (1978) agreed that contexts vary in structure, and conse quently, they promote different types of interactions. Also, the same behavior may have different meanings in different contexts. For example, a masked face presented to an infant may elicit fear in one situation
and laughter in another (Sroufe, Waters, & Matas, 1974); or, similarly,
a parent's response to an infant's arm waving and laughing might vary
from a play context to a feeding context. Parke urged researchers to
consider how "adults perceive... the principle goals of interaction in
different situations and how... these cognitive organizing sets modify
the subsequent behaviors of the adult" (Parke, 1978, p. 83). He ad
vocated supplementing direct observations of parent-infant interactions
with systematic measures of parental attitudes, values, and perceptions
of their infants.
In their investigations of mother-father-infant relationships,
Pederson (1975) and Parke and his associates (Parke & O'Leary, 1976;
Parke, O'Leary, & West, 1972) found that parents of both sexes behaved
differently in dyadic versus triadic settings. Both mothers and fa
thers expressed more positive affect (smiling) toward their infants,
and physically explored their babies more, when the other parent was
present (Parke & O'Leary, 1976; Parke, O'Leary, & West, 1972). Mothers
who had emotionally supportive spouses appeared more competent in feed
ing their infants; while fathers of more alert babies evaluated their wives' caretaking skills more positively. Among parents of motorically
mature infants, there seemed to be less marital tension and conflict
(Pederson, 1975). These studies suggest that the three dyadic units
(mother-infant, father-infant, and mother-father) are psychologically
interconnected, and that, in order to understand the interactive patterns
of any one dyad, it is important to consider the whole network of rela
tionships within a family. 17
Of all the transactional conceptualizations of parent-infant in
teractions which have appeared in the psychological literature, the
one that is most directly relevant to the purposes of this investigation
is Susan Goldberg's (1977). Goldberg's model "focuses upon conditions
that contribute to feelings of efficacy generated in caretakers and in
fants by their interactions, namely the extent to which each member of
the dyad provides the other with contingency experience" (1977, p. 163).
Goldberg drew her definition of efficacy from White's (1959) suggestion
that some infant behaviors (e.g., exploration, curiosity) which could not be adequately explained by the concept of drive reduction might
reflect a need, or motive, to interact effectively with the environment.
White argued that competence motivation is an intrinsic drive, but that
it is affected by experience; effectiveness in dealing with the environ ment enhances an infant's feelings of efficacy and, ultimately, strength
ens the infant's competence motivation.
Later infant researchers (e.g., Lewis & Goldberg, 1969; Ainsworth
& Bell, 1974; Ramey, Starr, Pallas, Whitten, & Reed, 1975) have sup
ported the idea that an infant's competence motivation is stimulated, maintained, and enhanced by positive and appropriately-timed contingency
experiences with the environment, chiefly those provided by the primary
caregiver. Ainsworth & Bell (1974) demonstrated that infants whose mothers were attentive and responsive to their distress signals made better developmental progress than infants of less responsive mothers,
a finding that is consistent with Lewis and Goldberg's (1969) cognitive
expectancy model. Ramey et. al. (1975) designed an intervention program 18 to provide developmentally delayed, failure-to-thrive infants with mechanical, automatically-regulated contingency experiences, and the researchers found that these infants made significantly better develop mental progress than a control group.
Goldberg believes that parents' feelings of efficacy "are ini tially derived from general levels of competence motivation, but will be enhanced, maintained, or depressed by their experience with the in fant" (1977, p. 165). She hypothesizes that adults evaluate their effectiveness as parents on the basis of feedback from their infant.
If a parent is able to read the infant's cues accurately, and easily make decisions about interventions, which are then followed by desir able outcomes in terms of the infant's behaviors, then the parent's feelings of efficacy and competence motivation will increase. On the other hand, if a parent finds it difficult to read the infant's cues and make decisions about appropriate interventions, and if the infant's responses are not what the parent had hoped for or expected, then the parent is likely to feel disappointed, frustrated, and ineffective.
Repeated experiences with this latter type of parent-infant interac tion will cause the parent's feelings of efficacy and competence moti vation to diminish. Goldberg illustrated how infant characteristics affect a parent's feelings of efficacy in graphic form (reproduced as
Figure 1). 19
PARENT READS INFANT 8EHAVICR. STATE
CHECKS PREVIOUS JUDGEMENTS OF INFANT IF PREDICTABILITY, READABILITY
H I L o (short Select Time) _ Select Time \Eosy Decision t ftlcutt Decisicn, •[High P Appropriotej Appropriole
FEELINGS FEELINGS OF OF \ V HELPL£SS?SSS EFFICACY PARENT INTERVENTION
CHECK EFFECT IF INFANT RESPONSIVENESS
H i / Vc Hi p Desirable Lo p Desirable Outcome Outcoms>
'Judgment of Predictability Judgnnn! of Predictability Readability, Retj.-or^i'.treiS Readability, Rcswitiver.ess Increuve D ecrease
Figure 1: A Model of Parent-Infant Interaction
(Goldberg, 1977, p. 173)
Implicit in Goldberg's model is the idea that the measure of an infant's and parent's effectiveness is their ability to relate success fully to each other. Under normal circumstances, there seems to be a natural fit between the appearance and behaviors of infants and the kinds of adult behaviors that are usually directed toward infants.
Parent-infant interactions naturally tend to produce positive contin gency experiences for each partner. However, an infant whose behavioral repertoire is complete in an age-related sense might be ineffective when paired with an unresponsive caregiver. Inversely, a "predictable, readable, responsive" infant might draw an "initially unresponsive parent into cycles of effective interactions by generating parental 20
feelings of efficacy" (Ibid., p. 174). On the other hand, an initially
responsive parent might be drawn into cycles of ineffective interaction by an "unpredictable, unreadable, unresponsive" infant (Ibid.). Or,
"a newborn with distinct limitations or handicaps may be extremely ef
fective when paired with an unusually sensitive and responsive care
taker" (Ibid., p. 167). In conclusion, a dyad's quality of social
interaction cannot be predicted by the characteristics of either part ner alone,
Goldberg summarized the implications of her model for professionals who are concerned with fostering effective interactions between high- risk infants and their parents:
The model further suggests that the incompetent dyad can be helped toward effective interac tions under conditions which (a) facilitate infant development (i.e., develop predictabil ity, readability, and responsiveness), and (b) develop parental skills in predicting and read ing infant behavior and foster sensitivity to the contingency experiences provided by the infant. These two types of intervention, both aimed at increasing mutual contingency experi ences, should be broadly applicable to infants of limited competence regardless of the speci fic nature of the handicap. (Ibid., p. 174)
RESEARCH METHODS IN STUDIES OF PARENT-INFANT INTERACTION
Investigators working from both transactional and nontransactional perspectives have used a variety of methods to study the social inter action behaviors of parents and infants. A researcher's selection of 21 behavioral variables, recording procedures, observational modes, mea surement techniques, and levels of data analysis depends upon his/her underlying assumptions about the nature of the interactive process.
Behavioral Variables
The complexity of parent-infant interactions makes the selection of behaviors to observe a difficult and, ultimately, arbitrary decision.
Every researcher confronts the issues of what to record and what to ignore, and how to conceptualize and interpret the behavior that is re corded. The options include selecting variables which reflect a contin uum of development along a single dimension (e.g., parent-infant vocal izations) ; relating isolated pairs of parent and infant behaviors across dimensions (e.g., correlating infant distress signals and maternal at tentiveness) ; making detailed narrative reports of all of the individual behaviors that occur within a set time period, along with notes about the context of those behaviors; and scoring selected behaviors either for their intensity or for their presence versus absence. When using any kind of pre-established behavioral categories, the researcher must justify selecting certain behaviors from the total behavior stream, while disregarding others.
In choosing behavioral variables, there is also the decision of whether to record discrete behaviors separately or combine them into logically-related groups. "Interactive categories" (Waters, 1978) or
"response classes" (Mash, Terdal, & Anderson, 1973) are groupings of behaviors with approximately the same interpretive value (e.g., discrete 22 infant behaviors such as "fuss, " "whine," and "cry" might be combined into the response class "infant distress vocalizations"). Using data from a study of infant attachment behaviors in a strange situation
(Ainsworth & Wittig, 1969), Waters (1978) found that the reliability of discrete behavior variables was low, with little evidence of temporal stability; however, when the same discrete behaviors were combined into interactive categories, the data became more reliable and stable. Re searchers have advocated the use of behavior classes to facilitate com parisons across cases (Mash et. al., 1973); to accommodate developmental changes in infant behaviors; and to reveal underlying patterns in parent- infant communication (Bakeman & Brown, 1977). If one assumes that the environmental contingencies maintaining the behaviors in a certain re sponse class are similar, then grouping different behaviors into re sponse classes facilitates the development of behavioral treatment plans
(Patterson, Ray, Shaw, & Cobb, 1969).
Recording Procedures
After deciding which behaviors to record, the researcher must choose a sampling method. Two general approaches exist: continuous coding and behavior sampling. With continuous coding procedures, the observer-recorder notes the frequency of all designated behaviors that occur within a specified time period. This task may be tedious when many high-frequency behaviors have been selected for coding. With behavior sampling methods, the observer-recorder observes behaviors for a relatively short time period (usually five to thirty seconds) , 23
and then records those behaviors during the next time period. The
observer-recorder does not attempt to record every behavior that was
observed; instead, s/he usually records the last scorable unit that
occurred during the preceding observation period. This method relies
on the assumption that, over time, the behaviors that are recorded will
comprise a representative sample of the universe of behaviors that
occurred during the entire observation period.
By definition, transactional research designs must take into ac count the contingent relationship between parent and infant behaviors.
Holland and Skinner (1961) distinguished three types of response records which have been used, in one form or another, in all transactional stud ies. The first, most widely used approach, is to record the responses of each individual (a one-term contingency record). This method yields frequency counts of target behaviors but no information about the part ner's preceding or subsequent behaviors; therefore, it is only mini mally interactive. A second approach is to record the response and
either the antecedent or consequent behaviors of the partner (a two-term
contingency record). The third approach is to record the partner's an
tecedent behavior, the individual's response, and then the partner's
consequent behavior ( a three-term contingency record). The last ap proach yields the most interactive data; yet, it has seldom been used,
presumably -because of the complexity of most recording and data reduc
tion procedures. Observational Modes
Transactional studies require direct observations of parent-infant interactions; however, choosing the setting for those observations raises another host of considerations. Researchers must weigh the traditional problems of lack of standardization, if observations are conducted in the home, against the confounding effects of an unfamiliar setting, if observations occur in a laboratory. In both situations, the presence of an observer-recorder and/or recording equipment are likely to produce some behavioral distortions. Most transactional studies have employed laboratory settings (e.g., Brazelton j2t. jlL . , 1974
Alfasi, 1982; Field, 1979; Terdal £t. al_. , 1976; Bakeman & Brown, 1977;
Buckhalt, Rutherford, & Goldberg, 1978). A few have taken place, at least partially, in the home (e.g., Clarke-Stewart, 1973; Vietze at. al
1978; DiVitto & Goldberg, 1979).
Measurement Techniques and Levels of Data Analysis
Parke (1978) and Lewis and Lee-Painter (1974) developed overviews of the kinds of measurement and statistical procedures that inves tigators have used in studies of parent-infant interactions. Parke
(1978) reviewed common measurement approaches and their underlying as sumptions, while Lewis and Lee-Painter (1974) described levels of data analysis and the types of quantitative information they produce.
Frequency distributions are the most commonly reported statistics in studies of parent-infant interaction, probably because they are the 25
easiest type of measurements to obtain and score. Researchers have
often considered frequency data to be interactional if they collected
the data during intervals when the parent and infant were interacting.
While frequency data demonstrate that parents and infants behave in
certain ways in each other's presence, they do not show precisely how
the behaviors of parents and infants were sequenced. Correlations that are computed between the frequencies of desig nated parent and infant behaviors indicate relationships between over all levels of parent and infant behaviors. However, like frequency data, correlations do not reveal how particular parent and infant be haviors were related in time. Parent-infant researchers have used cor relations frequently to describe how broad dimensions of parental be havior (e.g., maternal vocalizations to infant at age four months) are associated with broad dimensions of child behavior at a later time
(e.g., child vocabulary at age two years).
Recordings of simultaneous behaviors, or the co-occurrence of des
ignated parent and infant behaviors within the same time period (e.g.,
a ten-second interval), have been used to estimate the general quantity
of interaction between a parent and infant. This estimate is usually
expressed in terms of the ratio of simultaneous behaviors to the
total number of parent and infant behaviors that were recorded dur
ing a set time period. Like correlational data, reports of simultane
ous behaviors do not reveal the sequence or temporal separation of be haviors within a time frame. Although the flow of interaction cannot be specified, the time-locked nature of these behaviors insures a more 26 interactive quality than frequency or correlational data.
Sequential analysis is a complex measurement technique which leads to estimates of the probability that various types of parent and infant behaviors will occur in response to the partner's signals. This ap proach recognizes that any behavior can serve as a stimulus or a re sponse, and it assumes that the behavior of both individuals is stim ulated by the immediately preceding behavior of the partner. Stern,
Jaffe, Beebe, and Bennett (1975), Anderson, Vietze, and Dokecki (1977),
Bakeman and Brown (1977), and Vietze et. al. (1978) have used variants of sequential analyses in recent experimental studies of parent-infant interactions. At least one major research program has attempted to describe parent-infant interactions in rhythmic or cylic terms. Brazelton et. al. (1974) emphasized how clustering behaviors illuminates certain social interaction patterns:
When the infant was interacting with his mother, there seemed to be a constant cycle of attention (A), followed by withdrawal of attention (W) - the cycle being used by each partner as he ap proached and then withdrew and waited for a re sponse from the other participant.... The be havior of any one member becomes a part of a cluster of behaviors which interact with a clus ter of behaviors from the other member of the dyad. No single behavior can be separated from the cluster for analysis without losing its mean ing in the sequence. The effect of clustering and sequencing takes over in assessing the value of particular behaviors and in the same way the dyadic nature of interaction superseded the im portance of an individual member's clusters and sequences. (Ibid., pp. 55-56) 27
Like other applications of sequential analysis, this rhythmic-
cyclic approach may reveal some of the formal "rules" that underlie
certain patterns of interaction, and it contains possiblities for more
content-free analyses of the interactive process. Most researchers
who have attempted to identify cylic interaction patterns have used
descriptive case study methods, since the problem of quantifying
cyclic behavior lies outside the realm of traditional statistical
models (Parke, 1978). Time series analysis, which Thomas and Martin
(1976) applied to parent-infant group data, and the sequential lag
technique (Sackett, 1974), appear to be potentially useful tools for
cyclic analyses in the future.
Ann Garner and her colleagues at the University of Oregon have
developed one of the few clinical approaches to recording transactions
between parents and children which facilitates the collection of
contingency data, using simple observational procedures and quick, non
technical methods of analysis. The Response Class Matrix procedure was designed to monitor social interactions between parents and chil
dren who attended a psychological clinic because of the child's behav
ior problems (see Mash, Terdal, & Anderson, 1970, 1973). It requires
two observers to make time-sampled recordings of behaviors in pre
selected categories on two matrices. The first matrix designates
selected behavior classes of the child as consequents (See Figure 2);
on the second matrix, the antecedent-consequent relationship is re versed (see Figure 3). Garner and her associates chose to record
classes of parent and child behaviors which were of concern to the CHILD'S CONSEQUENT BEHAVIOR Mother's Antecedent Ind. Interaction No Response Behavior Compl. Play Ques. Neg. 10 Sec. 10 Sec.
Command
Command Question
Question
Praise
Negative
Inter action
No Re- ponse Date Time Location Child's Age Sex M F Session No. Situation Code Family ID Recorder
FIGURE 2
Child's Consequent Matrix
MOTHER'S CONSEQUENT BEHAVIOR Child's Antecedent Comm. Inter No Behavior Comm. Ques. Ques. Praise Neg. action Response
Compliance
Independent Play
Negative
Inter action
No Response
Competing Behaviors Date Time Location Child's Age Sex M F Session No. Situation Code Family ID Recorder
FIGURE 3
Mother's Consequent Matrix 29
parents whom they saw in their clinic and which were relevant to be
havioral treatment goals. However, the selection of behavior classes
may vary with the interests of the researcher or clinician, as well
as with the behavioral repertoires of the dyads.
In a later study, Terdal eh. al (1976) derived indices from
the response frequencies of mothers and children to further illumi
nate patterns of interaction. These indices reflect the sums and pro
portions of various kinds of behaviors; for example, the "Index of
Mother's Directiveness" combines tallies of commands and command ques
tions, and then divides this sum by the total number of tallies repre
senting the mother's behaviors (Ibid., p. 255).
STUDIES OF SOCIAL INTERACTIONS BETWEEN HIGH-RISK INFANTS AND THEIR PARENTS
Few studies have explored the social-emotional relationship between high-risk infants and their parents. Even fewer have employed direct observations of interactions between these infants and parents, or have sought to identify the contingencies operating between them. This sec
tion summarizes recent research on parental interactions with young children whose development is atypical.
Several studies have documented mothers' behaviors toward their premature infants. Seashore, Leifer, Barnett, and Leiderman (1973) found that primiparous mothers who had been denied early physical con tact with their infants (because of the infants' confinement in an in tensive care nursery) later demonstrated less self-confidence in their parenting skills than multiparous mothers. Klaus and Kennell (1976) 30 observed that mothers who did not interact with their premature infants soon after birth cuddled their babies less and showed poorer handling skills later on. Mothers who infrequently visited their hospitalized infants developed a higher-than-average incidence of attachment dis orders (Ibid.). Leifer, £t. al. (1972) found that mothers of premature infants showed less early ventral contact and smiling toward their babies than did mothers of full-term infants.
DiVitto and Goldberg (1979) explored the social-interactive conse quences of prematurity by comparing parent-infant interactions among fam ilies who had had different early contact experiences due to their in fants’ varying medical conditions. During feeding periods, observers coded behaviors of the parent and infant on a checklist in ten-second intervals. The behaviors included how the parent held the infant, whether the infant's eyes were open or closed; vocalizations, touches, and movements for both the parent and infant; the amount of infant cry ing and fretting; and mutual gaze. These researchers found that "the fewer medical problems the baby had, the more likely s/he was to be alert for prolonged periods, responsive to social stimulation and able to signal distress by crying ... These same infants were likely to spend the greatest proportion of time in the closest feeding position during most feedings" (Ibid., pp. 327-328). A corollary finding was that "the sicker the infant, the more likely s/he was to be held at arm's length on the lap and the less likely s/he was to be nestled close in the arms, touched, and talked to" (Ibid., p. 325). These authors noted distinct differences in parental interaction styles over a four-month 31
period among mothers and infants in their four diagnostic categories
(full-term infants, healthy premature infants, sick premature infants,
and infants of diabetic mothers). They explained these behavioral dif
ferences as being symptomatic of delays in the development of parental
bonding; deliberate emotional distancing by parents as an adaptive re
sponse to a sick infant's uncertain survival; and/or exposure to nurses
who served as professional models in handling sick infants, and who, in
the interests of efficiency, did not cuddle the infants.
Field (1977, 1979). conducted a series of studies which compared
the interaction patterns of mothers with both normal and high-risk in
fants. Field videotaped feedings and face-to-face interactions between mothers and three groups of infants (healthy, full-term infants; pre mature infants with Respiratory Distress Syndrome; and post-term, post- mature infants). She also instructed the mothers to behave in certain ways, and then she observed the effects of the experimental manipula
tions on the infants' behaviors. Using a split screen generator and
digital time counter on the lower half of the screen to coordinate the mother's and infant's actions, Field analyzed the contingent relation
ships between infant gazing, cooing, and fussing and maternal activity levels. She found that certain experimental manipulations of the moth
er's behavior, such as instructing the mother to imitate her infant's actions, facilitated infant attentiveness and its physiological cor relate of lower heart-rate levels. Her findings confirmed her model of normal versus disturbed parent-infant interaction patterns. In her view, a normal interaction
... features mothers 'infantizing' or slowing down, exaggerating and repeating their behaviors, 32
contingently responding by imitating or high lighting the infant's behavior, taking turns or not interrupting, and respecting the infant's need for an occasional break from the 'conver sation. ' The infant in an harmonious interac tion is typically described as looking atten tive and sounding content... disturbed inter actions would feature instead a gaze averting, squirming, fussing infant and an overactive, intrusive mother. (Field, 1979, p. 334)
Field observed that high-risk infants tend to be less attentive and
their mothers tend to be less imitative than mothers with normal in
fants. She suggested that their interactions might improve with a
coaching regime designed to increase the number of maternal behaviors which effectively elicit the infant's attention.
In another, long-term follow-up study of normal and high-risk in
fants and their mothers, Field (Ibid.) studied the stability of sepa rate mother and child behaviors over time, from the child's age of
four months to two years. The high-risk infants who had been less at
tentive at four months demonstrated smaller working vocabularies at two years. Compared to mothers of normal infants, the mothers of the high- risk infants used less imitation when their infants were four months, and they used more imperatives in their speech when their children
reached two years. Field concluded that there are persisting differ
ences between the interaction patterns of high-risk and normal infant- mother dyads, which may reflect differences in early styles of infant- mother interaction that continue, in somewhat modified form, throughout
infancy.
"These may derive from the high-risk infant's unresponsiveness and inattentiveness or the mo ther's style of interacting or both. Whatever 33 the cause, the data from these studies suggest that it may be helpful to show mothers of high- risk infants techniques which facilitate more harmonious interactions" (Ibid., p. 355).
Alfasi (1982) used microanalysis of videotapes to illuminate be havioral differences between the interactions of nineteen mothers with normal infants and the interactions of one mother with a failure-to-
thrive infant. The mother of the failure—to—thrive infant showed higher levels of stimulation and less positive affect than the other mothers. Alfasi concluded that this infant's abnormal patterns of de velopment might reflect a poor reciprocal relationship with his mother.
Vietze jit. _al. (1978) compared the contingent vocal interaction patterns of mothers with developmentally delayed infants to mothers with normal infants. The researchers used home observations, a digital electronic recording device, and continuous coding of behaviors in five categories each for the mothers and infants. The infant behavioral categories included a) visual attention to the mother, b) nondistress vocalization, c) smile, d) distress vocalization, and 3) no signalling behavior present. The maternal behavioral categories were a) visual attention to the infant, b) vocalization directed to the infant, c) smile, d) tactile play stimulation, and e) no behavior directed to the infant. Each behavior pattern consisted of one or more of these categories and was recorded in unique two-digit codes. Context codes were assigned for infant arousal states, maternal proximity, and ma ternal caregiving activities. The researchers subjected the data to time series analysis and conditional probability computations in order to evaluate the second-by-second alternations of vocal activity 34 "states" by the individual dyads. They constructed matrices of transi
tion probabilities for each dyad, which showed the frequency with which
a given vocal state moved (in one-second intervals) to any other vocal
state, including itself. Vietze et. al. used these probabilities to
identify contingent relationships between the behaviors of the mothers and the behaviors of the infants.
The results indicated that the nondelayed infants and their
mothers exhibited contingent vocal responsiveness to each other, and
that the infants became more active participants as they aged. The
reciprocal vocal interactions of the delayed infants and their mothers were similar to the nondelayed group during the first year of life;
thus, the results of this study did not support the researcher's hypoth esis that children with different degrees of developmental delay would differ in their levels of contingent responsiveness to their mothers.
Although these findings contrast with the findings of other studies of maternal interactions with high-risk infants, the authors noted that it is difficult to make comparisons across investigations because of the radically different levels of analysis that researchers in this field have used.
SUMMARY
The transactional view of parent-infant interactions emphasizes the reciprocal, bidirectional nature of the interactive process. Re search designs which are based upon transactional models investigate contingent relationships between parents' and infants' behaviors. The recording and data analysis techniques which appear most promising for research projects investigating sequential patterns of interaction are not practical for clinical work with individual parent-infant dyads.
Studies of reciprocal interactions between parents and high-risk infants indicate a high incidence of social interaction disturbances; however, these studies are limited in number and disparate in method, which hinders comparisons across samples. CHAPTER III
METHODOLOGY
OVERVIEW
The purpose of this project was to develop a practical, clinical method for assessing reciprocity in the social interactions of parents and their high-risk infants. The project proceeded in four sequential phases:
Phase #1: Videotaping the Social Interactions of Parent-
High-Risk Infant Dyads;
Phase #2: Developing a Method for Assessing Reciprocity;
Phase #3: Collecting Empirical Data on the Reciprocal
Interaction Patterns of Parent-High-Risk In
fant Dyads; and
Phase #4: Analyzing the Findings.
The following sections of this chapter detail the activities of each phase.
PHASE #1: VIDEOTAPING THE SOCIAL INTERACTIONS OF PARENT-HIGH-RISK INFANT DYADS
Phase #1 consisted of videotaping the social interactions of par ents and their high-risk infants during routine activities at home and in an early intervention program. The videotapes provided raw obser vational material for the next two phases of this project: developing
36 37 a method for assessing reciprocity (Phase #2); and subsequently using this method to collect empirical data on the reciprocal interaction patterns of parent-high-risk infant dyads (Phase #3).
Subjects
The subjects in this study were parents and infants who attended
Infant Stimulation classes offered by the Franklin County (Ohio) Board of Mental Retardation and Developmental Disabilities (FCBMR/DD). Oper ating eleven months a year, this program is available free-of-charge (in cluding door-to-door transportation) to all families within the metro politan Columbus area whose babies have developmental delays, or who are at risk for^&uture developmental problems by virtue of their social or medical histories.
Infants are referred to this program by physicians, social agency staff, or family members. Each infant receives a comprehensive develop mental assessment by a multidisciplinary team, including a special edu cator, physical therapist, occupational therapist, speech and language specialist, and psychologist. Parents are urged (but not required) to attend classes with their babies three half-days each week to receive instruction in appropriate developmental objectives and activities.
Parents are invited to attend weekly peer support and educational meet ings, which meet concurrently with the class sessions.
Subjects were recruited through formal presentations to the weekly parent group meetings. Appendix B contains a description of the format of this presentation. A summary of the project which was written for parents and a copy of the parental consent form are also included. 38
Inclusion Critera. Parents and infants who had attended early inter vention classes together on two or more occasions were eligible for this project. Minimal joint experience in early intervention classes was necessary in order for the program to serve as a "familiar setting" for the dyad.
Fifty-six infants attended the early intervention program at the time of this project. Seventeen of these infants had parents who agreed to participate. Two dyads did not complete the videotapings due to reloca tion and illness. A total of fifteen parent-high-risk infant dyads com pleted thirty-minute videotapings both at home and in the early interven tion program.
Demographic Data. All of the parents who participated were Caucasian and married. Demographic data (Table 1) included each parent's age, sex, number of children, and years of formal education. The socioeconomic status of each family was estimated from the occupation and years of formal education of the principal wage earner (Hollingshead, 1957).
TABLE 1
DEMOGRAPHIC DATA ON PARENTS N=15 Males = 3, Females = 12
Range X S.D.
Age (Yrs.) 19-39 28.0 5.8 i Education (Yrs.) 9-17 13.0 2.3
SES Level 3-5 3.7 0.9
No. Children 1-4 2.0 1.0 39
The infants in this project had a variety of diagnoses and handi
capping conditions (Table 2).
TABLE 2
DIAGNOSTIC DATA ON THE INFANTS N=15 Males = 7, Females = 8
N PRIMARY DIAGNOSIS/HANDICAPPING CONDITION
1 Visual impairment
1 Visual and hearing impairment
1 Cerebral palsy
1 Cerebral palsy and hearing impairment
5 Down's Syndrome
2 Dubowitz Syndrome
1 Seizure disorder
2 Prematurity and Failure-To-Thrive Syndrome
1 Cleft palate
Demographic data (Table 3) included each infant's age, sex, birth order, and adaptive behavior level rating'*', which indicated the severity of the infant's handicaps.
1. Adaptive behavior refers to the effectiveness of the individual in coping with the natural and social demands of the environment (Leland & Smith, 1974). Early intervention program staff used procedures es tablished by Loadman and Leland (1981) to provide adaptive behavior le vel estimates for each infant: Level 0 - Normal; no observable deficits in AB Level I - Mild deficits in AB Level II - Moderate to severe deficits in AB 40
TABLE 3
DEMOGRAPHIC DATA ON INFANTS N=15 Males = 7, Females = 8
RANGE X S.D.
Age (months) 6-27 15.0 5.5
Birth Order 1-4 2.0 1.0
A.B. Level 1-2 1.5 0.5
Settings
It was advantageous to videotape the fifteen parent-high-risk in fant dyads during routine activities in both their homes and in the early intervention program. The use of two settings provided a broader sample of contexts for naturally occurring social interactions than either setting alone would have offered. Incorporating observations of the social behaviors of infants and parents in both settings into the assessment instrument during the developmental phase of this method
(Phase #2) increased the potential that the resulting method would be appropriate for future use in either setting. This flexibility is of practical importance to early intervention staff, who generally work with high-risk infants and their families in their homes as well as in medical clinics and educational centers. Finally, after the method had been developed (Phase #2) and subsequently used to collect empirical data on the reciprocal interaction patterns of the fifteen dyads 41
(Phase #3), it was possible to explore whether the reciprocal interac tion patterns of these dyads remained stable or changed in two differ ent, yet familiar, environments (Phase #4). Following are descriptions of the general physical and social features of each setting.
Early Intervention Program Setting. The physical plant for the
FCBMR/DD Infant Stimulation program at The Nisonger Center of The Ohio
State University consisted of four spacious and colorful classrooms, a parent and staff meeting room, a bathroom, and an office. The class rooms contained a large assortment of commercial and hand-made infant play materials, and adaptive equipment such as foam bolsters and wedges, low tables, custom-built infant seats, and floor mats.
The environment was often noisy, as the voices of infants, parents, teachers, and specialists intermingled with the sounds of music and auditorily stimulating toys. The population in each classroom fluctu ated from four to fifteen, depending upon the numbers of parents, in fants, program staff, and visitors who attended on a given day.
Parents generally sat on the floor and practiced developmental ac tivities and exercises with their infants, with guidance from the teach ers and specialists. Consequently, most of the parent-infant social in teractions in this setting occurred within the context of highly-struc tured, goal-oriented activities. Parental "play" usually revolved around teaching the infant a specific skill.
The videotapings in this setting occurred during each dyad's regu lar classroom session. These were between 9:00 and 11:00 in the morn ing or 1:00 and 3:00 in the afternoon. 42
Home Setting. The home videotaping sessions usually occurred
within a couple of days after the classroom session, often in the early
morning or evening. The investigator followed parents and infants as
they moved naturally about their homes, recording social interactions
in kitchens, family rooms, bedrooms, living rooms, and dining rooms.
Other family members frequently were present, prompting parents not to
focus exclusively on their infants. With the exceptions of diapering
and feeding (which are specifically goal-oriented), the activity con
texts for parent-infant interactions tended to be less structured in
the homes than in the infant stimulation program.
Equipment
The videotaping equipment consisted of a small, portable Sony
AVC-3400 Videocorder and Sony AVC-3450 Video Camera mounted on a shoul
der brace or monopod. The tapes were reviewed on Sony T.V. Monitors,
which have time-tracking and stop-action features.
Videotaping Procedures
The investigator took precautions to minimize the distorting effects of live recording procedures upon the natural flow of parent-infant inter actions. Through frequent visits to the classrooms and parent group meetings, she attempted to develop rapport with the parents and infants prior to videotaping their interactions. She left the camera equipment set up but idle in the classrooms on several occasions. Most parents ob served other parents and infants being videotaped in the classrooms be fore their own recording sessions occurred. 43
Before filming an individual dyad, the investigator conversed casu ally with the parent and infant while she set up the equipment. She re
iterated that she wanted to record the parent's and infant's natural or usual ways of interacting with each other. She asked each parent to
"Go about your regular morning (afternoon, evening) activities as if I were not here." Next, she left the camera and videocorder set up near
the dyad for about thirty minutes in order to acclimate them to it.
Sometimes in the beginning of a recording session, the investigator talked and joked with the parent while the camera was running in or der to make the parent feel more comfortable. Then she filmed the dyad off and on for at least an hour in order to obtain approximately thirty minutes of parent-infant interactions across different situations.
During the filming, the investigator positioned herself as unob trusively as possible, six to fifteen feet from the dyad. She was mo bile and frequently changed positions; a zoom lense on the camera fa cilitated close-up shots. If the parent-infant dyad was stationary
(e.g., the parent seated, cradling the infant), the investigator some times attached the camera to the monopod and walked away. Occasionally, parents who preferred structured activities asked, "What else should I do?" The investigator typically responded, "It's all right to 'do nothing' for a while."
PHASE #2: DEVELOPING A METHOD FOR ASSESSING RECIPROCITY
The major objective of this phase was to design a method for assess ing reciprocity in the naturally occurring social interactions of parents 44
and their high-risk infants. The method was intended for use with videotapes in order that the interactions of parent-infant dyads might be reviewed and studied.
First it was necessary to decide how the quantitative and qualitative
dimensions of reciprocity might be translated into observable behav
iors. Next, a protocol was devised for recording the reciprocal inter action behaviors of parent-high-risk infant dyads as they occurred on videotape. Finally, a format was developed for summarizing the recipro cal interaction patterns of each dyad. Interobserver agreement was examined and the issues of construct and concurrent validity were ex plored.
The remainder of this section describes the development of this method in more detail. Appendices C-G contain the products of this phase.
Operationalizing the Quantitative and Qualitative Dimensions of Reciprocity
As noted in Chapter I (Introduction), the investigator wanted to incorporate both quantitative and qualitative dimensions of reciprocity into the assessment process. The quantitative dimension would describe the extent of reciprocity by measuring the proportions of parent and infant social behaviors that comprised reciprocal versus nonreciprocal patterns of interaction. The qualitative dimension would describe the nature of those interactions by illuminating the behavioral repertoires of the parent and infant, i.e., the kinds of social communicative be haviors they typically use with each other. This information would be useful in several respects: for sensitizing parents to the existing 45 parent-infant social interaction patterns; providing a baseline for the development of intervention strategies designed to enhance reciprocal communication between the parent and infant; as well as for evaluating the effectiveness of intervention strategies.
In this project three types of measurements were developed to re flect these dimensions and to provide a basis for future efforts to strengthen reciprocal communication between individual parents and high- risk infants. These measurements were analyses of the 1) sequence pat terns, 2) rate of interaction, and 3) social interaction repertoire of the dyad.
The rest of this section describes the rationale and development „ of each of these three measures, followed by a report of the inter observer agreement and validity issues that were explored. In the final part of Phase #2, these three measures were assembled into a protocol for observation and recording and a summary index of reci procity.
Sequence Patterns. The work of Bakeman and Brown (1977) was es pecially helpful in suggesting a framework for differentiating recipro cal from nonreciprocal interaction patterns. In their microanalytic studies of parent-infant communication patterns, they identified dia logic versus monologic patterns of communication. Adapting this struc ture to the concept of reciprocity, a dialogue can be viewed as a re ciprocal interaction pattern in which the parent and infant both ac tively participate and provide each other with contingency experiences.
Similarly, a monologue can be viewed as a nonreciprocal interaction 46
pattern in which one individual alone repeatedly demonstrates social
behaviors; in the absence of a contingent response from the partner,
the individual (parent or infant) either repeats the previous behavior, varies it, or tries a new social approach.
Bakeman and Brown (1977, p. 196) hypothesized four possible "dyadic
states" in mother-infant interaction: 1) co-acting (mother and infant
concurrently engaging in communicative acts); 2) mother - alone
(mother acting alone); 3) infant - alone (infant acting alone); and 4) quiescent (neither acting). Bakeman and Brown (1977) and Stern (1974) have suggested that co-acting between a mother and infant does not con note rudeness, as with adults, but rather it is normal for a mother and infant to be active concurrently part of the time.
Pilot observations of the videotapes (described below) revealed a
fifth pattern of parent-infant interaction which was predominant over other sequences of interaction in this sample. This pattern was "turn-
taking," in which the parent and infant clearly alternated or took turns
interacting. Parent monologues were frequently observed, while co-act
ing and infant monologues were comparatively rare among these dyads.
The concept of a quiescent state - one in which neither individual was acting - was not used in this project. It seemed unnecessary because
in the absence of a contingency response from the partner, the indi vidual who had acted previously either repeated the same behavior or
initiated new ones, until the partner eventually responded.
Four types of parent-infant interaction patterns were identified on the pilot videotapes and later incorporated into the assessment protocol. These were turn-taking and co-acting forms of dialogues, which represented reciprocal forms of interaction; and parent and in
fant monologues, which were nonreciprocal interaction patterns.
Social Interaction Repertoires. In order to catalogue the types of affective and communicative behaviors that parents and high-risk
infants use in their social interactions, the investigator supplemented information from published sources with pilot observations of two-five- minute segments of the videotapes. First, she reviewed the behavioral variables used in recent studies of parental interactions with normal infants (Clarke-Stewart, 1973; Bakeman & Brown, 1977; Ainsworth & Bell,
1974; Brazelton, ej:. al., 1974; Brazelton, Tronick, Adamson, Als, &
Wise, 1975; Bateson, 1975; Klaus & Kennell, 1976; Stern et. al.,
1975; Anderson et. al., 1977). Next, she reviewed the behavioral variables used in studies of parental interactions with atypical infants
(Field, 1977, 1979; Trout, 1978; Stone & Chesney, 1978; Vietzeet. al., 1978
Alfasi, 1982; DiVitto & Goldberg, 1979; Greenberg, 1971; Leifer et. al.,
1972; Seashore et. al, 1973). Finally, the investigator and two recorders supplemented the pool of variables drawn from the literature with em pirical observations of the social interaction behaviors of the parents and high-risk infants on pilot segments of the thirty videotapes.
The investigator then organized this rough pool of potential tar get behaviors into separate listings of Parent Social Behaviors and
Infant Social Behaviors. Each listing contained:
1) the modes of communication;
2) behavior classes within each mode; 48
3) definitions for each behavior class; and
4) examples of specific behaviors within each behavior
class, drawn from the videotapes.
The two listings underwent extensive revisions and an examination of interobserver agreement (reported below). Final versions of the be havior listings comprise Appendices C and D. Figure 4 illustrates the format of these listings.
The behavior modes reflect the means, or channels, of social com munication. The infant modes include Vocalization, Gestures/Body Move ments, Visual Contact, and Facial Expression. The parent modes are the same, with the additions of Holding Position and Facial Position.
The behavior classes are "interactive categories" (Waters, 1978) or "response classes" (Mash £t_. al_., 1973) of discrete behaviors which were combined because of their similar value or impact in social com munication, as perceived by the investigator. There are 26 behavior classes for infants and 42 behavior classes for parents. The use of behavior classes facilitates the assessment of reciprocity in parent- infant social interaction patterns, regardless of the particular be haviors that a parent and infant demonstrate. In accordance with
Bakeman and Brown's (1977) suggestions, this method is grounded in specifiable behaviors, yet not dependent upon particular behaviors.
Definitions and examples accompany each behavior class. The defi nitions cite the kinds of behaviors that are included in each behavior class. Examples of actual parent and infant behaviors were selected
from the pilot videotapes to clarify and illustrate the definitions. PARENT SOCIAL BEHAVIORS
BEHAVIOR BEHAVIOR MODECLASSDEFINITION EXAMPLES
VOCALIZATION ACKNOWLEDGEMENT/ - greetings - "Hi Baby." EMPATHY - "Here I am. I'm back."
- acknowledgements of the infant's pres - "There you are." ence, actions, or vocalizations. - "What'd you say?" - "Well, tell me more."
- empathetic descriptions of the infant's - "You like this game, don't you?" feelings, desires, or moods. - "This is hard work, isn't it?" - "You look hungry. I bet you'd like your bottle."
- soothing sounds, songs, and statements - "Sh, sh, sh. Go to sleep now." intended to reassure, calm, and quiet - "It's okav. It's gonna be all the infant. right." - "Lullabyes
AFFECTION/PRAISE/ - affectionate or affirmative comments - "You're making me so happy today.' ENCOURAGEMENT about the infant or his/her actions. - "You're sitting up so well. Good job!" - "Oh, sweet baby."
- reassuring and encouraging comments, - "You can do it. One more try." intended to motivate the infant (more - "That's right. Give it to Daddy.' suggestive than a command, usually in - "That's it. Hit it again." reference to an ongoing activity). 50
Rate of Interaction. This third type of measure is acquired through a simple arithmetic computation. Dividing the length of the observation period (in minutes or seconds) into the total number of sequence patterns yields a mean rate of interaction. For example, if there were 124 different sequence patterns of parent-infant in teraction during ten minutes of observation, the X sequence patterns per minute would be 12.4. Another way of expressing this statistic is to say that the dyad averaged 6.1 seconds per sequence pattern
(social interaction). This statistic is a subordinate yet still in teresting descriptor of a dyad's reciprocal interaction style. Appen dix K explains the scoring of sequence patterns.
Interobserver Agreement. Two trained recorders participated with the investigator in observing two-five minute pilot segments of the 30 videotapes in order to enumerate the sequence patterns and social interaction repetoires of the 15 parent-high-risk infant dyads.
Both of the recorders held bachelor's degrees in Psychology and worked with developmentally disabled children and adults. Each recorder had had previous academic training and field experience in collect ing behavioral data.
After briefing the recorders on the purpose and objectives of this project, the investigator introduced them to a rough draft of the listings of parent and infant social behaviors. The investigator and recorders found that fifteen-second intervals were a comfortable time frame for observing parent-infant interactions on videotape and recording them accurately with the tape stopped. The investigator and recorders then spent twenty-one hours jointly reviewing two-five • minute portions of the videotapes and refining the classification 51 scheme of the behavior listings. During these pilot observations, the investigator collected many samples of actual parent and infant social behaviors to illustrate each behavior class; these examples appear in the final version of the behavior listings (Appendices C and D). The sequence patterns of dyadic interaction (turn-taking, co-acting, parent monologues, and infant monologues) were easily identified and agreed upon.
The criterion for terminating work on the identification of se quence patterns and refinement of the behavior listings was when the investigator and two recorders viewed five consecutive minutes of six pilot videotapes (in fifteen-second intervals) and met the fol lowing conditions: 1) identified the sequence patterns with at least
90% agreement; and 2) classified all parent and infant behaviors with out making any further revisions in the behavior modes, classes, or definitions. At this point, interobserver agreement with the behav ior classes was examined.
Interobserver agreement was defined as the number of agreements between two observers (categorizing parent and infant social behaviors in fifteen-second intervals into behavior modes and classes) divided by the sum of the number of agreements plus disagreements, including omissions by either recorder. The investigator and two recorders formed three pairs of observers, who jointly observed and recorded five consecutive minutes of parent-infant interaction of four differ ent dyads (a total of 1,447 parent behaviors and 959 infant behaviors).
Tables 4 through 7 report these results. Table 4 shows the percent agreement figure for each observer pair
(observers A + B, B + C, A+C) on the categorization of parent social behaviors. Table 5 shows the combined percent agreement figures for all three observer pairs on the categorization of parent behaviors.
Tables 6 and 7 follow the same format for reporting interobserver agreement on the categorization of infant social behaviors.
TABLE 4
PERCENT AGREEMENT FOR THREE OBSERVER PAIRS LISTING OF PARENT SOCIAL BEHAVIORS
CODER PAIRS BEHAVIOR MODE A + B B + C A + C X
Vocalization .7692 .7500 . 6666 .7286 .9000 .8700 .8293 .8691 .7805 .7805 .7143 .7584 .7500 .8500 .8780 .8260
Gestures/ .8000 .8718 .8205 .8308 Body Movements .7317 .8780 .7500 .7866 .4762 .7317 .5854 .5978 .9000 .9500 .9000 .9166
Visual Contact 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 .8500 .8500 1.0000 .9000 .9500 1.0000 .9500 .9666 . 9500 1.0000 .9500 .9666
Holding Position .5500 1.0000 .5500 .7000 .8000 .8500 .9500 .8666 .7692 .8718 .7000 .7803 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000 1.0000
Facial Position .5365 .9767 .5714 .6949 .8500 .9000 .9500 .9000 .9000 .9500 .9500 .9333 .9500 >.8500 .9000 .9000
Facial Expression .5500 .7000 .8500 .7000 .7000 .7000 .9000 .7666 .4500 .6000 .8500 .6333 .7000 .7500 .8500 .7666 53 TABLE 5
COMBINED PERCENT AGREEMENT FOR THREE OBSERVER PAIRS LISTING OF PARENT SOCIAL BEHAVIORS
BEHAVIOR MODE X
Vocalization .80
Gestures/Body Movements .78
Visual Contact .96
Holding Position .84
Facial Position .86
Facial Expression .72
TABLE 6
PERCENT AGREEMENT FOR THREE OBSERVER PAIRS LISTING OF INFANT SOCIAL BEHAVIORS
CODER PAIRS BEHAVIOR MODE A + B B + C A + C X
Vocalization .90 .90 .85 .88 .70 .75 .90 .78 .80 .80 .95 .85 .75 .70 .90 .78
Gestures/ .93 .88 .90 .90 Body Movements .60 .83 .59 .67 .84 .79 .95 .86 .62 .75 .68 .68
Visual Contact .95 .95 .90 .93 .95 .93 .93 .94 .90 1.00 .90 .93 .80 .90 .85 .85
Facial Expression .90 .88 .93 .90 .80 .90 .93 .87 .73 .75 .73 .74 .90 1.00 .95 .95 54 TABLE 7
COMBINED PERCENT AGREEMENT FOR THREE OBSERVER PAIRS LISTING OF INFANT SOCIAL BEHAVIORS
BEHAVIOR MODE X
Vocalization .82
Gestures/Body Movements 00
Visual Contact .91
Facial Expression 00
On the listing of Parent Social Behaviors, combined percent
agreement figures for the three observer pairs ranged from .72
(Facial Expression) to .96 (Visual Contact). The largest discrep
ancies among individual observers occurred in the categories of
Facial Expression and Gestures/Body Movements, probably due to the
fact that more subjectivity is involved in classifying behaviors in
these modes than in the other modes (Vocalization, Visual Contact,
Holding Position, Facial Position). Also, the facial expressions,
gestures, and body movements of some parents were unclear or rapidly
shifting, making them more difficult to classify.
On the listing of Infant Social Behaviors, the combined per
cent agreement figures for the three observer pairs ranged from .78
(Gestures/Body Movements) to .91 (Visual Contact). Again, the
largest discrepancies among individual observers appeared in the
category of Gestures/Body Movements, probably for the same reasons. 55
Validity Issues. At the time of this project, no other clini cal measures of reciprocity existed with which to compare the find ings of this technique. Therefore, the best method available for exploring the concurrent and construct validity of this approach was to obtain subjective appraisals of the reciprocal interaction patterns of dyads in this project from early intervention staff who were most familiar with each dyad.
Soon after each dyad was videotaped in the early intervention program, the dyad's teacher filled out a questionnaire about their reciprocal interaction patterns. The questionnaire contained a draft of the parent and infant behavior listings and six questions about the reciprocal interaction style of the dyad (see Appendix E).
The six questions were not directly comparable to the measures of sequence patterns and rate of interaction, which were conceived and developed at a later phase in the project (Phase #2). Yet it was important to obtain the impressions of professionals familiar with the dyad at the time of videotaping (Phase #1), since later analyses would be performed on the behavior samples collected at this time.
Considering the above restrictions, it was possible to use the questionnaire data to tentatively explore the concurrent and con struct validity of this approach in two ways. First was a determi nation of the extent to which the teachers believed they understood and had observed the parent-infant interaction behaviors contained in the behavior listings and six questions. The findings were that teachers felt they could report on the relative frequencies of 99% 56
of the parent social behaviors and 100% of the infant behaviors.
They were able to respond to 88% of the questions. The second use of this data was to compare informally the teachers' subjective im pressions with data from the (later) formal protocols and individu
al indices of reciprocity. Many interesting correspondences exist.
To facilitate comparisons by the reader, the Validity Questionnaires are presented in Appendix J, following the Reciprocity Indices
in Appendix I. (The Reciprocity Indices were derived over a year later.) A case example of correspondence between the Validity
Study data and Reciprocity Index data is presented in Chapter IV
(Results).
Constructing the Observational Protocol: Reciprocal Interaction Patterns Checksheet
Following the examination of interobserver agreement on the listings of Parent Social Behaviors and Infant Social Behaviors, the investigator combined the two behavior listings into a single checklist form, known as the Reciprocal Interaction Patterns Check- sheet . The Checksheet contains an added dimension of spaces for noting the sequence of parent and infant social behaviors. The
Checksheet is used for recording the sequential social interaction behaviors of an individual parent-high-risk infant dyad from contin uous observations of the dyad's natural social interactions on video tape. The checksheet is printed on two sheets of 8^" x 11" paper, which are clipped together for recording. A copy of the Checksheet is contained in Appendix F. Figure 5 illustrates the components of 57
the Checksheet.
PART I PART II
BEHAVIOR MODES BEHAVIOR MODES P T BEHAVIOR CLASSES BEHAVIOR CLASSES
S c E 0 Parent Infant Q L Social Behaviors u Social Behaviors U E M N N C S E
Figure 5. Components of Reciprocal Interaction Patterns Checksheet
On the left side of the Checksheet (Part I), the behavior modes and classes of the listing of Parent Social Behaviors form column headings. The behavior modes and classes of the listing of Infant
Social Behaviors form column headings on the right half of the Check-
sheet (Part II). At the bottom of the Checksheet are spaces for
totalling the parent and infant behavior classes that are observed.
Between the sections of parent behaviors and infant behaviors is a two-column section labeled "sequence." The sequence section has both a parent column and an infant column. Each row (#1-25) in the sequence columns represents a social interaction behavior of the par ent or infant, or both at the same time, in the order that they occur. 58
A checkmark in the parent or infant sequence column indicates which person is acting; corresponding checkmarks along the same row in the parent and/or infant behavior listings describe the specific behavior modes and classes that were observed.
The pattern of checkmarks in the sequence columns determines whether a sequence of social interaction behaviors represents a "di alogue" or a "monologue." A dialogue is a social interaction pattern in which the parent and infant both actively participate and provide each other with contingency experiences. Observations of the video tapes indicated that dialogues can take two forms: "turn-taking," in which the parent and infant alternate or take turns interacting; and
"co-acting," in which the parent and infant interact simultaneously.
A monologue is a social interaction pattern in which one individual alone is repeatedly demonstrating social behaviors. In the absence of a contingency response from the partner, the individual (parent or infant) either varies his/her behavior or repeats the previous behav ior. Figure 6 illustrates these different types of social interaction patterns as they appear in the sequence columns of the Checksheet.
Appendix K contains instructions for coding sequence patterns. 59
P I P I P I
16 X 16 X 16 X X 17 X 17 X 17 X X DIALOGUES 18 X 18 X 18 X X 19 X 19 X 19 X X turn-taking co-acting PI PI
16 X 16 X 17 17 MONOLOGUES X X 18 X 18 X 19 X 19 X parent infant monologue monologue
Figure 6. Examples of social interaction sequence patterns: dialogues and monologues
Each Checksheet has room for recording twenty-five succes
sive behaviors, or more if the parent and infant act concurrently.
In terms of establishing the length of an observation period, two
options are available:
1) recording a set number of successive interaction
behaviors (e.g. 100, 500, etc.), regardless of how
long it takes the dyad to demonstrate that number of
of behaviors; or
2) designating a set time period for observation of the
videotape (e.g. five minutes, ten minutes, etc.),
regardless of how many social behaviors are demon
strated during that time period. The latter tech
nique was used in this project to facilitate compar
isons across dyads. 60
Since it is theoretically impossible to define a logical point of entry into an ongoing stream of social interaction behaviors (Lewis
& Lee-Painter, 1974), the decision of which behavior(s) to record first is ultimately an arbitrary one. Wherever on the videotape the clinican/researcher chooses to begin constitutes the beginning of the observation period. The fact that the first behavior to be described in the observation and assessment procedure is not necessarily the first behavior in the actual, ongoing stream of social interaction between the parent and infant presents no significant distortion of the results, however. This is because the subsequent patterns of several hundred social behaviors are analyzed to determine the extent of reciprocity in the parent-infant interactions.
It is important to note the behaviors of the parent and infant at the beginning of the observation period, in order to locate this point on the videotape at a later time. An effective solution is to record on row #1 of the first Checksheet what the parent and infant are doing at the beginning of the observation period (even if they are not co-acting at this time), circling this pair of checkmarks in the sequence columns, and checking the appropriate behavior classes in the parent and infant behavior listings. Figure 7 illustrates how the first parent and infant behaviors in an observation period are noted in the sequence columns of the Checksheet.
The length of observational intervals may vary according to what is comfortable for an individual clinician/researcher who is record ing the consecutive social behaviors of a dyad. In this project, 61 after fifteen seconds the videotape was stopped to permit recording.
SEQUENCE
SEQUENCE OF SOCIAL INTERACTIONS
Figure 7. Method for indicating how the first parent and infant behaviors in an observation period are noted in the sequence columns of the Checksheet.
Appendix G contains the first page of an actual protocol. Par ent and infant social behaviors are reported in their sequence of oc currence. Dialogic and monologic patterns of interaction are evident. 62
Summarizing the Reciprocal Interaction Patterns: Reciprocity Index
For ease of interpretation, the raw data from the Checksheet were condensed and transferred onto a two-page summary sheet, the Recipro city Index (see Appendix H). The Reciprocity Index for each dyad reports three types of data:
1. the sequence patterns of each dyad, expressed as the pro
portions of parent and infant social behaviors which oc
cur in the context of reciprocal (turn-taking and co
acting dialogues) versus nonreciprocal (parent and infant
monologues) interaction patterns;
2. the rate of interaction of each dyad, expressed as the
average duration (in seconds) of each social interac
tion; and
3. the social interaction repertoires of the parent and
infant, expressed as frequencies for each type of
parent and infant social behavior.
PHASE #3: COLLECTING EMPIRICAL DATA ON THE RECIPROCAL INTERACTION PATTERNS OF PARENT-HIGH-RISK INFANT DYADS
Phase #3 consisted of using the instrument and method which had been developed in Phase #2 to code ten-minute portions of the 30 video tapes. The portions which were coded had not been viewed during the process of instrument development (Phase #2). Coding ten consecutive minutes of videotape in fifteen-second intervals required approximately sixty minutes per videotape. 63
Two Reciprocity Indices were computed for each dyad - one for the home setting, and one for the early intervention program setting. Ap pendix I contains the reciprocity data for the 15 dyads.
PHASE #4: DATA ANALYSIS
During Phase #4, the investigator analyzed the assessment data on reciprocal interaction patterns which had been collected during Phase
#3. These statistical analyses addressed the hypothetical research questions which were posed in Chapter I (Introduction) about the recipro cal interaction patterns of parent-high-risk infant dyads:
1. Will the reciprocal interaction patterns of parent-
high-risk infant dyads be similar across different
settings?
2. Will the reciprocal interaction patterns of parent-
high-risk infant dyads show individual differences?
3. Will the reciprocal interaction patterns of parent-
high-risk infant dyads be related to standard demo
graphic variables?
4. Can the reciprocal interaction patterns of parent-
high-risk infant dyads be interpreted for applied
clinical purposes?
The analyses considered separately the three components of reciprocity that were identified in this project and comprise the Reciprocity Index: 64
1) sequence patterns (reciprocal versus nonreciprocal; 2) rate of in teraction; and 3) the social interaction repertoires of the parent and infant.
The statistical analyses were performed through computer programs of the Statistical Analysis Systems (Helvig & Council, 1979). Methods in cluded providing descriptive statistics for each component of recipro city (PROC UNIVARIATE); testing for significant differences in measures between the home and early intervention program settings (PROC T TEST); executing correlation matrices (PROC CORR) and multiple regressions
(PROG GLM) to explore relationships between demographic variables and reciprocal interaction patterns; and employing cluster analysis (PROC
VARCLUS) to group the social interaction behaviors of parents and in fants into a smaller number of functional observational categories.
The findings are reported in Chapter IV (Results). 65
CHAPTER IV
RESULTS
This chapter contains analyses of the reciprocal interaction pat terns of fifteen parent-high-risk infant dyads. Videotapes of natur ally occurring parent-infant interactions were coded in fifteen-second intervals according to procedures developed in this project to yield measures of dyadic sequence patterns, rates of interaction, and social interaction repertoires of the parent and infant. These three types of measures reflect both quantitative and qualitative dimensions of reci procity in the social interactions of parents and their high-risk in fants .
The research findings are organized into four sections. Each sec tion addresses one of the four hypothetical research questions which were posed in Chapter I (Introduction):
1. Will the reciprocal interaction patterns of parent-
high-risk infant dyads be similar across different
settings?
2. Will the reciprocal interaction patterns of parent-
high-risk infant dyads show individual differences?
3. Will the reciprocal interaction patterns of parent-
high-risk infant dyads be related to standard demo
graphic variables? 66
4. Can the reciprocal interaction patterns of parent-
high-risk infant dyads be interpreted for applied
clinical purposes?
The raw data for these analyses are available in Appendix H. For each of the fifteen dyads there are two Reciprocity Indices. These in dices describe the reciprocal interaction patterns of the dyad at home and in the early intervention program setting.
HYPOTHETICAL RESEARCH QUESTION #1:
Will the Reciprocal Interaction Patterns of Parent-High-
Risk Infant Dyads Be Similar Across Different Settings?
This question required analyses of group data on the reciprocal in teraction patterns of the fifteen parents and their high-risk infants in the home versus early intervention program settings. Tables 8 through
11 compare the sequence patterns, rates of interaction, and social inter action repertoires of the fifteen dyads in the two different settings.
Table 8 reports the relative proportions of dyadic interaction pat terns which were reciprocal (turn-taking and co-acting) versus nonre ciprocal (parent and infant monologues) in each setting. A two-tailed
T-test found no significant difference in group sequence patterns be tween the home and early intervention program setting. 67 TABLE 8
RECIPROCAL INTERACTION PATTERNS ACROSS DIFFERENT SETTINGS SEQUENCE PATTERNS
EARLY INTERVENTION HOME PROGRAM N=15 N=15 SEQUENCE PATTERNS X S.D. X S.D. T
% RECIPROCAL (TOTAL) .834 .114 .815 .118 1.350
TURN-TAKING .701 .126 .675 .135 0.880
CO-ACTING .133 .085 .140 .074 -0.310
% NONRECIPROCAL (TOTAL) .166 .114 .185 .118 -1.350
PARENT MONOLOGUE .155 .118 .163 .125 -0.570
INFANT MONOLOGUE .010 .010 .020 .020 0.120
Table 9 compares the average number of seconds per social interac tion for the group in the home versus program settings. Once again, a two-tailed T-test found no significant difference in group rates of interaction between the home and early intervention program setting.
TABLE 9
RECIPROCAL INTERACTION PATTERNS ACROSS DIFFERENT SETTINGS RATE OF INTERACTION
EARLY INTERVENTION HOME PROGRAM N=15 N=15 X S.D. X S.D. T
X SECONDS PER SOCIAL INTERACTION 6.753 3.496 6.653 2.861 0.120 68
Tables 10 through 12 present group data on the social interaction
repertoires of the parents and infants in the two different settings.
Using mean percentages and rank orders, these figures describe the
relative frequencies of behavior classes within each mode of inter
action. The total numbers of observations for all behavior classes were 12,762 for parents and 6,352 for infants.
Table 10 shows that the mean percentages were similar and the rank
orders were the same for behavior classes within the modes of parental
Visual Contact, Holding Position, and Facial Position. Within the modes of Facial Expression and Vocalization, the mean percentages of
the behavior classes were similar and the rank orders were slightly
different. The most distinct difference in parental behaviors between
the two settings occurred in the mode of Gestures/Body Movements (see
Table 11 for a clearer comparison). In the home setting, parents tended
to interact with their infants using toys and other objects (Object Pre
sentation/Exchange) , behave in an affectionate or comforting manner (Af
fection/Comfort) , or use no gestures during their interactions; these
three types of behaviors accounted for nearly half of all parental ges
tures during the home observation. In contrast, in the early interven
tion program setting, about half of all parental gestures consisted of physically directing the infant through activities or exercises (Phys
ical Guidance/Positioning), physically communicating instructions or
intentions (Signalling), and the same category of Object Presentation/
Exchange. Probably this difference reflects the influence of situational
contexts upon parental behaviors. At home, parents often were more TABLE 10
RECIPROCAL INTERACTION PATTERNS ACROSS DIFFERENT SETTINGS SOCIAL INTERACTION REPERTOIRE OF PARENTS
EARLY INTERVENTION HOME PROGRAM SOCIAL INTERACTION BEHAVIORS N-15 N-15 PERCENT X S.D. R.0. X S.D. R.0.
VOCALIZATIONS Acknowledgement .159 .366 3 .074 .261 4 Affeetion/Praise/Encouragement .106 .308 4 .141 .348 3 Playful .092 .289 5 .063 .244 5 Immitation .035 .183 8 .017 .129 9 Attention-Getting/ Instructive/Descriptive .287 .453 1 .262 .440 2 Prohibition .036 .186 7 .023 .176 7 Criticism .005 .068 10 .007 .081 10 Extraneous Conversation .091 .288 6 .024 .152 8 Undetermined .011 .106 9 .053 .224 6 No Vocalization .184 .388 2 .331 .471 1 GESTURES/BODY MOVEMENTS Affection/Comfort .136 .343 2 .091 .287 5 Assistance .063 .243 8 .064 .245 8 Play/Games .104 .306 5 .072 .258 7 Imitation .026 .148 9 .013 .114 11 Signalling .085 .278 6 .140 .347 3 Object Preparation .021 .142 10 .027 .163 10 Object Presentacion/Exchange .227 .419 1 .182 .386 2 Object Demonstration .072 .259 7 .097 .297 4 Physical Guidance/Positioning .117 .322 4 .186 .389 1 Restriction/Redirection .022 .146 10 .053 .224 9 Intrusion/Punishment .001 .031 15 .000 .000 14 Withdrawal/Refusal .004 .061 13 .000 .000 14 Leave/Enter .006 075 12 .002 .043 13 Undetermined .003 .053 14 .005 .069 12 No Gestures Or Body Movement .121 .327 3 .077 .266 6 VISUAL CONTACT Gaze At Infant .890 .313 1 .943 .231 1 Glance At Infant .024 .152 4 .007 .081 4 Looks Elsewhere .047 .212 2 .040 .195 2 Undetermined .037 .188 3 .012 .110 3 HOLDING POSITION Held Close .255 .436 2 .355 .479 2 Held Away .059 .283 3 .043 .204 3 Separate - Close .633 .482 1 .568 .496 1 Separate - Distant .042 .201 4 .029 .169 4 Transition .012 .110 5 .004 .061 5 FACIAL POSITION Face-To-Face - Close .779 .415 1 .625 .484 1 Face-To-Face - Distant .030 .171 3 .032 .177 3 Not Face-To-Face .190 .393 2 .343 .475 2 FACIAL EXPRESSION Pleased/Playful .704 .457 1 .673 .469 1 Neutral .216 .412 2 .269 .443 2 Concerned/Sympathetic .009 .097 4 .001 .031 5 Disturbed .004 .061 5 .007 .081 4 Undetermined .067 .250 3 .050 .218 3 70
TABLE 11
PARENTAL GESTURES/BODY MOVEMENTS IN DIFFERENT SETTINGS
EARLY INTERVENTION HOME PROGRAM N™15 BEHAVIOR BEHAVIOR CLASS R.0. X CUM. % CLASS B..0 . X CUM.%
Ob j ect Physical Guid Presentation / ance/Positioning 1 .186 .186 Exchange 1 .227 .227 Ob j ect Affection/ Presentation/ Comfort 2 .136 .363 Exchange 2 .182 .368
No Gestures/ Signalling 3 .140 .508 Body Movements 3 .121 .484 Object Physical Guid Demonstration 4 .097 .605 ance/Positioning 4 .117 .601 Affection/ Play/Games 5 .104 .705 Comfort 5 .091 .696
Signalling 6 .085 .790 No Gestures/ Body Movements 6 .077 .773 Object Demon stration 7 .072 .862 Play/Games 7 .072 .845
Assistance 8 .063 .925 Assistance 8 .064 .909
Imitation 9 .026 .951 Restriction/ Redirection 9 .053 .962 Restriction/ Redirection 10 .022 .973 Object Preparation 10 .027 .989 Object Preparation 11 .021 .994 Imitation 11 .013 .992
Leave/Enter 12 .006 1.000 Undetermined 12 .005 .997
Withdrawal/ Leave/Enter 13 .002 .999 Refusal 13 .004 1.004 Withdrawal/ Undetermined 14 .003 1.007 Refusal 14 .000 .999
Intrusion/ Intrusion/ Punishment 15 .001 1.008 Punishment 14 .000 .999 71 affectionate and less directive, while in the classroom they tended to prioritize physically directing the infant through activities and eli citing the infant's cooperation and performance. Despite these dif ferences, however, Table 11 also shows that the same eight classes of behaviors in both settings accounted for 91-93% of all parental gestures.
Table 12 reports group data on the social interaction repetories of infants in the two different settings. The mean percentages and rank orders of the behavior classes within each of the four modes were suf ficiently similar to conclude that the social interaction behaviors of these high-risk infants remained stable in both settings. 72
TABLE 12
RECIPROCAL INTERACTION PATTERNS ACROSS DIFFERENT SETTINGS SOCIAL INTERACTION REPERTOIRE OF INFANTS
EARLY INTERVENTION HOME PROGRAM SOCIAL INTERACTION BEHAVIORS N=15 N=15 PERCENT X S.D. R.0. X S.D. R.0.
VOCALIZATION Interest/Pleasure .181 .385 2 .080 .272 2 Response/Imitation .032 .176 5 .007 .086 4 Need/Desire .037 .189 4 .008 .086 4 Protest/Distress .053 .223 3 .028 .166 3 Undetermined .005 .071 6 .006 .078 5 No Vocalization .692 .462 1 .870 .336 1 GESTURES/BODYMOVEMENTS Approach/Affection; Playfulness .222 .416 2 .096 .295 3 Imitation .036 .186 6 .063 .243 5 Signalling .203 .402 3 .064 .245 4 Activity-Centered .362 .481 1 .517 .500 1 Compliance To Verbal Requests .035 .183 7 .056 .230 6 Compliance to Verbal Requests & Demonstration .019 .138 8 .016 .126 9 Compliance to P.P. .053 .223 4 .101 .302 2 Resistance/Refusal .045 .207 5 .042 .201 7 Undetermined .010 .101 10 .035 .183 8 No Gestures/Body Movements .018 .133 9 .010 .010 10 VISUAL CONTACT Gaze .782 .413 1 .781 .414 1 Glance .006 .080 4 .006 .078 5 Looks Elsewhere .170 .375 2 .190 .393 2 Eyes Closed .006 .080 4 .007 .086 4 Undetermined .036 .186 3 .015 .121 3 FACIAL EXPRESSION Attentive/Serious .519 .500 1 .643 .479 1 Pleased/Playful .335 .472 2 .274 .446 2 Neutral/Drowsy .017 .128 5 .011 .105 4 Disturbed .024 .154 4 .010 .099 5 Undetermined .107 .309 3 .062 .242 3 73 HYPOTHETICAL RESEARCH QUESTION #2:
Will the Reciprocal Interaction Patterns of Parent-High-
Risk Infant Dyads Show Individual Differences?
This question required comparisons among the fifteen dyads of their individual interaction styles. Since dyadic interaction patterns appeared relatively stable in both settings for the group as a whole, the data from both settings were combined to illustrate the full range of individual differences.
Table 13 reports the range among dyads in the proportions of dyadic interactions that comprised different sequence patterns. It was inter esting that both Reciprocal (Total) and Nonreciprocal (Total) patterns showed a range of .43. The smallest range occurred in the category of
Infant Monologue (.06); the widest range among dyads was in Turn-Taking
(.46). Table 13 also notes that the mean number of seconds per social interaction varied among dyads from 3.1 to 16.7. 74
TABLE 13
INDIVIDUAL DIFFERENCES IN RECIPROCAL INTERACTION PATTERNS SEQUENCE PATTERNS AND RATES OF INTERACTION N=30
SEQUENCE PATTERNS RANGE
% RECIPROCAL (Total) .52 - .95
Turn-Taking .39 - .85
Co-Acting .03 - .39
% NONRECIPROCAL (Total) .05 - .48
Parent Monologue .05 - .48
Infant Monologue .00 - .06
RATE OF INTERACTION
X SECONDS PER SOCIAL INTERACTION 3.1 - 16.7
Tables 14 and 15 demonstrate the extent of individual differences in the social interaction repertoires of the parents and high-risk in fants. The tables report the range in frequencies of occurrence for each behavior class during the thirty, ten-minute observations of par ent-infant interactions. The smallest ranges for parents occurred in
Gestures/Body Movements: Undetermined (1) and Intrusion/Punishment (1);
Holding Position: Transition (1); and Vocalization: Criticism (3).
The widest ranges for parents were in Holding Position: Separate-Close
(108); Visual Contact: Gaze At Infant (106) and Glance At Infant (105); TABLE 14
INDIVIDUAL DIFFERENCES IN RECIPROCAL INTERACTION PATTERNS SOCIAL INTERACTION REPERTOIRE OF PARENTS N-30
SOCIAL INTERACTION BEHAVIORS f RANGE
VOCALIZATION Acknowledgement 0-22 Affection/Praise/Encouragement 0-26 Playful 0-19 Imitation 0 - 9 Attention-Getting/In8tructive/Descriptive 0-40 Prohibition 0-18 Criticism 0 - 3 Extraneous Conversation 0-24 Undetermined 0-75 No Vocalization GESTURES/BODY MOVEMENTS Affection/Comfort 1-29 Assistance 0-16 Play/Games 0-33 Imitation 0-8 Signalling 0-28 Object Preparation 0-6 Object Presentation Exchange 0-67 Object Demonstration 0-16 Physical Guidance/Positioning 0-30 Restriction/Redirection 0-14 Intrusion/Punishmenc 0 - 1 Withdrawal/Refusal 0 - 2 Leave/Enter 0 - 2 Undetermined 0-1 No Gestures or Body Movement 0-32 VISUAL CONTACT Gaze At Infant 4 -110 Glance At Infant 0 -105 Looks Elsewhere 0-17 Undetermined 0-14 HOLDING POSITION Held Close 0-97 Held Away 0-24 Separate - Close 0 -108 Separate - Distant 0-13 Transition 0 - 2 FACIAL POSITION Face-To-Face - Close 1 -104 Face-To-Face - Distant 0-16 Not Face-To-Face 0-76 FACIAL EXPRESSION Pleased/Playful 0 -100 Neutral 0-67 Concerned/Sympathetic 0 - 8 Disturbed 0 - 6 Undetermined 0-21 76
TABLE 15
INDIVIDUAL DIFFERENCES IN RECIPROCAL INTERACTION PATTERNS SOCIAL INTERACTION REPERTOIRE OF INFANTS N=30
SOCIAL INTERACTION BEHAVIORS f RANGE
VOCALIZATION Interest/Pleasure 0-30 Response/Imitation 0 - 9 Need/Desire 0 - 7 Protest/Distress 0-17 Undetermined 0 - 1 No Vocalization 31 - 97 GESTURES/BODY MOVEMENTS Approach/Affection/Playfulness 0-30 Imitation 0-15 Signalling 0-33 Activity-Centered 0-52 Compliance To Verbal Requests 0-11 Compliance To Verbal Requests & Demonstration 0 - 7 Compliance To Physical Prompting 0-14 Resistance/Refusal 0-15 Undetermined 0-11 No Gestures/Body Movements 0 - 9 VISUAL CONTACT Gaze At Parent 1-79 Glance At Parent 0 - 2 Looks Elsewhere 1-27 Eyes Closed 0 - 4 Undetermined 0-15 FACIAL EXPRESSION Attention/Serious 1-56 Pleased/Playful 0-48 Neutral/Drowsy 0 - 3 Disturbed 0 - 6 Undetermined 1-24
Facial Position: Face-To-Face - Close (103); and Facial Expression:
Pleased/Playful (100). The smallest ranges for infants occurred in Vo calization: Undetermined (1); Visual Contact: Glance At Parent (2); and Facial Expression: Neutral/Drowsy (3). The widest ranges for 77
infants were in Visual Contact: Gaze At Parent (78); Vocalization: No
Vocalization (64); Facial Expression: Attentive/Serious (55); and Ges
tures/Body Movements: Activity-Centered (52).
t HYPOTHETICAL RESEARCH QUESTION //3:
Will the Reciprocal Interaction Patterns of Parent-High-
Risk Infant Dyads Be Related to Standard Demographic
Variables?
Correlational and multiple regression models were used to explore
relationships between demographic characteristics of the parents and
infants and their reciprocal interaction patterns. Independent variables
were the parents' age, sex, number of children, years of formal education,
socioeconomic status, and the infants' age, sex, birth order, and adap
tive behavior level. Dependent variables were the dyadic sequence pat
terns, rates of interaction, and social interaction repertoires of the
parents and infants.
Tables 16 and 17 present the correlations between parent and infant
demographic characteristics (IVs) and dyadic sequence patterns (DVs).
The tables report Pearson product-moment correlation coefficients and
levels of significance.
Two correlations were statistically significant (p = .05). These were relationships between Parent SES and Infant Monologue (r=0.603) and
between Infant AB Level and Turn-Taking (r=0.535). Seven other correla
tions approached statistical significance (.05 = p = .15). These rela
tionships are outlined in Table 18. 78
TABLE 16
PARENT CHARACTERISTICS AND RECIPROCAL INTERACTION PATTERNS SEQUENCE PATTERNS N=15
CORRELATION MATRIX CHARACTERISTICS OF PARENTS (IV) SEQUENCE PATTERNS (DV) Age Sex Yrs. Ed. #CHN SES
% RECIPROCAL (TOTAL) 0.170 0.254 0.200 0.007 -0.065 Turn-Taking 0.098 -0.503** 0.076 0.032 0.001 Co-Acting -0.225 0.315 -0.277 0.082 -0.144
% NONRECIPROCAL (TOTAL) -0.170 --0.254 -0.200 -0.007 0.065 Parent Monologue 0.041 0.393** -0.030 -0.217 -0.048 Infant Monologue 0.209 0.307 0.495** 0.095 0.603*
* p i .05 ** .05 ^ p ^ .15
TABLE 17
INFANT CHARACTERISTICS AND RECIPROCAL INTERACTION PATTERNS SEQUENCE PATTERNS N=15
CORRELATION MATRIX CHARACTERISTICS OF INFANTS (IV) SEQUENCE PATTERNS (DV) Age Sex Birth Order AB Level % RECIPROCAL (TOTAL) -0.275 0.126 0.187 -0.456** Turn-Taking 0.001 -0.028 0.019 0.535* Co-Acting 0.010 -0.112 0.052 -0.511**
% NONRECIPROCAL (TOTAL) 0.275 -0.126 -0.187 0.456** Parent Monologue 0.138 0.366 -0.144 -0.315 Infant Monologue -0.429** -0.276 0.087 -0.004
* p £ .05 ** .05 i p ^ .15 79
TABLE 18
DEMOGRAPHIC CHARACTERISTICS AND RECIPROCAL INTERACTION PATTERNS SEQUENCE PATTERNS
CORRELATION MATRIX RESULTS
+ Approaching Approaching Significant Significance Significant Significance IV (p i .05 (.05 i p i . 1 5 (P i -05) (.05 i p i .15
PARENT SES INFANT MONOLOGUE
PARENT YRS. ED. INFANT MONOLOGUE
PARENT SEX PARENT TURN-TAKING MONOLOGUE
INFANT AGE INFANT MONOLOGUE
INFANT AB LEVEL TURN-TAKING NONRECIPROCAL RECIPROCAL (TOTAL) (TOTAL)
CO-ACTING
In this sample, parental socioeconomic status and educational level bore a positive relationship to Infant Monologue. This meant that with in
creasing affluence and formal education, parents were less likely to re
spond contingently to each of their infants' social initiatives. Pos
sibly these parents were attempting to shape their infants' behaviors by consequating only certain types of infant communications. An alter native explanation is that these parents were less sensitive to their
infants' cues. Examination of the individual protocols (R.I.P. Check-
sheets) would reveal which infant behaviors were consequated by parents,
and in what manner. 80
Infant Age bore a weak negative relationship to Infant Monologue.
That is, older infants tended to engage in fewer monologues than younger
infants. However, Infant Age was not a significant variable in predict
ing other types of parent-infant sequence patterns.
In the statistical analyses, a higher numeric value was assigned to
fathers than to mothers. Therefore, the weak positive relationship be
tween Parent Sex and Parent Monologue and the weak negative relationship between Parent Sex and Turn-Taking suggest that fathers tended to engage
in less turn-taking with their infants than mothers, and that fathers demonstrated more monologues. These findings raise the question of whether infants were less experienced or adept at interpreting the social cues of their fathers than of their mothers, resulting in lower levels of infant contingent responses to fathers' initiatives. Fathers might react to their infants' unresponsiveness by varying their strategies, re sulting in higher levels of Parent Monologues. Only one-fifth of the parents in this sample were fathers, which makes the emergence of these patterns even more striking.
Of all the demographic variables, Infant AB Level showed the largest number of relationships to dyadic sequence patterns. Infant adaptive behavior levels are 0 (no deficit), I (mild deficits), and II (moderate- severe deficits). As AB levels increased, there was a trend toward non reciprocal interactions. Dyads with mildly impaired infants tended to co-act, while dyads with moderately to severely impaired infants showed more turn-taking. These findings are consistent with the tenets of
Bakeman and Brown (1977) and Stern et;. al. (1975) that co-acting is a natural pattern with normal infant-parent dyads and may contribute to 81 formation of the parent-child affectional bond.
It is an interesting and not illogical finding that as the degree of handicap of the infant became more severe, the levels of nonrecipro cal interactions and turn-taking increased. This means that while par ental interactions with the more severely impaired infants often were nonreciprocal, those that were reciprocal usually fell into a turn-taking pattern. Severely impaired infants may be more capable of turn-taking interactions than of co-acting because of limitations in their infor mation processing capabilities.
A multiple regression was performed to inquire if combinations of the demographic variables could account for significant amounts of var- 2 iance in the sequence patterns. However, the R was not significant in any of the models.
Tables 19 and 20 report the correlations between parent and infant demographic characteristics (IVs) and the rate of parent-infant inter action (DVs). The tables report the Pearson product-moment correlation coefficients and levels of significance.
TABLE 19
PARENT CHARACTERISTICS AND RECIPROCAL INTERACTION PATTERNS RATE OF INTERACTION N=15
CORRELATION MATRIX CHARACTERISTICS OF PARENTS (IV) RATE OF INTERACTION (DV) Age Sex Yrs. Ed. # CHN SES
X SECONDS PER SOCIAL INTERACTION 0.211 0.342 0.340 0.388 0.459**
** .05 = p = .15 82
TABLE 20
INFANT CHARACTERISTICS AND RECIPROCAL INTERACTION PATTERNS RATE OF INTERACTION N=15
CORRELATION MATRIX CHARACTERISTICS OF INFANTS (IV) RATE OF INTERACTION (DV) Age Sex Birth Order AB Level
X SECONDS PER
SOCIAL INTERACTION -0.627* -0.176 0.355 -0.056
* p i .05
A significant negative correlation existed between Infant Age and
Rate Of Interaction (r = -0.677, p = ,05). It is not surprising that as the age of infants increased, the X seconds per interaction decreased.
In other words, the older the infant, the more rapid the pace of parent- infant interaction.
A weak positive relationship existed between Parent SES and Rate Of
Interaction (r _ 0.459, .05 f p = .15). This finding suggests that par ents of higher socioeconomic status tended to interact with their in fants at a slower pace than parents of lower socioeconomic status.
A multiple regression was performed to inquire whether significant amounts variance in the rates of dyadic interaction might be attributed to combinations of the demographic variables. However, no significant results were obtained.
Finally, correlational matrices identified relationships between the demographic characteristics of parent-high-risk infant dyads in this 83 sample and their social interaction repetoires. A number of interest ing and significant relationships existed. Tables 21 and 22 report the
Pearson product-moment correlation coefficients that were obtained at a
.001 level of significance. Tables 23 and 24 contain correlations at a
.05 level of significance. Tables 25 and 26 report relationships that approached significance (.05 = p = .15). TABLE 21
DEMOGRAPHIC CHARACTERISTICS AND PARENT SOCIAL INTERACTION REPERTOIRE CORRELATION MATRIX P i .001
CHARACTERISTICS OF PARENTS (IV) CHARACTERISTICS OF INFANTS (IV) PARENT SOCIAL BEHAVIORS Age Sex Yrs. Ed. i Clm SES Age Sex Birth Order AB Level VOCALIZATION Acknowledgement/Empathy 0.072 0.106 Affection/Praise/Encouragement 0.129 0.191 0.180 -0.092 Plavful -0.092 Imitation 0.080 AttentIon-Getting/Instructive/ DescriDtive 0.072 -0.097 Criticism Extraneous Conversation -0.075 -0.072 0.133 Undetermined No Vocalization -0.161 -0.102 -0.175 0.080 -0.207 0.146 GESTURES/BODY MOVEMENT Affection/Comfort 0.104 0.129 0.096 -0.103 0.134 Assistance Play/Games -0.085 -0.134 0.091 Imitation Signalling -0.076 -0.079 0.090 -0.086 Oblect Preparation Object Presentation/Exchange -0.153 -0.104 -0.133 -0.095 -0.097 0.118 -0.080 -0.088 Oblect Demonstration Physical Guidance/Positioning 0.078 0.107 -0.126 Restriction/Redirection -0.089 -0.099 Intrusion/Punishment Withdrawal/Refusal Leave/Enter Undetermined No Gestures Or Body Movements n.lfil 0.105 0.117 0.086 0.090 VISUAL CONTACT Gaze At Infant 0.071 -0.086 Glance At Infant -0.073 -0.074 -0.087 I.ooks Elsewhere Undetermined HOLDING POSITION Held Close -0.223 0.103 -0.109 0.400 Held Away 0.193 -0.189 -0.132 Separate - Close 0.142 0.097 -0.346 Separate - Distant 0.164 Transition FACIAL rusmuN c Face-To-Face - Close -0.304 0.101 -0.035 -0.122 -0.JI2 i/* ac Face-To-Face - Distant 0.090 0.150 Not Face-To-Face 0.280 -n.084 0.318 0.114 0.375 tii.iaL ....u.m... ____a.UN FACIAL EXPRESSION Pleased/Ptavful -0.170 -0.089 0.104 Neutral 0.214 -0.077 0.074 -0.099 Concerned/SympathetIc______Disturbed -0.081 -0.095 Undetermined -0.072 TABLE 22
DEMOGRAPHIC CHARACTERISTICS AND INFANT SOCIAL INTERACTION REPERTOIRE CORRECTION MATRIX p < .001
CHARACTERISTICS OF PARENTS (IV) CHARACTERISTICS OF INFANTS (IV) INFANT SOCIAL BEHAVIORS Age Sex Yrs. Ed. 0 Chn. SES Age Sex Birth Order AB Level VOCALIZATION Interest/Pleasure 0.084 0.102 0.198 Response/1mltation 0.118 Need/Desire -0.087 Protest/Distress Undetermined No Vocalization -0.084 -0.084 0.136 -0.170 g e s t u r e s /body m o v e hents Approacli/Af feet ion/Play fulness 0.156 0.090 Imitation -0.104 -0.086 Signalling -0.103 Actlvitv-Centered 0.105 Compliance To Verbal Requests 0.113 -0.094 -0.083 Compliance To Verbal Requests & Demonstration 0.103 0.084 0.106 Compliance to P.P. -0.089 Resistance/Refusal Undetermined 0.094 0.120 -0.105 No Gestures/Body Movements 0.128 VISUAL CONTACT Gaze -0.119 -0.091 0.123 Glance Looks Elseuhere 0.144 -0.122 Eves Closed 0.097 Undetermined -0.124 -0.174 -0.082 FACIAL EXPRESSION Attentive/Serious -0.085 -0.228 Pleased/Playful -0.157 0.157 0.094 0.260 Neutral/Drowsy -0.088 0.105 Disturbed Undetermined 0.115 -0.090 -0.084
0 0 U l TABI.E 2 3
DEMOGRAPHIC CHARACTERISTICS AND PARENT SOCIAL INTERACTION REPERTOIRE CORRELATION MATRIX .001 < p £ .05
CHARACTERISTICS OF PARENTS (IV) CHARACTERISTICS OF INFANTS (IV) PARENT SOCIAL BEHAVIORS Age Sex Yrs. Ed. 8 Chu. SES Age Sex Birth Order AB Level VOCALIZATION Acknowledgement/Empathy 0.048 0.057 -0.067 Affection/Praise/Encouragement -0.066 Playful 0.051 0.057 0.050 Imitation 0.071 -0.055 -0.053 AttentIon-Getting/Instructive/ Descriptive 0.056 Prohibition/Redirection -0.051 0.057 -0.054 -0.060 -0.069 -0.045 0.045 Criticism Extraneous Conversation -0.064 Undetermined -0.067 -0.056 No Vocalization 0.068 GESTURES/BODY MOVEMENT Affection/Comfort -0.057 Assistance Play/Games 0.058 0.060 0.070 0.070 Imitation 0.045 -0.060 -0.066 Signalling -0.047 Object Preparation Object Presentation/Exchange Object Demonstration 0.056 -0.047 0.067 0.058 -0.056 Physical Guidance/Positioning -0.064 0.071 Restriction/Redirection -0.061 Intrusion/Punishment Withdrawal/Refusal Leave/Enter -0.049 Undetermined 0.045 No Gestures Or Body Movements 0.052 0.069 VISUAL CONTACT Gaze At Infant -0.054 0.060 0.058 Glance At Infant -.064 0.049 0.043 Looks Elsewhere 0.067 0.062 -0.059 Undetermined -0.046 -0.054 0.054 -0.046 HOLDING POSITION Held Close 0.071 Held Away -0.050 -0.047 0.055 -0.054 Separate - Close -0.058 -0.053 Separate - Distant -0.052 0.051 0.044 Transition FACIAL POSITION Face-To-Face - (Hose 0.041 Face-To-Face - Distant 0.050 0.071 Not Face-To-Face 0.066______FACIAL EXPRESSION PIeased/PIayful 0.058 0. 0 5 1 ______Neutral 0.039 - — Concerned/Sympathetlc 0.063 0.068 Disturbed -0.049 Undetermined -0.047 -0.046 ' ...... -0^046- ..0,047...*..' TABLE 24
DEMOGRAPHIC CHARACTERISTICS AND INFANT SOCIAL INTERACTION REPERTOIRE CORRELATION MATRIX .001 £ p £ .05
CHARACTERISTICS OF PARENTS (IV) CHARACTERISTICS OF INFANTS (IV) INFANT SOCIAL BEHAVIORS Age Sex Yrs. Ed. S Chn. SES Age Sex Birth Order AB Level VOCALIZATION Interest/Pleasure 0.071 -0.081 Response/Imitation 0.075 Need/Desire 0.056 -0.077 Protest/Distress -0.056 -0.077 -0.063 -0.055 Undetermined No Vocalization -0.070 0.051 GESTURES/BODY MOVEMENTS Approacli/Af feet ion/Play fulness 0.070 0.067 0.067 -0.057 Imitation -0.076 -0.064 0.067 -0.049 Signalling -0.055 -0.060 -0.057 -0.067 0.065 Activity-Centered -0.059 Compliance To Verbal Requests 0.070 0.051 Compliance To Verbal Requests & Demonstration 0.072 -0.050 -0.058 -0.054 0.054 0.050 Compliance to P.P. 0.079 0.054 -0.080 Resistance/Refusal 0.059 0.065 -0.065 Undetermined -0.065 -0.060 -0.057 0.066 No Gestures/Body Movements -0.054 -0.052 VISUAL CONTACT Gaze -0.060 Glance 0.067 Looks Elsewhere 0.071 0.073 -0.057 Eyes Closed Undetermined -0.054 0.073 FACIAL EXPRESSION Attentive/Serious 0.075 Pleased/Playful Neutral/Drowsy -0.068 -0.065 -0.052 Disturbed 0.057 -0.075 -0.053 Undetermined -0.057 DEMOGRAPHIC CHARACTERISTICS AND PARENT SOCIAL INTERACTION REPERTOIRE CORRELATION MATRIX .05 i p £ .15
CHARACTERISTICS OF PARENTS (IV) CHARACTERISTICS OF INFANTS (IV) PARENT SOCIAI. BEHAVIORS Age Sex Yrs. Ed. 5 Chn. SES Age Sex Birth Order AB Level VOCALIZATION Acknowledgement/Empathy -0.042 AffectIon/Praise/Encouragement 0.033 -0.036 Plavful Imitation 0.037 -0.039 -0.039 Attention-Gettlng/In8tructive/ Descriptive 0.037 0.039 0.041 0.032 Prohibition/Redirection Criticism -0.034 -0.041 0.035 0.039 Extraneous Conversation -0.039 -0.040 Undetermined -0.038 -0.038 -0.036 No Vocalization GESTURES/BODY MOVEMENT Affect ion/Comfort 0.037 Assistance 0.032 -0.031 Plav/Games 0.036 Imitation -0.038 -0.042 -0.038 0.040 Signalling Object Preparation 0.039 -0.032 Object Presentation/Exchange Object Demonstration Physical Guidance/Positioning 0.031 -0.036 0.042 Restriction/Redirection -0.036 -0.032 Intrusion/Punishment Wi thdraval/Refusal 0.034 Leave/Enter 0.034 Undetermined No Gestures Or Body Movements 0.040 0.038 VISUAL CONTACT Gaze At Infant 0.031 -0.035 Glance At Infant 0.035 Looks Elsewhere 0.037 Undetermined -0.038 0.038 0.039 HOLDING POSITION Held Close 0.036 -0.032 Held Away 0.036 Separate - Close Separate - Distant 0.033 0.033 Transition . FACIAL POSITION Face-T'*-Face - Close______Face-To-Face - Distant______0.0)9 0.0)) Not Face-To-Face __ — --- FACIAL EXPRESSION ploaseciTplayfnl______Nentral______Gimcernpd/Sympathet Ic______0.0«0 Disturbed -0.0)2 TABLE 26
DEH0GRAPI1IC CHARACTERISTICS AND INFANT SOCIAL INTERACTION REPERTOIRE CORRELATION MATRIX .05 < p < .15
CHARACTERISTICS OF PARENTS (IV) CHARACTERISTICS OF INFANTS (IV) INFANT SOCIAL BEHAVIORS Age Sex Yrs. Ed. 0CHN SES Age Sex Birth Order AB Level VOCALIZATION Interest/Pleasure Response/Imitation Need/Desire Protest/Distress -0.037 -0.038 Undetermined No Vocalization -0.047 GESTURES/BODY HOVEHENTS Approach/Affectlon/Playfulness -0.040 Imitation -0.046 Signal 1lng -0.038 Activity-Centered -.037 -0.036 Compliance To Verbal Requests 0.043 -.047 Compliance To Verbal Requests & Demonstration Compliance to P.P. Resistance/Refusal 0.039 -0.041 Undetermined No Gestures/Body Movements -0.047 VISUAL CONTACT Gaze Glance -0.036 Looks Elsewhere 0.040 Eyes Closed -0.039 -0.045 Undetermined 0.045 -0.049 FACIAL EXPRESSION Attentive/Serious 0.038 Pleased/Playful Neutral/Drowsy -0.041 Disturbed Undetermined -0.043
CO 90
Table 27 summarizes the incidence of highly significant (p 5 -001)
and significant ( p i .05) relationships from Tables 21-24. Table 27 notes the frequency of significant correlations between each demographic variable and the social interaction repertoires of the dyads.
Table 27
DEMOGRAPHIC CHARACTERISTICS AND SOCIAL INTERACTION REPERTOIRES FREQUENCY OF SIGNIFICANT CORRELATIONS
CHARACTERISTICS OF CHARACTERISTICS OF SOCIAL PARENTS (IV) INFANTS (IV) INTERACTION . No. Birth AB REPERTOIRES Yrs Age Sex Ed. Chn. SES Age Sex Order Level PARENT SOCIAL BEHAVIORS p £ .001 13 10 11 5 12 10 17 4 11 .001 £ p i .05 9 14 14 8 8 9 6 4 9
p £ .05 (Total f) 22 24 25 13 20 19 23 8 20
INFANT SOCIAL BEHAVIORS
P = .001 2 8 8 3 1 10 6 1 7 .001 i p 5 .05 9 7 7 5 6 4 6 9 7
p =.05 (Total f) 11 15 15 8 7 14 12 10 14
SOCIAL INTERACTION REPERTOIRES OF DYADS (Parent & Infant Social Behaviors)
p i .001 15 18 19 8 ' 13 20 23 5 18 .001 1 p 1 .05 18 21 21 13 14 13 12 13 16
p i .05 (Total f) 33 39 40 21 27 33 35 18 34 91
Table 28 highlights the strongest relationships between demographic
characteristics and the social interaction repertoires of the dyads. All
of these correlations are higher than .20 at a .001 level of significance.
TABLE 28
DEMOGRAPHIC CHARACTERISTICS AND SOCIAL INTERACTION REPERTOIRES r ^ .20, p i .001
CHARACTERISTICS OF PARENTS (IV) CHARACTERISTICS OF INFANTS (IV) AGE SEX YRS. ED. # CHN. SES AGE SEX BIRTH ORD. AB LEVEL + Face-To Held Face-To Face-To Held Face - Close Face - Face - Close Close Close Close
+ + + Separate- Not Face- Not-Face Not Face- Close To-Face To-Face To-Face
+ Infant Parent No Par Attentive/ Neutral ent Vo Serious Facial caliza Facial Expr. tions Expr.
+ Infant Pleased/ Playful Facial Expr. .
Table 28 illustrates that parental demographic variables consistent ly bore a strong relationship to the facial position of the parent vis-a- vis the infant. Younger mothers with less formal education and lower socioeconomic status were more apt to hold their infants in a close en 92
face position than other parents. Older parents with more formal educa tion and higher socioeconomic status were most likely not to hold their infants in a face-to-face position and not to vocalize to them. Fathers consistently showed more neutrality in their facial expressions than mothers.
The adaptive behavior levels of infants also correlated highly with the holding position: more severely handicapped infants usually were held close to the parent’s body. This finding reflects the fact that these infants could not support themselves in a sitting, creeping, or standing position independently. These infants frequently had a pleas ant facial expression, while the less impaired infants more often ap peared attentive or serious.
These preliminary analyses suggest that the demographic character istics of parent-high-risk-infant dyads bear some interesting relation ships to the social interaction repertoires of the parents and infants.
These relationships were not explored further at this time due to the size and complexity of the task (see Tables 21-26). For the purposes of this project, it was sufficient to know that certain general charac teristics of high-risk infants and their parents are highly correlated with specific types of interaction behaviors. Further investigation of the nature, strength, and meaning of these connections should be under taken in the future to enrich our knowledge about the social interaction
styles of parents and high-risk infants as well as to enhance the clini
cal utility of this assessment approach. HYPOTHETICAL RESEARCH QUESTION #4:
Can The Reciprocal Interaction Patterns Of Parent-High-Risk
Infant Dyads Be Interpreted For Applied Clinical Purposes?
The preceding analyses demonstrate that the measures of sequence patterns and rates of interaction lend themselves to the development of local norms. While this subject population was too limited to establish norm tables, the data from this project provides preliminary findings about the reciprocal interaction patterns of parents and their high- risk infants.
These findings indicate that the scores from a larger sample of dy ads probably would assume the configuration of a bell-shaped curve (see
Table 29). For the sequence patterns, median scores fall within two- three percentage points from the mean. For the rate of interaction, the median score is less than one second from the mean. The ranges in this sample are sufficiently broad that scores which fall beyond one standard deviation from the mean in both directions actually are extreme numeric values.
TABLE 29
SAMPLE TRENDS IN RECIPROCAL INTERACTION PATTERNS SEQUENCE PATTERNS AND RATE OF INTERACTION
SEQUENCE PATTERNS RATE OF 7. RECIPROCAL % NONRECIPROCAL INTERACTION TURN- PARENT INFANT X SEC. PER TOTAL TAKING COACTING TOTAL MONOLOGUE MONOLOGUE SOCIAL INTERACT. X .83 .69 .14 .18 .16 .02 6.7 MDN .36 .71 .12 .15 .13 .01 5.9 RANGE .43 .46 .36 .43 .43 .06 13.6 S.D. .11 .13 .08 .11 .12 .02 3.2 94
Norm tables developed from a larger sample would be a useful re
source for clinicians who want to know how much reciprocity can be ex pected between parents and their high-risk infants. Norm tables would provide a convenient structure for comparing the sequence patterns and
interaction rate of an individual dyad to those of an appropriate ref
erence group.
Whereas the sequence patterns and interaction rates of dyads indi
cate the extent of reciprocity in parent-infant interactions, the third
type of measure - the social interaction repertoires of parents and in
fants - describes the nature of those social exchanges. It tabulates
the specific types of behaviors that individual parents and infants use
to communicate with each other. This data describes the "interaction vocabulary" of the parent and infant.
Since the social interaction behaviors of high-risk infants and
their parents are atypical to begin with (Goldberg, 1977; Stone &
Chesney, 1978; Field, 1979; Alfasi, 1982), and the modes of receptive and expressive communication which are available to the infant are al
tered by various handicaps, norms for this measure would appear less useful than for the other two measures. As a simple example, one could
expect a blind infant and a deaf infant to each engage in turn-taking and/or co-acting with their parents, perhaps at comparable rates of
interaction. However, one would not expect the parent and child in
each dyad to emphasize the same modes of communication. Social inter
actions between the deaf infant and parent would utilize the visual modality, while interactions between the blind infant and parent would 95
feature primarily tactile and auditory modes of communication. In real
ity, the handicapping conditions of infants in this sample were often
multi-modal and complex.
Used as a criterion measure, the social interaction repertoires of
parents and infants adds a qualitative dimension to the data on sequence patterns and rates of interaction. The following brief casestudies
illustrate how these three types of measures combine to present an ef
fective description of the reciprocal interaction patterns of a parent
and high-risk infant. The data for these case examples are taken di
rectly from the Reciprocity Index for each dyad (Appendix H).
Case Example //I (Dyad #1, Home)
The Reciprocity Index for this dyad indicates that 87% of the social interactions of this mother and infant were reciprocal, with turn-taking accounting for 75% and co-acting accounting for 12%. 11% of their nonrecipro cal interactions were parent monologues, and 2% were infant monologues. Their mean rate of interaction (6.1 seconds per interaction) was close to the mean of this sample.
This mother's facial expressions were generally pleasant, with some expressions of concern. About half of her gestures were affectionate or comforting, and the others consisted of presenting the infant with toys or other objects in a playful fashion. She often assisted the infant in performing activities. While most of her conversation was directed to other people, she consistently watched the infant, holding him in a close, face-to-face position. When she did speak to him, her comments were acknowledging, affectionate or encouraging, and imitative.
The infant frequently (20x) expressed a desire for affectionate contact or play with his mother through body movements and facial expressions. He used other signalling behaviors to indicate his intentions or wants in 23 instances. During this ten-minute observation he vocalized interest or pleasure 18 times and protest or distress on 3 occasions. He generally watched his 96
mother, occasionally looking away or closing his eyes. His facial expressions were almost evenly divided be tween pleased/playful and attentive/serious.
Case Example #2 (Dyad #15, Early Intervention Program)
The interactions of this mother and daughter were split between reciprocal (52%) and nonreciprocal (48%). All of the nonreciprocal interactions were parent mono logues. The dyad averaged 9.8 seconds per interaction, about three seconds longer than the mean of this sample.
About two-thirds of this mother's facial expressions were neutral; the remaining one-third were pleasant. She seldom vocalized to her infant; during this observation she made five comments to her daughter which were posi tive in nature, three which were attention-getting or didactic, and two which were critical. Four-fifths of her gestures consisted of positioning or physically di recting the child, presenting toys or other objects, and physically signalling to her daughter what she wanted her to do.
The infant did not respond to nearly half of her mother's social initiatives. About 75% of the infant's gazes were directed away from her mother. She did not respond to verbal requests or object demonstrations, but she was compliant to physical handling. On five occasions she made signalling movements and protest/ distress vocalizations. She vocalized a need or desire and showed an interest in an activity only once. Throughout the ten-minute observation period she did not show any signs of positive affect in her facial expres sion, voice, or gestures.
Case Example #3 (Dyad #12, Home)
An interesting aspect of this father's interactional repertoire is his high proportion of reinforcing and stim ulating verbalizations and his accompanying low levels of physical directiveness. He frequently acknowledged his son's presence, activity, or feelings (19x); expressed affection, praise, or encouragement (14x); and was verbally playful (7x) and imitative (7x). His son vocalized hap pily as well (25x) and seemed to directly respond to or imitate his father's words on eight occasions. He fol lowed verbal directions or requests in three instances. 97
This boy frequently approached his father in an affection ate or playful manner (15x) and was able to imitate his movements (4x). Both the father and son engaged in ac tivities with objects or toys.
87% of their interactions were reciprocal (76% turn- taking, 11% co-acting). The 13% that were nonreciprocal consisted of parent monologues. The average rate of in teraction for this dyad (4.9 seconds per interaction) was slightly faster than the mean of the group.
Case Example #4 (Dyad #13, Early Intervention Program)
This Reciprocity Index indicates a fast-paced, phy sically active interaction style for this mother and son. The mother used a variety and large quantity of gestures to communicate (118 gestures in ten minutes). The major ity of these involved preparing, presenting, and demon strating the use of objects or toys, sometimes in a play ful manner. On the average of twice a minute she was physically directive or restrictive with her son. She assisted him five times, and used visual signals or cues ten times. She used about one-third as many verbaliza tions as gestures to communicate. Most of her words were attention-getting or instructive. Her son was not compliant to verbal directions; however, twice he fol lowed verbal instructions when they were paired with a visual demonstration. Furthermore, he imitated his mother's actions in fifteen instances.
Turn-taking characterized 72% of this dyad's inter actions, and co-acting represented 8%. 20% of their in teractions were nonreciprocal. Their rate of interaction, 3.1 seconds, was one of the most rapid in this sample.
Validity Study Data (Dyad #13, Early Intervention Program)
The teacher of this dyad had observed the mother demonstrating high levels of object-related, playful, and intrusive gestures. She usually interacted with her son in a face-to-face, close position. Most of her verbalizations were affectionate or encouraging, playful, and attention-getting or instructive. Her son was com pliant to instructions and generally focused on activi ties.
In answering subjective questions about the reci procal interactions of this dyad, the teacher stated, "I think Mom is very intrusive and initiates a lot of 98
interactions. She is very physical with him." The teacher also noted that the mother responded positiv ely to almost everything the child did, and that the interactions appeared playful, pleasurable, and re warding to both.
This type of information, which directly reflects the data on the
Reciprocity Index, could be greatly expanded through examination of the actual protocols (R.I.P. Checksheets). These protocols document the components (vocal, gestural, visual, holding and facial positions, facial expression) of each social behavior of the parent and infant, as well at noting the sequence in which their behaviors occur. From this protocol data it would be possible to identify specific contingencies operating between a parent and infant. For example, one could inquire, which types of parent behaviors elicit a playful response from this in fant? Or which types of infant behaviors elicit positive affect and verbal praise or encouragement from this parent? Or which types of ac tivities stimulate turn-taking within this dyad?
As a final step in considering clinical applications of this method for the future, the investigator explored the feasibility of condensing and reducing the number of variables in the social interaction reper toires of parents and infants. To this end, repertoire data were sub mitted to cluster analysis to identify subsets of interaction behaviors which could be summarized by single underlying components.
Tables 30 and 31 present the cluster summaries for parent and in fant social behaviors, respectively. Of particular interest is the portion of variation within each cluster that can be attributed to a single underlying (latent) variable. 99 TABLE 30
CLUSTER SUMMARY FOR PARENT SOCIAL BEHAVIORS
NO. VARIATION GROUP MEMBERS EXPLAINED PORTION
1 3 1.932 0.644
2 2 1.848 0.924
3 2 1.842 0.921
4 3 1.826 0.609
5 2 1.518 0.759
6 2 1.813 0.906
7 3 1.532 0.511
8 2 1.362 0.681
9 3 1.514 0.505
10 4 1.466 0.037
11 4 1.319 0.330
12 3 1.267 0.432
13 2 1.218 0.610
14 3 1.216 0.406
15 2 1.089 0.544
16 1 1.000 1.000
17 1 1.000 1.000
TOTAL VARIATION EXPLAINED = 24.761; PORTION = 0.590 1 0 0
TABLE 31
CLUSTER SUMMARY FOR INFANT SOCIAL BEHAVIORS
NO. VARIATION GROUP MEMBERS EXPLAINED PORTION
1 3 1.909 0.637
2 4 1.974 0.494
3 3 1.571 0.524
4 3 1.709 0.570
5 2 1.777 0.888
6 2 1.351 0.676
7 2 1.063 0.532
8 2 1.195 0.597
9 3 1.389 0.463
10 2 1.148 0.574
TOTAL VARIATION EXPLAINED = 15.090; PORTION = 0.580
Tables 32 and 33 report the cluster groupings for parent and in fant social behaviors. These tables contain the squared correlation coefficients between each variable and the principle component 1) of
its own cluster, and 2) of the cluster to which the variable is next most closely related. The "ratio" is the second R2 value divided by
the first R2, which indicates the distance between these two clusters.
Small ratio values imply that the two clusters are well-separated. Large
R2 values between each variable and the principle component of its own
cluster imply that the cluster structure is tight and compact. 1 0 1
TABLE 32
CLUSTER LISTING FOR PARENT SOCIAL BEHAVIORS
VARIABLES R2 GROUP MODE BEHAVIOR CLASS 1 2 RATIO
1 Vocalization Imitation 0.0182 0.0034 0.1844 Facial Position Face-To-Face-Close 0.9570 0.0880 0.0920 Facial Position Not Face-To-Face 0.9567 0.0569 0.0596
2 Holding Position Separate-Dis tant 0.9239 0.0940 0.1017 Facial Position Face-To-Face-Distant 0.9239 0.0396 0.0429
3 Facial Expression Pleased/Playful 0.9209 0.0947 0.1028 Neutral 0.9209 0.0149 0.0162
4 Gestures/Body Mvmts. Object Preparation 0.2100 0.0188 0.0897 Visual Contact Gaze At Infant 0.8095 0.2104 0.2599 Visual Contact Looks Elsewhere 0.8068 0.0196 0.0243
5 Vocalization Playful 0.7588 0.0080 0.0105 Gestures/Body Play/Games 0.7588 0.0130 0.0171 Movements
6 Holding Position Held Close 0.9064 0.0441 0.0487 Held Separate-Close 0.9064 0.0703 0.0775
7 Vocalization Prohibition/Redirc. 0.7439 0.0184 0.0248 Gestures/Body Restriction/Redirc. 0.7278 0.0068 0.0094 Movements Facial Expression Disturbed 0.0602 0.0019 0.0318
8 Gestures/Body Leave/Enter 0.6810 0.0558 0.0820 Movements Holding Position Transition 0.6810 0.0331 0.0486
9 Gestures/Body Undetermined 0.1460 ■0.0060 0.0411 Movements Visual Contact Undetermined 0.7064 0.0778 0.1101 Facial Expression Undetermined 0.6613 0.0388 0.0586
10. Vocalization Attention-Getting/ 0.6523 0.0550 0.0844 Instructive/ Descriptive Vocalization No Vocalization 0.5203 0.0293 0.0563 Gestures/Body Imitation 0.0524 0.0031 0.0585 Movements Gestures/Body Signalling 0.2409 0.0107 0.0446 Movements 1 0 2 TABLE 32 (continued)
VARIABLES R2 3R0UP MODE BEHAVIOR CLASS 1 2 RATIO
11 Vocalization Affection/Praise/ 0.3882 0.0108 0.0278 Encouragement Vocalization Criticism 0.0276 0.0022 0.0781 Gestures/Body Affection/Comfort 0.5576 0.0457 0.0820 Movements Gestures/Body Object Presentation/ 0.3454 0.0168 0.0486 Movements Exchange
12 Gestures/Body Object Demonstration 0.2760 0.0088 0.0319 Movements Gestures/Body Physical Guidance/ 0.5413 0.0309 0.0571 Movements Positioning Holding Position Held Away 0.4500 0.0275 0.0610
13 Vocalization Extraneous Conver 0.6092 0.0716 0.1176 sation Visual Contact Glance At Infant 0.6092 0.0353 0.0579
14 Vocalization Acknowledgement/ 0.5728 0.0060 0.0106 Empathy Vocalization Undetermined 0.1135 0.0035 0.0305 Gestures/Body No Gestures or 0.5300 0.0109 0.0205 Movements Body Movement
15 Gestures/Body Assistance 0.5443 0.0104 0.0191 Movements Facial Expression Concerned/ 0.5443 0.0081 0.0148 Sympathetic
16 Gestures/Body Withdrawal/Refusal 1.0000 0.0137 0.0137 Movements
17 Gestures/Body Intrusion/ 1.0000 0.0063 0.0063 Movements Punishment 103
TABLE 33
CLUSTER LISTING FOR .INFANT SOCIAL BEHAVIORS
VARIABLES R2 GROUE1 MODE BEHAVIOR CLASS 1 2 RATIO
1 Gestures/Body Imitation 0.0447 0.0061 0.1360 Movements Visual Contact Gaze 0.9340 0.1004 0.1075 Visual Contact Looks Elsewhere 0.9307 0.0499 0.0536
2 Vocalization Interest/Pleasure 0.8178 0.0706 0.0864 Vocalization No Vocalization 0.7566 0.0970 0.1282 Gestures/Body Approach/Affection/ 0.3859 0.1031 0.2671 Movements Playfulness Gestures/Body Compliance To Verbal 0.0138 0.0027 0.1962 Movements Requests and Demonstration
3 Vocalization Undetermined 0.1347 0.0064 0.0476 Visual Contact Undetermined 0.7323 0.0301 0.0412 Facial Expression Undetermined 0.7036 0.0215 0.0306
4 Vocalization Protest/Distress 0.6785 0.0261 0.0384 Gestures/Body Resistance/Refusal 0.3255 0.0623 0.1915 Movements Facial Expression Disturbed 0.7054 0.0296 0.0420
5 Facial Expression Pleased/Playful 0.8884 0.0806 0.0907 Facial Expression Attentive/Serious 0.8884 0.0891 0.1002
6 Vocalization Imitation 0.6757 0.0089 0.0131 Gestures/Body No Gestures 0.6757 0.0046 0.0069 Movements
7 Gestures/Body Compliance To 0.5315 0.0052 0.0097 Movements Verbal Requests Gestures/Body Compliance To 0.5315 0.0054 0.0102 Movements Physical Prompting
8 Visual Contact Eyes Closed 0.5974 0.0129 0.0216 Facial Expression Neutral/Drowsy 0.5974 0.0179 0.0299
9 Vocalization Need/Desire 0.1350 0.0104 0.0767 Gestures/Body Activity-Centered 0.0594 0.0709 0.1193 Movements Signalling 0.6603 0.0177 0.0269
10 Gestures/Body Undetermined 0.5741 0.0704 0.1225 Movements Visual Contact Glance 0.5741 0.0061 0.0106 104
Most of the groupings which were determined statistically were also logical. A few ambiguous clusters were clarified by extracting the variable which was least related to the principle component of the cluster. Tables 33 and 34 propose a restructuring of the original listings of parent and infant social behaviors into a smaller number of observational variables."'’ These new combinations are based upon both clinical and empirical evidence, from this sample that certain types of social behaviors are functionally related and tend to occur together.
In these shortened versions, the observational variables are mutually exclusive in order to simplify recording.
Clustering behavior classes across different modes of communication in the above manner would alter the type of information that is produced.
The original listings of parent and infant social behaviors generated frequency data for each of the different modes of communication and specific behavior classes within each mode. The shortened versions would highlight the general communicative intent of the parent and infant with out such specific documentation of the behavioral components.
1. Definitions and examples for behavior classes in each of the origi nal listings can be found in Appendices C and D. The shortened version would retain these same behavior classes, definitions, and examples within larger groupings. 105
TABLE 34
SHORTENED VERSION OF PARENT SOCIAL INTERACTION REPERTOIRE
ORIGINAL VARIABLES INCLUDED NEW VARIABLE GENERAL DEFINITION MODE BEHAVIOR CLASS
Playful/Affec Parent is acknowl- Vocalization Acknowledgement/ tion edgingj affection Empathy ate > encouraging, Playful or playful toward Affection/Praise/ infant Encouragement Gestures/Body Play/Games Movements Affection/Com- fort Object Presen tation/Exchange Facial Ex Pleased/Playful pression Neutral
Intention Parent communi Vocalization Attention-getting/ cates desires, Instructive/ requests, or in Descriptive structions to Gestures/Body Signalling infant Movements Object Demonstra tion
Imitation Parent imitates Vocalizations Imitation gestures or vo Gestures/Body Imitation calizations of Movements infant
Redirection Parent indicates Vocalization Prohibition/Re dissatisfaction direction with interaction Gestures/Body Restriction/Re or activity and Movements direction attempts to re Facial Expan Disturbed structure infant's sion response 106
TABLE 34 (continued
ORIGINAL VARIABLES INCLUDED NEW VARIABLE GENERAL DEFINITION MODE BEHAVIOR CLASS
Assistance/ Parents physically Ges tures/Body Assistance Physical assists infant in Movements Physical Guid Guidance accomplishing ac ance/Position tivity initiated ing by infant, or Holding Posi Held Away guides infant tion through exercises Facial Expres- Concerned/Sym- or other tasks sion pathetic
Negative Vocalization Criticism Response Gestures/Body Withdrawal/Refusal Movements Intrusion/ Punishment
Attention Parent is attending Vocalization Extraneous Con Elsewhere primarily to some versation thing or someone Visual Contact Glance at Infant else besides in Looks Elsewhere fant Gestures/Body Object Prepara- Movements ration
Undetermined The communicative in- Vocalization Undetermined tent of this behav- Gestures/Body Undetermined ior could not be de— Movements termined Visual Contact Undetermined Facial Expres- Undetermined sion
Unassigned Vocalization No Vocalization Variables Gestures/Body No Gestures or Movements Body Movements Visual Contact Gaze at Infant Holding Posi Held Close tion Held Separate - Close Separate-Distant Facial Posi Face-To-Face Close tion Not Face-To-Face Face-To-Face Distant 107
TABLE 35
SHORTENED VERSION OF INFANT SOCIAL INTERACTION REPERTOIRE
ORIGINAL VARIABLES INCLUDED NEW VARIABLE GENERAL DEFINITION MODE BEHAVIOR CLASS
Approach/Pleasure Infant indicates posi Vocalization Interest/Plea tive response, in sure terest, affection, Gestures/Body Approach/Affec- or playfulness Movements tion/Playful- ness Facial Expres- Pleased/Playful/ sion Attentive/Ser ious
Compliance Infant complies to Gestures/Body Compliance to verbal requests or Movements Verbal Requests physical handling Compliance to by parent Verbal Requests and Demonstra tion Compliance to Physical Prompt ing and Handling
Intention Infant communicates Vocalization Need/Desire wants or needs to Gestures/Body Signalling parent or concen Movements Activity-Centered trates upon an ac tivity
Imitation Infant imitates ges Vocalization Imitation tures or vocaliza Gestures/Body Imitation tions of parent Movements
Protest Infant indicates dis Vocalization Protest/Distress pleasure with par Gestures/Body Resistance/Re ent or activity Movements fusal Facial Ex Disturbed pression
Fatigue Infant appears Visual Contact Eyes Closed drowsy or asleep Facial Expres- Neutral/Drowsy sion 108
TABLE 35 (continued)
ORIGINAL VARIABLES INCLUDED NEW VARIABLE GENERAL DEFINITION MODE BEHAVIOR CLASS
Undetermined The communicative Vocalization Undetermined intent of this be Gestures/Body Undetermined havior could not Movements be determined Visual Contact Undetermined Facial Expres Undetermined sion
Unassigned Visual Contact Gaze Glance Looks Else where Vocalization No Vocalization Gestures/Body No Gestures or Movements Body Movements 109 CHAPTER V
SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS
OPERATIONALIZING THE CONCEPT OF RECIPROCITY: MODEL-BUILDING ISSUES
This attempt to operationalize the concept of parent-infant reci procity within a clinical assessment procedure is based upon a trans actional view of the parent-infant relationship. Each parent-infant dyad evolves its own unique interaction style; their system of inter dependent responses form distinct, yet quantifiable, patterns of reci procal interaction. While tangential influences upon parent-infant in teractions such as parental attitudes or the network of family relation ships are not discounted, the focus of this approach is to illuminate the patterns of contingent responses which presently operate between an individual parent and child.
The three measures of reciprocity that were developed in this pro ject - sequence patterns, rate of interaction, and social interaction repertoires - describe the extent and nature of reciprocity that cur rently exit within the social interaction patterns of a parent-infant dyad. This approach is consistent with the recommendations of Bakeman and Brown (1977, p. 195) that new methods of assessing the interaction style of parents and infants should "reveal the structure of the in teraction, perhaps in ways that might not be immediately evident to the observer's senses." The use of a wide variety of behavior classes plus sequence measures allows this method to "be grounded in specifiable behaviors, yet not depend upon particular behaviors; that is, be essen tially 'content free' ...." (Ibid.). At the same time, this method offers a clinical measure of the frequency of occurrence, interaction 110 direction density, and sequence of behaviors, which Lewis and Lee-
Painter (1974, p. 45) maintain must be incorporated into any measure ment system which aims to describe the dynamics of interaction.
This method produces a three-term contingency record. Any social behavior of the parent or infant may be viewed as either an elicitor/ initiator of the partner's next behavior or a response/reinforcer to a preceding behavior. The recording system generates a descriptive list ing of the antecedent and consequent behaviors for each individual's actions. While clinicians have recognized that three-term contingency records yield more interactive data than one- and two-term records, they have seldom used them, presumably because of the complexity and special equipment required by most three-term contingency recording techniques.
According to Goldberg's (1977) model of parent-infant interactions, the extent to which a parent and infant provide each other with contin gency experiences profoundly influences the feelings of efficacy and com petence motivation that are experienced by both individuals. The idea that an infant's competence motivation is stimulated, maintained, and enhanced by positive and appropriately-timed contingency experiences with the environment, chiefly those provided by the primary caretaker, has been endorsed universally by infant researchers. Goldberg's belief that parents' feelings of efficacy and competence motivation "will be enhanced, maintained, or depressed by their experience with the infant"
(Goldberg, 1977, p. 165) has received corroboration from other recent studies (Field, 1979; Alfasi, 1982; Trout, 1978; Stone & Chesney, 1978; Ill
Emde & Brown, 1978; Klaus & Kennell, 1976; Divitto and Goldberg, 1979).
Clinicians working with developmentally high-risk infants and their par ents are particularly sensitive to the implications of this model be cause these parent-infant dyads frequently encounter difficulties in establishing reciprocal patterns of interaction. Yet, to date few objective methods have been available to aid clinicians in assessing the extent to which an individual dyad has developed reciprocal interaction patterns.
Goldberg (1979) suggests that there are two ways in which early in tervention professionals can help asynchronous dyads to develop more effective patterns of interaction. First, through designing appropriate educational strategies they can facilitate the infant's developmental progress, enhancing responsiveness, predictability, and readability.
Second, they can "develop parental skills in predicting and reading infant behavior and foster sensitivity to the contingency experiences provided by the infant" (Goldberg, 1977, p. 174). In the past decade, tremendous strides have been made in identifying the developmental growth patterns of infants, designing infant stimulation curricula, and training teachers and specialists from many disciplines to prescribe and provide enrichment activities for both normal and delayed infants. During this same time period, relatively few efforts have been devoted to finding ways to foster parental sensitivity to parent-infant contingent response patterns. The method developed in this project provides one way of ob jectively documenting the current reciprocal interaction patterns of a parent-infant dyad. It produces concrete information about the types 112 of social communicative behaviors which the parent and infant are using with each other, and the patterns in which they employ them. This in formation easily could be shared with parents to enhance their skills in predicting and interpreting their infants' social communication. It also could be used to increase parents' awareness of the situations in which they and their infants provide or deny each other mutual contin gency experiences. This method offers a practical way of implementing
Goldberg's model in assessing whether current patterns of parent-infant interactions are likely to lead to mutual feelings of efficacy or help lessness .
COMMENTS UPON METHODOLOGY
Thomas and Martin (1976) have noted that the immediate context of parent-infant interactions influences researchers' selection and defi nitions of behavioral variables. The behavioral variables in this pro ject encompassed diverse social interaction behaviors within several specific activity contexts: feeding, diaper-changing, comforting, en face social play, games and instructional tasks with toys, physical exercises, discipline, and expressions of affection or encouragement.
Within the rather broad context of "natural social environments" (i.e., home and early intervention program settings), these variables were ap propriate for describing parent-infant communication during many dif ferent activities. Thus, only in a broad sense did the immediate con text of dyadic activity limit the selection of behavioral variables in this project. 113
The analyses of reciprocal interaction patterns in Chapter IV (Re
sults) indicated that dyadic interaction styles remained similar in
both settings even though the settings themselves were quite different.
A maximum of four family members and other people besides the camera person were present in the home during the videotaping sessions.
The home settings were usually quiet and dimly lit compared to the
early intervention program. The number.of people who were in the early
intervention classrooms during these videotaping sessions ranged be
tween four and fifteen. The classroom videotapes were comparatively
difficult to analyze because of the high volume of noise from competing
conversations, music, noisy toys, and the sounds of several children
and parents. Inquiring what effect the different levels of sensory and
social stimulation as well as different task situations might have
upon the interactions of parents and infants, it was interesting to find
that the 15 parents and high-risk infants in this sample demonstrated
consistency in both settings on all three measures of reciprocity. Ap
parently, the reciprocal interaction styles of these dyads were not
significantly affected by variations in their activities or immediate physical and social surroundings, within the contexts of familiar en vironments .
The parents of high-risk infants who volunteered to participate in
this project were a self-selected group who typically attended early
intervention classes regularly and demonstrated a desire to explore all available sources to obtain new information that might help their chil
dren. From informal observations in the classrooms, it appeared that 114 the parents who volunteered for videotapings were among the most effec tive or self-confident communicators in the group. It is likely that the ranges of performance on all three measures of reciprocity reflect optimal patterns of reciprocal interaction within this population, with proportionately fewer and less serious cases of asynchrony than actually might exist in the population-at-large. There are reasons to suspect that the ranges on all measures might expand if later studies included parents of high-risk infants who typically were not active participants in early intervention programs and who probably would be reluctant to volunteer for videotapings in a research project.
It was sometimes difficult to capture on film all of the social interaction behaviors of a parent and infant who were mobile simultan eously. Two cameras linked to a split screen device might have pro duced better simultaneous recordings of both the parent's and infant's facial expressions and movement than a single videocamera. However, the use of a single, small, portable camera with a microphone, oper ated by a person familiar to the parent and infant in their own home or classroom, seemed to be the least disruptive means of recording the naturally occurring social interactions of the dyad. The presence of two cameras with two camera operators and/or a specially equipped laboratory filming room might have strained the dyad's ability to carry on their social interactions in a customary and comfortable manner.
Also, most early intervention program staff who might wish to use these procedures in the future would not have access to more sophisticated recording equipment. It is likely that clinician/researchers 115 would be able to record the social behaviors of parents and infants from live observations with the shortened versions of the repetoire measures.
IMPLICATIONS FOR EARLY INTERVENTION
When the idea for this project was first presented in the parent group meetings, a number of parents described difficuties they were hav
ing communicating reciprocally with their infants. Some of the problems
involved sensory limitations of the children (e.g., hearing and visual
impairments, motor involvement); others reflected impedences to social- emotional communication, such as children's resistance to establishing eye contact or to be being physically handled, or some children's prefer ences for objects more than people. A few parents mentioned that they had noticed their spouses interacting with their infants in a style that was different from their own, and that the infants responded with dif ferent behaviors.
The findings of this study support the notion that father-infant dyads generally have different interaction styles from mother-infant dyads. Although this sample was too small to draw firm conclusions, fathers in this study seldom held their infant close to them and con
sistently had more neutral facial expressions than mothers (p ^ .001).
Fathers also tended to show a higher proportion of parent monologues and less turn-taking with their infants than mothers did (.05 = p = .15).
A possible explanation is that father-infant dyads may be less adept at
interpreting each other's social cues than mother-infant dyads, which may result in more emotional distancing by fathers, reflected through neutral facial expressions and more distal holding positions. Next to 116 years of education, the sex of the parent had the highest number of significant correlations (p ^ .05) of any demographic variable with the repertoire of social interaction behaviors demonstrated by the parent and infant. While potential differences in the reciprocal interaction styles of father-infant versus mother-infant dyads need to be examined much more thoroughly in future research, early inter vention professionals should be alert to the possibility that mo thers and fathers may experience very different types of social feedback from their infants. These differences would be likely to influence the attachment/bonding relationship of each dyad and have a ripple effect upon the network of psychologically interconnected relationships within the family unit (Weinraub, Brooks, & Lewis, 1976),
There were some interesting correlations between dyadic inter action patterns and parental age, years of formal education, and so cioeconomic status. Parents with more education and affluence were less likely to respond contingently to each of their infants' social behaviors. Older parents in this group were least likely to hold their infants in a face-to-face position or to vocalize to them.
Parents of higher socioeconomic status also tended to interact with their infants at a relatively slow pace. As a result of reading, ex perience, and/or training, these parents might have been attempting to shape their infant's responses by responding contingently to only selected infant behaviors. Such strategies might have a positive effect upon the parent-infant relationship if the strategies ulti mately increased reciprocal communication by expanding the infant's repertoire or shaping the infant's responses in ways that were 117 rewarding to the parent. On the other hand, denying contingent re inforcement to the infant could have negative effects upon the com petence motivation of the infant. The Reciprocity Index and proto col of each such dyad would have to be reviewed individually to ex tract more specific information about the interactive functioning of each dyad. Older infants tended to engage in fewer monologues, which may indicate that parents find it easier to interpret and respond in a meaningful manner to infant behaviors as the children grow older.
Another significant influence upon the reciprocal interaction patterns of parent-high-risk infant dyads appears to be the adaptive behavior level of the infant. This measure provides an indication of the degree to which an infant's overall behavior patterns deviate from normal or expected patterns of development. The findings of this study suggest that there is less parent-infant reciprocity with more handicapped infants. The reciprocal interactions that do occur fall into turn-taking patterns, probably for two reasons. First, because of neurological damage or impaired sensory systems, severely handicapped infants may require increased time to process environ mental inputs, thereby reducing their capacities for interacting simultaneously (co-acting) with their parents. Second, through per sonal experience combined with training in the early intervention program, the parents of these infants may have learned to wait for identifiable responses from their infants before proceeding with the next interaction behavior. Early intervention professionals should expect less co-acting between parents and severely handicapped in fants, and instead help these parents to establish mutually rewarding 118
sequences of turn-taking behaviors. Examination of the individual
protocols (Reciprocal Interaction Pattern Checksheets) would reveal
the specific kinds of parental behaviors to which the infant responded
positively, parental behaviors which elicited no response from the
infant, etc. By reviewing the social interaction repetoires of the
parent and infant which are summarized on the Reciprocity Index,
early intervention professionals could determine the modes of commu nication and classes of interaction behaviors which the parent and
infant are currently using with each other. After first helping the dyad to use their current repertoire of behaviors in effective (re
ciprocal) patterns of interaction, early intervention staff might work with the parent and infant individually and together to help
them to expand their repertoires in the future. This could be ac
complished through identifying the infant's strongest and most consis
tent mode(s) of communication and preferences for environmental input, and then training the infant to respond with clearer, more readable behaviors. At the same time, through reviewing the Reciprocity In dex and drawing examples from the videotape and protocol as neces
sary, early intervention staff could help parents to refine their
skills in reading and interpreting their infants' behaviors, and in responding contingently to their infants in ways that sustain the
interaction and make it mutually reinforcing for both partners.
During the course of this project, some parents reviewed their
Reciprocity Indices and portions of their videotapes. Several par ents independently identified behaviors of their own which they said 119
they might try to alter in order to improve reciprocal communication
with their infants. Most of the parents also picked out contingent
response patterns and communicative behaviors of their infants which
they said they had not noticed before. Virtually all of the parents were interested in the findings and several said they would like to
experiment with some new interaction behaviors and have their recip
rocal interaction patterns reassessed in the future. These informal
reactions of parents who reviewed the findings on their own dyadic
interaction styles generated by this method suggest that early in
tervention professionals and parents easily could collaborate on developing strategies to enhance the reciprocal communication of parent-high-risk infant dyads.
TOPICS FOR FUTURE RESEARCH
Future studies should expand field-testing of this method to a broader sample of parent-high-risk infant dyads for the purpose of
enhancing the efficiency, reliability, and validity of the method.
The establishment of norms for the sequence patterns and rates of in
teraction as well as analyses of the relationship between all three measures of reciprocity and demographic factors would provide cli nicians with useful guidelines for interpreting the reciprocal in
teraction patterns of parent-high-risk infant dyads. Specifications for administration, recording, and interpretation should be incor porated into an assessment manual.
After the method has been formalized, it would be useful to compare the trends in reciprocal interaction patterns of this 120 population with those of parents who have low-risk or normal infants.
The reciprocal interaction styles of this latter group would provide a reference point for interpreting the degree of deviation from interaction patterns which are typical for this group. This assess ment method and the treatment strategies which evolve from its use should prove to be as appropriate for parent-infant dyads who are considered low-risk as for those who have been identified as high- risk. Assessments with this method might be helpful for parents whose infants have age-appropriate development skills but whose re ciprocal interactions with the parent have been impaired by environ mental stresses upon the dyad, such as reactions to death, illness, separations, and family conflicts.
Field-testing and refinement of the shortened (clustered) ver sion of social interaction repetoires should be undertaken. The original and shortened versions of the parent and infant repetoires might be appropriate for different purposes. For example, in the case of a severely handicapped infant whose modes of communication are limited and whose cues are difficult to read and interpret, the original method could be used as a form of clinical microanalysis to illuminate the interactive vocabulary and contingent response pat terns of the infant. Videotapes would be necessary for reviewing minute segments of parent-infant interaction. On the other hand, in the case of an active, sociable, high-functioning infant whose par ents want to learn how to improve cooperation and increase turn- taking during joint play activities, the shortened version might 121
prove more expedient. It might be possible to use the shortened
version during live observations, without videotapes. Also, on the
shortened form, the modes of communication are intermingled into mu
tually exclusive clusters of behavior classes, which might make this version adaptable to Garner et^. al.'s Response Class Matrix format
(Mash, Terdal, & Anderson, 1970, 1973). Future work is needed to
establish whether or not all three measures of reciprocity could be
incorporated into a Response Class Matrix protocol form; then this format should be compared to the original protocol format (contain ing the shortened version of the repertoires) to determine the compar ative ease of administration.
Also, following the examples of Terdal, Jackson, and Garner (1976),
Cicetti and Sroufe (1976), Kennell and Klaus (1976), and Alfasi (1982) among others, behaviors within the social interaction repertoires of the parents and infants might be clustered into clinically informa tive indices to enhance interpretation. For example, certain behav iors might be scaled by level of stimulation, ranging from low levels of environmental input to highly stimulating and intrusive methods of interaction.(Alfasi, 1982). Alternatively, the interaction repe toires might be organized into types of affect (Cicetti & Sroufe,
1976); categories of signalling and attachment behaviors (Kennell &
Klaus, 1976); or indices of directiveness and various other relevant parent or infant characteristics, in the manner proposed by Terdal,
Jackson, and Garner (1976).
It would be useful from a clinical perspective to know how 122 various types of reciprocal interaction patterns correspond to mea sures of parental attitudes toward the infant and other behavioral indicators of attachment and bonding. Also, it would be interesting to explore further how the findings of this approach fit into other models of disturbed versus normal parent-infant relationships
(Fraiberg, Adelson, and Shapiro, 1975: Field, 1979; Goldberg, 1977;
Greenberg, 1971; Alfasi, 1982).
Finally - and perhaps most importantly - after the original method has been field-tested on a wider basis and refined, systematic guidelines should be developed for translating the findings of this assessment method into individualized intervention goals and strate gies. This method produces a wealth of information about the curremt reciprocal interaction patterns of a parent and high-risk infant.
This assessment data could be used to design individually-tailored strategies for expanding the interactive repertoire of the dyad and for increasing reciprocity in their interaction patterns. Within clinical settings, these goals and strategies could be translated into behavioral objectives and parent-infant activities; within early intervention programs, they could be incorporated into the child's
Individualized Education Plan (I.E.P.). These activities would ful fill the ultimate purpose of this method - to provide a practical clinical approach to enhancing the reciprocal interactions and qual ity of relationship between parents and their high-risk infants. APPENDIX A
A.P.A. STANDARDS* AND RECIPROCITY
PROJECT DESIGN
*Reference: American Psychological Association, Standards for educational and psychological tests. Washington: American Psychological Association, 1974
123 PLEASE NOTE: Copyrighted materials in this document have not been filmed at the request of the author. They are available for consultation, however, in the author's university library. These consist of pages:
124-132
University M icrofilm s International 300 N. ZEEB RD., ANN ARBOR. Ml 48106 (313) 761-4700 APPENDIX B
FORMAT FOR PRESENTATION OF PROJECT
IN PARENT GROUP MEETINGS
PROJECT SUMMARY SHEET
PARENT CONSENT FORM
133 134
FORMAT FOR PRESENTATION OF PROJECT IN PARENT GROUP MEETINGS
The investigator described the project during two sessions each of the morning and afternoon weekly parent group meetings. She also spoke with parents individually to clarify points and answer questions.
The investigator began the presentation by talking about the impor tance of reciprocity to the establishment of effective parent-infant com munication patterns and to mutual satisfaction with the relationship.
She and the parents discussed the difficulties that some of them had en countered in establishing reciprocal modes of interaction with their in fants, due to the nature of the child's handicap and/or the associated stresses that the parents had experienced.
The investigator explained that the purpose of this project was to develop an observational instrument to assess the extent and nature of reciprocity that currently exists in the natural social interactions between an individual parent and child. She described her conceptuali zation of reciprocity as having both quantitative and qualitative dimen sions: that the "extent" of reciprocity could be measured quantitatively by assessing the proportion of parent-infant interactions that were re ciprocal versus nonreciprocal; and that the "nature" of reciprocity re ferred to the specific types of social interaction behaviors that the parent and infant used with each other. This latter qualitative measure would illuminate the many different ways in which parents and infants communicate, and it would reflect adaptations that both the parent and infant had made to the infant's handicap(s). The investigator described her long-term (post-dissertation) goal that the information by this 135 assessment method would serve as a baseline measure and resource for designing strategies to enhance reciprocity between individual parents and their high-risk infants.
The investigator explained that videotapes of naturally-occurring parent-infant interactions in the home and early intervention program would provide empirical data for the development of this instrument.
The investigator gave each parent a written summary of the project and a consent form (see the following). She invited the parents to review the entire dissertation proposal and offered to share- the results with any families who were interested. 136
PROJECT SUMMARY SHEET
Title: "The Development of a Method to Assess Reciprocity in the Social Interaction of Parents and Their High-Risk Infants"
Researcher: Wendy Schaff, M.A. Department of Psychology The Ohio State University
..Infants..and their parents have unique ways of communicating with each other. Their methods of communication include facial expressions, boy movements, looks, touches, and sounds. Often parents can tell what their baby wants when no one else understands.
As a parent, it is rewarding when your baby enjoys your presence and responds positively to your words, touches, movements or smiles.
Probably it is rewarding for your baby when you accurately interpret the message of what s/he wants; your baby is learning to effect the environment in a most important way. This back-and-forth system of communication builds closeness between parents and infants and encour ages them to interact more.
Infants with developmental problems often respond in ways that are different from what their parents expect. For example, eye contact or reaching may develop more slowly than anticipated, or maybe not at all if the child has a visual or motor impairment. A child who is constantly fussy and has trouble sleeping may seldom be calm, alert, and ready to play social games. When a baby does not behave as the parent hopes or expects, it can be discouraging; parents need positive feedback too. 137
But parents are both adaptive and creative in finding ways to communi cate with their children.
Right now we have no way of objectively describing the degree to which a parent and infant have developed a back-and-forth, reciprocal system of communication. If we could describe the kinds of communica tion patterns that a parent and baby currently use with each other, then parents and professionals could review those patterns and deter mine which kinds of actions bring certain types of responses; which kinds of actions and responses are mutually beneficial; and which kinds of actions and responses could make the social interactions more reward ing for both the parent and baby, thus building closeness between them.
The purpose of my project is to develop a set of guidelines for analyzing the reciprocal interaction patterns of parents and high-risk infants. In order to do this, I need to videotape about thirty parents and babies interacting in their usual manner. I will be looking pri marily at how they are communicating with each other. I will need to videotape each parent and baby for about thirty minutes in the infant classroom and thirty minutes at home, while they go about their usual activities.
I will be asking all of the parents in the Infant Program to let me videotape them with their infants, but participation is entirely volun tary. Each parent who agrees will sign a Consent Form, which gives me permission to videotape him/her with the baby and to look at the child's
FCBMR/DD files. Identification numbers, rather than names will be used on the tapes and all public materials. 138
PROTOCOL NO.
— TJ-e OHIO STATE UNIVERSITY—
CONSNT TO? PARTICIPATION IN SOCIAL AM3 SHAVIORAL RESEARCH
I consent to participating in (or my child*3 participation in) a study entitled "The Davalopmant of a Method to Assess Reciprocity in the Social
Interactions of Parents and their High-3isk Infants"
Wendy Scharf has (Investigator/Project Director or his/her authorized representative) explained the purpose of the study and procedures to be followed. Possible benefits of the study have been described as have alternative procedures, if such procedures are applicable and available.
I acknowledge that I have had the opportunity to obtain additional in formation regarding the study and that any questions I have raised have been answered to my full satisfaction. Further, I understand that I am (my child is) free to withdraw consent at any time and to discontinue participation in the study without prejudice to me (my child). The information obtained from me (my child) will remain confidential and anonymous unless X specifically agree otherwise.
Finally, X acknowledge that X have read and fully understand the consent form, X have signed it freely and voluntarily and understand a copy is avail able upon request.
Date: ______Signed: ______(Participant)
(Investigator/Project Director or (Person Authorized to Consent Authorized Representative) for Participant - If Required)
PA-027 (2/79) — To be used only in connection with social and behavioral re search for which an OSV Human Subject Review Committee has determined that the research poses no risk to participants. APPENDIX C
LISTING OF PARENT SOCIAL BEHAVIORS
139 PARENT SOCIAI. BEHAVIORS
BEHAVIOR BEHAVIOR MODE CLASS DEFINITION EXAMPLES
V0CA1.I/.AI illfi ACKMOWLEnOEHKHT/ - greetings "lii liabv." EMPATHY "lieie >. am. I'm back."
- acknowledgements of the Infant's pres "There you a re ." ence, actions, or vocalizations. "What'd you nay?” "Hell, tell me more."
- empathetic descriptions of the infant's "You like this game, don't you?" feelings, desires, or moods. "This is hard work, isn't il?" "You look hungry. I bet you'd like your bottle."
- soothing sounds, songs, and statements "Sh, sh, sh. Co to sleep now." intended to reassure, calm, and quiet "It's okay. It's gunna be all the infant. right." "I.ul labyes
AFFECTION/PRAISb/ - affectionate or affirmative comments "You're making me so happy today." ENCOURACEMCNT about tile inlanL or his/her acLlons. "You're sit Ling up so well. Cood job!" "Oh, sweet baby."
- reassuring and encouraging comments, "You can do it. One more try.” intended to motivate the infant (more "That's right. Live it to Daddy." suggestive than a command, usually in "That's it. Hit IL again." reference to an ongoing activity).
I—‘ ! > O PARENT SOCIAL BEHAVIORS
BEHAVIOR BEHAVIOR mod e __ CLASS DEFINITION EXAMPLES
VOCALIZATION PLAYFUL - Suunds, words, si’.ories, jinnies, " f'm gonna gel you!" (cont’d) rhymes, snnnit, and times intended to "Pat--a-cake..." and "Peek- a-boo!" arouse, amuse, or entertain the Infant. - "V/hee! Up you go." - "Here comes the bee. Bzzz::." Nursery rhymes.
IMITATION - Repetition or imitation of the infant's __ Imitating the infant's blowing nonspeech sounds ov vocalisations. sounds, vowel sounds, or babbling.
ATTENTION-GETTINC • Statements intended to elicit the In _ "See this?" INSTRUCTIVE/ fant's attention in order to proceed - "look here." DESCRIPTIVE with an activity - "Let's play the drum." - "Let's do this now."
-- Commands or instructions intended to - "Clive me the ball." guide or direct the infant in an ac - "The red block goes here. Now, you tivity do It."
- Questions intended to stimulate the - The parent covers a favorite toy infant's interest or to elicit a with a cloth and says, "Where's specific behavioral response the doggie? Where did it go?"
- Informative or descriptive statements - "Oh, look at these beads. All about the environment or the activities di f ferent colors." of the infant and parent - "I'm going to pul you down on this mat anu go find some toys." - "It's time to go now. We have lo put on your sweater and hat." 141 PARENT SOCIAL BEHAVIORS
BEHAVIOR BEHAVIOR MODE CLASS DEFINITION EXAMPLES
VOCALIZATION PROHIBITION/ - Warning statements intended to stop - "No, no. Don’t do that.” (cont' d) REDIRECTION tlie infant from doing something, or - "Stay away from the door." to set limits upon the infant's be - "You can't pull Mommy's hair. havior.
- Statements intended to distract the - "Stop that. Here, do you want infant from an undesirable activity this clown?" by suggesting an alternative - "No, come iiere. Look - here's your ball."
CRITICISM - Critical statements about the infant - "Your're not listining at all." or his/her behavior. - "You're just being lazy today." - "You are so darn stubborn. You v/on't do a tiling I say.
EXTRANEOUS - Comments to oneself or conversation CONVERSATION directed to someone other than the infant.
UNDETERMINED - Whether or not the parent vocalized, or the type of vocalization, could not be determined during this portion of the observation
NO VOCALIZATION - The parent did not vocalize during tills portion of the observation. PARENT SOCIAL BEHAVIORS
BEHAVIOR BEHAVIOR HOPE CLASS DEFINITION EXAMPLES
OESTURES/ AFFECTION/ Physical expressions of tenderness, Hugging, cuddling, patting, BODY MOVEMENT! COMFORT affection, pleasure, or attentiveness stroking, kissing the infant. toward the infant. Clapping for the infant's accom- p]ishments.
- Physical efforts to reassure, soothe, Providing gentle stimulation, or calm the inFant. such as walking, rocking, or jiggling the infant.
- Caretaking gestures intended to make Patting tlie infant's back when the infant more comfortable. the infant coughs or needs to burp. Feeding. Wiping the infant's face after a feeding. Adjusting the infant's glasses or hearing aid. Shifting the Infant's position when the parent's intent clearly is to make the infant more com fortable (e.g., if the infant be gins to gag during a feeding, the parent shifts the infant from a horizontal to vertical position and pats his/her back). Loosening the infant's clothing in order to make the infant more com fortable. PARENT SOCIAL BEHAVIORS
BEHAVIOR BEHAVIOR MODE CLASS DEFINITION EKAMPLES
CCSTUKER/ ASSISTANCE - Physical aid to help the infant accom - The parent provides a steadying BODY MOVEMENTS plish a particular activity or task hand or other kind of active sup (cont'il) that the infant wants to do or has port to the infant' who is trying already begun. to maintain his/her balance. - When the infant is stretching to reach a toy, the parent moves the toy closer or adjusts the infant's position so that the infant can more easily reach it. - The parent holds a toy in an ad vantageous position so that the infant can continue to play with it. - The parent holds a riding toy in a stable position so that infant can dismount it safely.
PLAYFULNESS - Playful, gamelike gestures or presen - The parent dangles beads In front tation of objects, intended to arouse, of the infant in a playful manner amuse, or teach the infant. (Note: and encourages the infant to Playful activities may have a serious reach for them. objective, e.g., to stimulate vocali - The parent plays peek-a-boo by zations or Improve eye-hand coordina covering his/her own face or by tion; however, they are presented in moving a stuffed animal in and a playful, rather than instructive out of the Infant's visual range. manner.) - The parent tickles the infant with fingers or a yarn ball. - Clapping, bouncing, swinging games. PARENT SOCIAL BEHAVIORS
BEHAVIOR BEHAVIOR MODE CLASS DEFINITION EXAMPLES
GESTURES/ IMITATION Repetition or imitation of the infant The parent "makes faces" back to BODY MOVEMENTS gestures, body movements, or facial the infant. (cont'd) expressions. The parent copies the infant's activity of banging a table top or banging two objects together.
SIGNALLING Gestures or body movements intended t The parent claps hands or snaps capture the Infant's attention. fingers in front of the infant's face. The parent bends down and posi tions his/her face close to, and directly in front of, the infant's face.
- Gestures or body movements which con The parent demonstrates certain vey what the parent wants the Infant mouth movements (e.g., opening and to do. closing or puckering lips), in an an attempt to encourage the infant to imitate. The parent points to his/her own hair and makes brushing motions to encourage the infant to use a haIrbrush. The parent uses Informal hand sig nals, such as holding an out stretched palm toward the Infant (meaning, "give it to me”), or holding both hands outstretched toward the infant (meaning, "come to me"). PARENT SOCIAL BEHAVIORS
BEHAVIOR BEHAVIOR MODE CLASS DEFINITION EXAMPLES
GESTURES/ SIGNALLING - The parent uses hand signals BODY MOVEMENTS (cont'd) from a formal sign language (cont'd) system.
OBJECT - The parent searches for, reaches for, - The parent looks for a toy in a PREPARATION or prepares an object, toy, or food, toy box. prior to offering it to the infant. - The parent warms a bottle or spoons food into the infant's feeding dish. - The parent assembles pieces of a toy before handing it to the Infant.
- The parent cleans up, following an - The parent picks up pieces of a activity with the infant. toy and puts them back in a box. - The parent wipes the infant's feeding table.
OBJECT PRESENTA - The parent presents, gives or offers - The parent holds a bottle or toy TION/EXCHANGE an object, toy, or food to the infant. in front of the infant in order to motivate the Infant to reach for it. -- The parent moves a colorful ob ject in front of the infant's face in order to elicit the in fant's attention or to stimulate visual tracking. PARENT SOCIAL BEHAVIORS
BEHAVIOR BEHAVIOR MODE CLASS DEFINITION EXAMPLES
GESTURES/ OBJECT PRESENTA - The parent hands a toy to the BODY MOVEMENTS TION/EXCHANGE infant, or dangles.it in front (cont'd) (cont'd) of the Infant. - The parent offers the Infant a spoonful of food.
- The parent takes, receives, or re - the parent picks up a toy that trieves something from the infant. the Infant has thrown. - The parent removes a bottle or object from the infant's graBp.
OBJECT - The parent demonstrates how to use an - The parent shows the infant how DEMONSTRATION object or toy. to stack rings on a stand. - The parent rolls a ball to the infant.
PHYSICAL GUID - The parent physically directs the in - The parent guides the infant's ANCE/POSITIONING fant through activities (including hand to manipulate a toy. caretaking routines, changes of posi - The parent directs the Infant tion, therapeutic exercises, and ma through "sit-up" exercises. nipulation of objects). - The parent changes diapers or clothing. - The parent picks up the infant and places him/her in an Infant seat. - The parent shifts the infant from a shoulder position to a lap position. Figure l< (cont'd)
PARENT SOCIAL BEHAVIORS
BEHAVIOR BEHAVIOR MODE CLASS DEFINITION EXAMPLES GESTURES/ RESTRICTION/ - The parent physically intervenes to - The parent pulls the Infant away BODY MOVEMENTS REDIRECTION restrain the infant from doing some from an electrical outlet or (cont'd) thing and/or redirects the infant other hazardous situation. toward another activity. (The handling - The parent moves the infant away may he firm, but it is not rough or from distracting toys and toward punitive.) a specific activity.
INTRUSION/ - The parent handles the Infant in a - The parent pokes the Infant's PUNS II1MENT rough or intrusive manner in order to face or body with an object in arouse or to reprimand the infant. order to elicit the infant's at tention. - The parent yanks the infant away from a toy. - The parent slaps the infant's hand or leg.
WITHDRAWAL/ - The parent withdraws, or refuses to - The infant readies for the parent's REFUSAL give physical support, assistance, or hand, and the parent withdraws aid to the Infant when the infant from the infant's grasp. clearly wants it. - The infant signals that s/he wants wants to be picked up, and the parent turns away.
I.EAVE/ENTER - The parent either moves away from - The parent leaves the infant to (leaves) or comes back to (re-enters) go across the room to find a toy. the infant*8 immediate environment. - The parent returns to the Infant, having gotten a bottle from an other room.
•t' CO PARENT SOCIAL BEHAVIORS
BEHAVIOR BEHAVIOR MODE CLASS DEFINITION EXAMPLES
CKSTURKS/ UNDETERMINED - The communicative intent of the par BODY MOVEMENTS ent's gestures and body movements was (cont'd) unclear during this portion of the observation.
NO GESTURES OR - The parent did not use gestures or BODY MOVEMENTS body movements in a communicative manner during this portion of the observation.
VISUAL CONTACT GAZE AT INFANT - The parent focuses visual attention on - The parent gazes at the infant's the infant’s face or body (with or face as they vocalize to each without establishing eye contact); other. the parent may look away briefly, but - The parent watches the infant play then resumes watching the infant. with a toy.
GLANCES AT INFANT - The parent has been looking elsewhere, - The parent is attending to someone briefly looks at the infant, then or something else, then glances looks away again. to "check up" on the infant before resuming his/her prior focus.
LOOKS ELSEWHERE - The parent is not looking at the in - The parent is watching someone fant . else. - The parent is searching for a toy. PARENT SOCIAL BEHAVIORS
BEHAVIOR BEHAVIOR MODE CLASS DEFINITION EXAMPLES
VISUAL CONTACT UNDETERMINED - The parent's visual focus could not be (cont'd) determined during this portion of the observation.
1101.1)1 NO POSI UE1.I) CLOSE - The infant is held close to the par - The parent holds the infant in a TION ent's torso, with at least one of the face-to-face position, or cradled parent's arms encircling the infant. in one or both of the parent's arms. - The parent bends over the infant from behind, or sits directly behind the infant on the floor, with his/her arms encircling the infant.
HELD AWAY - The infant is held away from the par - The infant is held on the parent's ent's torso or is physically supported lap or knees. by the parent in other than a "held - The infant stands up by leaning close" position (see above). against or holding onto the par ent's legs. - The parent holds the Infant's hands and supports the infant in a standing position.
SEPARATE - CLOSE - The parent and Infant are physically - The Infant is propped in an infant separate (not touching), but the in seat in front of the parent. fant is within arm's reach of the - The infant is sitting or lying on parent. the floor near the parent.
OLn PARENT SOCIAL BEHAVIORS
BEHAVIOR BEHAVIOR MODE CLASS DEFINITION EXAMPLES
HOI.DINC SEPARATE - - The parent and infant are separate, The parent and infant are approx POSITION DISTANT but the Infant is further than arm's imately four feet away from each (cont'd) reach from the parent. other.
TRANSITION - The parent is in the process of The parent is in the process of changing the Infant's position or picking up or laying down the location during this portion of the child. observation.
FACIAL FACE-TO-FACE - - The infant is within arm's reach of The parent and infant are di POSITION CLOSE the parent, and they are facing each rectly facing each other at other at an angle that would permit close range. eye contact. The parent is cradling the in fant in his/her arms, and the parent's face Is tilted at an angle toward the infant's, such that eye contact could be estab lished.
FACE-TO-FACE - - The infant is further than arm's reach The parent and infant are sitting DISTANT from the parent, and they are facing apart, rolling a ball back and each other at an angle that would forth, and they are facing each permit eye contact. other in a position that would permit eye contact. PARENT SOCIAL BEHAVIORS
BEHAVIOR BEHAVIOR MODE CLASS DEFINITION EXAMPLES
RACIAL NOT FACE-TO-FACE - The parent and infant may be close or The parent and infant are facing POSITION distant, and their facial positions in the same, or different, (cont'd) would make it difficult or impossible directions. to establish eye contact. The parent is holding the infant in a cheek-to-cheek position.
FACIAL PLEASED/PLAYFUL - The parent's expression conveys satis Pleasant, relaxed, contented EXPRESSION faction or pleasure with the inter expression. action or a readiness to interact. The parent "makes faces" at the infant, which are meant to be amusing, such as a look of mock surprise.
NEUTRAL - The parent's expression is bland or Distant or preoccupied expression. unclear. Unanimated expression.
CONCERNED/ - The parent's expression conveys con The parent looks concerned because SYMPATHETIC cern, along with a desire to restruc the infant appears uncomfortable ture or redirect the interaction. or unhappy.
DISTURBED - The parent's expression conveys im The parent looks discouraged, patience, Irritation, or disatisfaction irritated, or upset.
UNDETERMINED - The parent's facial expression could not be determined during this portion of the observation. APPENDIX D
LISTING OF INFANT SOCIAL BEHAVIORS
153 INFANT SOCIAL BEHAVIORS
BEHAVIOR BEHAVIOR MODE CLASS DEFINITION EXAMPLES
VOCALIZATION INTEREST/ Pre-speech or speech sounds which - The infant vocalizes while eating PLEASURE reflect a state of contentment and or while playing with a toy. which seem to be related to a spe - The Infant repeats a sound over cific activity of the infant, or and over while looking at a mobile. to the presence, actions, or vo - The infant responds to the parent's calizations of the parent. questions with pre-speech sounds.
IMITATION Repetition or imitation of the par - The infant imitates the parent's ent's nonspeech sounds or vocali coughing or tongue-clicking sounds. zations. - The infant tries to imitate the parent's words.
NEEDS/DESIRE Sounds or words which indicate needs - The Infant cannot reach an object wants, or desires. that s/he wants and summons the parent to help with grunting sounds or by saying the name of the object. - The infant smacks his/her lips and makes "mmm" sound to indicate hunger.
PP.OTEST/DISTRESS - Vocalizations which indicates dis - Fussing, whining, whimpering, cry satisfaction, frustration, discom ing, screaming. fort, or fear.
UNDETERMINED - Whether or not the infant vocalized, or the type of vocalization, could not be determined during this por tion of the observation. INFANT SOCIAL BEHAVIORS
BEHAVIOR BEHAVIOR MODE CLASS DEFINITION EXAMPLES
VOCALIZATION NO VOCALIZATION The infant did not vocalize during this portion of the observation.
GESTURES/ APPROACH/AFFEC - Gestures or body movements indicate - The infant waves his/her arms or BODY MOVEMENTS TION /PLAYFULNESS attentiveness, positive reaction to kicks his/her feet when the par parent, or desire to establish or ent approaches. maintain physical contact with the - The infant reaches for or strains parent. toward the parent. - The infant climbs on, pulls up on, or clings to the parent. - The infant snuggles against the parent's chest. - The infant holds onto the parent.
- Gestures or body movements are - The infant plays peek-a-boo with playful. the parent. - The infant crawls away from the parent, then turns around and waits for the parent to chase him/her. - The infant rolls a ball to the parent in order to initiate or continue a game.
IMITATION - Repetition or imitation of the par - The Infant copies the parent's ges e n t's gestures, body movements, or tures of clapping or raising arms facial expressions. above his/her head. - The infant imitates the parent's eye winking or head movements.
Ln INFANT SOCIAL BEHAVIORS
BEHAVIOR BEHAVIOR HOPE____ CLASS DEFINITION EXAMPLES
GESTURES/ ACTIVITY- Gestures or body movements Indicate - The infant crawls toward, ex BOPY MOVEMENTS CENTEREP interest in his/her own body, an plores, or manipulates an inter (cont1d) object, or some aspect of the en esting object. vironment other than the parent. - The infant plays with his/her own hands or feet. - The infant holds a bottle and feeds himself/herself. - The infant moves his/her limbs in response to music.
SIGNALLING Gestures or body movements intended - The infant pats the parent's leg to capture the parent's attention. in order to get the parent to look at him/her. - The infant cycles his/her arms and legs in an effort to elicit the parent's attention.
- Gestures or body movements convey - The infant stretches his/her head what the infant wants the parent and body in a certain direction, to do. indicating that s/he wants a change of position. - The infant throws his/her head backward, indicating that s/he has had enough to drink from a bottle. 155 INFANT SOCIAL BEHAVIORS
BEHAVIOR BEHAVIOR MODE CLASS DEFINITION EXAMPLES
GESTURES/ COMPLIANCE TO The infant responds appropriately to The Infant retrieves the appro BODY MOVEMENTS VERBAL REQUESTS the parent's verbal request or in priate toy after the parent says, OF INSTRUCTIONS struction. "Go get your clown."
COMPLIANCE TO The infant responds appropriately to After the parent shows the infant DEMONSTRATIONS the parent's wishes after the par how to pick up and roll the ball, OR MODELING ent demonstrates or models what s/he the infant responds appropriately wants the infant to do. (The parent to the parent's instruction, "You may or may not accompany the demon do it. You roll the ball." stration with a verbal instruction.)
COMPLIANCE TO The infant accepts or tolerates the The Infant allows the parent to PHYSICAL PROMPT parent's physical guidance in an move his/her arm and hand from ING OR HANDLING activity. (The parent may or may side to side in order to bat at not accompany the physical prompting an object hanging from a mobile. or handling with a verbal instruc The infant does not resist being tion or explanation.) moved into different sitting, lying, or holding positions. RESISTANCE/ The infant's gestures or body move- The infant pushes away an object REFUSAL movements convey dissatisfaction, that the parent offers. refusal to cooperate, and/or active When the parent moves into a close, resistance. face-to-face position and tries to establish eye contact, the infant turns his/her head to one side and averts his/her gaze.
Lm •'.J INFANT SOCIAL BEHAVIORS
BEHAVIOR ociiAv urn MODE CLASS DEFINITION EXAMPLES
GESTURES/ RESISTANCE/ - When the parent attempts to physi BODY MOVEMENTS REFUSAL cally direct or assist the infant (cont'd) (cont'd) in manipulating an object, the infant pulls back or struggles to free himself/herself from the physical contact.
UNDETERMINED - The communicative intent of the infant's gestures and body movements was unclear during this portion of the observation.
NO GESTURES OR - The infant did not use gestures or BODY MOVEMENTS body movements in a communicative manner during this portion of the observation.
VISUAL GAZE AT PARENT - The Infant focuses visual attention - The Infant watches the parent's CONTACT on the parent's face, body, or ac face as the parent talks to the tivity (with or without establish infant. ing eye contact); the infant may - The Infant watches a toy animal look away briefly, but then resumes that the parent Is moving in dif watching the parent. ferent directions. - The Infant watches the parent pre pare food.
UlI-J 00 INFANT SOCIAI. BEHAVIORS
BEHAVIOR BEHAVIOR MODE CLASS DEFINITION EXAMPLES
VISUAL CLANCE AT PARENT - The Infant has been looking else - The infant is busy exploring toys CONTACT where, briefly looks at the parent, on a shelf, looks briefly at the (cont'd) then looks away again. parent, and then focuses again on the toys.
LOOKS ELSEWHERE - The infant is not looking at the - The infant is watching someone parent. or something else.
EYES CLOSED - The infant's eyes are closed. - The infant is dozing. - The infant closes his/her eyes to terminate an interaction.
UNDETERMINED - The infant's visual focus could not be determined during this portion of the observation.
FACIAL PLEASED/PLAYFUl. - The infant's expression conveys - Open, alert expression. EXPRESSION satisfaction or pleasure with the - Pleasant, relaxed, contented interaction, or a readiness to expression. interact. - The infant's expressions is playful - Face brightening, smiles. or happy. - Jovial, anticipatory expression. 159 INFANT SOCIAL BEHAVIORS
BEHAVIOR BEHAVIOR MODE CLASS DEFINITION ______EXAMPLES______
FACIAL ATTENTIVE/ - The Infant's expression conveys - Intense, sober expression. EXPRESSION SERIOUS serious attention or concentration. - Studious expression. (cont'd)
NEUTP.AL/DROWSY - The infant's expression is bland or - Unanimated, preoccupied, or unclear. confused expression. - The infant appears fatigued. - Distant, bleary-eyed, expres sion.
DISTURBED - The infant's expression conveys - Grimace. discomfort, frustration, or dis - Pout, frown. satisfaction.
UNDETERMINED - The infant's facial expression could not be determined during this por tion of the observation. 160 APPENDIX E
VALIDITY STUDY QUESTIONNAIRE
161 162
Dyad:_____
PARENT-INFANT INTERACTION BEHAVIORS INFANT PROGRAM TEACHER OBSERVATIONS VALIDITY STUDY
PARENT INTERACTION BEHAVIORS 1 ■’ '■ .... often seen smtms seen aeldom/novT unsr/ean't Ij (high freq.)] (mad. freqj (low freqj ans/ d.k. 1 VOCALIZATION ACKNOWLEDGEMENT/EMPATHY AFTECTION/PPAISE/ENCOURAGEMENT PLAYFUL ATTENTION-GETTING/ INSTRUCTIVE/DESCRIPTIVE PROHIBITION CRITICISM EXTRANEOUS CONVERSATION UNDETERMINED NO VOCALIZATION
GESTURES/BODY MOVEMENTS AFFECTION/COMFORT ASSISTANCE PLAY/GAMES IMITATION SIGNALLING OBJECT PREPARATION OBJECT PRESENTATION/EXCHANGE OBJECT DEMONSTRATION PHYSICAL GUIDANCE/POSITIONING RESTRICTION/REDIRECTION 5 INTRUSION/PUNISHMENT , WITHDRAWAL/REFUSAL IEAVE/ENTER UNDETERMINED NO GESTURES OR BODY MOVEMENTS
VISUAL CONTACT GAZE AT INFANT GLANCE AT INFANT LOOKS EISEWHERE UNDETERMINED
HOLDING POSITION HELD CLOSE HEID AWAY SEPARATE - CLOSE SEPARATE - DISTANT TRANSITION
FACIAL POSITION FACE-TO-FACE - CLOSE FACE-TO-FACE - DISTANT NCT FACE-TO-FACE
FACIAL EXPRESSION PLEASED/FIAYFUL NEUTRAL CONCERNED/SYMPATHETIC DISTURBED UNDETERMINED 163
INFANT INTERACTION BEHAVIORS______VALIDITY STUDY______INFANT PROGRAM TEACHER OBSERVATIONS
often seen sntms seen seldom/nevr unsr/can't (high freq.) (mad. freq.) (low freq.) ans/ d.k.
VOCALIZATION i n t e r e s t /p i e a s u r e RESPONSE/IMITATION n e e d /d e s i r e PROTEST/DISTRESS UNDETERMINED NO VOCALIZATION
GESTURES/BODY MOVEMENTS Ap p r o a c h /a f f e c t i o n / PLAYFULNESS a c t i v i t y -c e n t e r e d IMITATION SIGNALLING COMPLIANCE TO VERBAL/ SIGNALS COMPLIANCE TO VERBAL/ SIGNALS + DEMONSTRATION COMPLIANCE TO PHYSICAL PROMPT/HANDLING RESISTANCE/REFUSAL UNDETERMINED NO COMMUNICATIVE GESTURES OR BODY MOVEMENTS
VISUAL CONTACT GAZE AT PARENT/ACTIVITY GLANCE AT PARENT/ACTIVITY LOOKS ELSEWHERE EYES CLOSED UNDETERMINED
FACIAL EXPRESSION ATTENTIVE / SERIOUS PtEASED/PLAYFUL NEUTRAL/DROWSY DISTURBED UNDETERMINED 164
Dyad:
PARENT-INFANT INTERACTION BEHAVIORS INFANT PROGRAM TEACHER OBSERVATIONS VALIDITY STUDY
RECIPROCITY QUESTIONS
1. To what kinds of infant behaviors does this parent respond positively?
2. To what kinds of infant behaviors does this parent respond negatively?
3. To what kinds of parent behaviors does this infant respond positively?
4. To what kinds of parent behaviors does this infant respond negatively?
5. How "balanced" is the flow of social communication between this parent and infant? Do they typically alternate (take turns) initi ating interactions and responding to each other, or is, one more likely to initiate, one less likely to respond, etc.?
6. What is the general "tone"of the parent-infant social interactions? Is it playful and pleasureable to both? Rewarding to one but not the other? Stressful to either? Consistent or changeable? APPENDIX F
RECIPROCAL INTERACTION PATTERNS
CHECKSHEET
165 PARENT 30C./A i- BEHNV'O/ZS
yoC/'iLlZ A TI ON & E 3 T w e t S / &OEY AMiAtEAJTS VISUAL.r r .
1
—
i *- i - i - i - - .
—— - % - ! ! 1 1 1 i 1 I \ i 1 I I P h ' A D : - O A T £ : _ P. 5.X. CHECKSHEET} PART X 166 pr\&‘r- Reciprocal Interaction Patterns Checksheet Part I (Parent Social Behaviors) SEQUS.AJC.Br I N F A N T S O C I A L BEHft At OK S \SI v-VAfdc' £•£ Sfjptf'L- yOCAL IZ.ATION '.\Z~r.L- _ \F /lC /f)L /r,'r- f's-fyT'- a '•' Crasrvstzs/gsoY ^ic/eaieAns q o n t a o t >’ '\x. y-v y\w u/T
BENAVIDIZ. TOTALS
Awart ; ______DATS: ______P. 5.X CHECKSHEET. PflKT XL
PflSE '■_____ 167
Reciprocal Interaction Patterns Checksheet Part II (Sequence and Infant Social Behaviors) APPENDIX G
FIRST PAGE OF SAMPLE PROTOCOL
RECIPROCAL INTERACTION PATTERNS CHECKSHEET
168 PARENT SOC/AL- BEHNV*6/ZS VoaALiZ ATtObJ
• * »» ' ✓ O' V o'
*✓ * o ' — o' y * O' V ✓ O' ■ \S V'
y o' o' O' O' ^ ' V V O *• ** O' s —
w V ' y o ' O' ' •
o' o' o' A w o ' “ V ■
* * o' o' O' O' ✓ y %s • • ' y V O' V - O' ✓ O' • V" ' - \- r * ' 1 V O' s V ix is 1 * s o' o' ✓ O' O' O' - ~ T o' V' O' O' O' O' i - O' — O' u o ' o'" - — — — — % — O'!' o ' O' O' !o - 1 /I / I / i 3 t) M » o \o 0 \ f 1 4 A, 2 i 0 / 3 0 / 0 0 0 p 0 >5 C o 0 0 U. i 0 $ 3 H / P
fCrtf.vr* Slw'~'‘ ' i ( TOC fit- / z/i-noN ZnsrvFTs/atty‘• ic y z a il h t s
*»»■■<« i jL-> r*—r f "•* X — 1 ! ! 1 1 V IX ‘“ 1 1 X V" CoHTcxr/tKznvtvzS: x j 1 X ■p X •X v» • j/zdut- a'fuL <• i IX IX X X — I ! &A- . *r’ ' I 1 X vX 'ix ■ * + X pbilj ph^ Mrit-lv ix I X ' 1/ X ✓ |x • vx 4 •«/ X X X vx .X r . X |x .X p C U U l t 2 /YUTltlUjl ■s - vx
vx IX X X - jx J X ■ dcattinvi \S — - X !- X X| MWOTSS : i ■ 8 - IX X X X — - VX — I \A 1 X v\ x X xi ! O'O I D\ 0 o li z 0 fi / C \ 0 t 6 0 0 s 0 3 c o / \ h 0 0 3- eoi/tVlDG. TGT4LS DW&-— ’£- M r ! : Reciprocal Interaction Patterns Checksheet Part II (Sequence and Infant Social Behaviors) APPENDIX H RECIPROCITY INDEX 171 172 DYAD RECIPROCITY INDEX PART I (QUANTITATIVE MEASURE) SOCIAL INTERACTION PATTERNS TURN-TAKING DIALOGUE % RECIPROCAL CO-ACTING DIALOGUE PARENT MONOLOGUE % NONRECIPROCAL INFANT MONOLOGUE TOTAL # ALL SOCIAL X SOCIAL X SECONDS INTERACTION PATTERNS ( INTERACTION PER SOCIAL MINUTES OF ( = ( ) PATTERNS = ( ) INTERACTION OBSERVATION PER MINUTE PATTERN 173 DYAD RECIPROCITY INDEX PART II (QUALITATIVE MEASURE) PARENT SOCIAL BEHAVIORS 9 INFANT SOCIAL BEHAVIORS 9 VOCALIZATION VOCALIZATION ACKNOWLEDGEMENT/EMPATHY i n t e r e s t /p l e a s u r e AFFECTION/PRAISE/ENCOURAGEMENT RESPONSE/IMITATION PLAYFUL NEED/DESIRE IMITATION PROTEST/DISTRESS ATTENTION-GETTING/ UNDETERMINED INSTRUCTIVE/DESCRIPTIVE NO VOCALIZATION PROHIBITION/REDIRECTION GESTURES/BODYMOVEMENTS CRITICISM APPROACH/AFFECTION/ EXTRANEOUS CONVERSATION PLAYFULNESS UNDETERMINED IMITATION NO VOCALIZATION SIGNALLING GESTURES/BODY MOVEMENTS ACTIVITY-CENTERED AFFECTION/COMFORT COMPLIANCE TO VERBAL ASSISTANCE REQUESTS PLAY/GAMES COMPLIANCE TO VERBAL IMITATION REQUESTS & DEMON. SIGNALLING COMPLIANCE TO P.P. OBJECT PREPARATION RESISTANCE/REFUSAL OBJECT PRESENTATION/EXCHANGE UNDETERMINED OBJECT DEMONSTRATION NO GESTURES/BODY MVMTS. PHYSICAL GUIDANCE/POSITIONING VISUAL CONTACT RESTRICTION/REDIRECTION GAZE INTRUSION/PUNISHMENT GLANCE WITHDRAWAL/REFUSAL LOOKS ELSEWHERE LEAVE/ENTER EYES CLOSED UNDETERMINED . UNDETERMINED NO GESTURES OR BODY MOVEMENT FACIAL EXPRESSION VISUAL CONTACT ATTENTIVE/SERIOUS GAZE AT INFANT PLEASED/PLAYFUL GLANCE AT INFANT NEUTRAL/DROWSY LOOKS ELSEWHERE DISTURBED UNDETERMINED UNDETERMINED HOLDING POSITION HELD CLOSE HELD AWAY SEPARATE - CLOSE SEPARATE - DISTANT TRANSITION FACIAL POSITION FACE-TO-FACE - CLOSE FACE-TO-FACE - DISTANT NOT FACE-TO-FACE FACIAL EXPRESSION PLEASED/PLAYFUL NEUTRAL CONCERNED/SYMPATHETIC DISTURBED ■ UNDETERMINED i APPENDIX I RECIPROCITY INDEX DATA FOR EACH DYAD HOME AND EARLY INTERVENTION PROGRAM 174 175 DYAD 1 q______ RECIPROCITY INDEX PART I (QUANTITATIVE MEASURE) SOCIAL INTERACTION PATTERNS TURN-TAKING DIALOGUE — 2 5 87 % RECIPROCAL CO-ACTING DIALOGUE 12 PARENT MONOLOGUE _ u NONRECIPROCAL INFANT MONOLOGUE TOTAL # ALL SOCIAL X SOCIAL X SECONDS INTERACTION PATTERNS ( 99 ) , _ ^ INTERACTION _ fC A s PER SOCIAL MINUTES OF (10 ) " K9,9) PATTERNS " INTERACTION OBSERVATION PER MINUTE PATTERN 176 DYAD; iff RECIPROCITY INDEX PART II (QUALITATIVE MEASURE) PARENT SOCIAL BEHAVIORS 0 INFANT SOCIAL BEHAVIORS 0 VOCALIZATION VOCALIZATION ACKNOWLEDGEMENT /EMPATHY 2 INTEREST/PLEASURE 18 AFFECTION/PRAISE/ENCOURAGEMENT RESPONSE/IMITATION 1 PLAYFUL NEED/DESIRE 0 IMITATION 7 PROTEST/DISTRESS 7 ATTENTION-GETTING/ UNDETERMINED o- INSTRUCTIVE/DESCRIPTIVE 0 NO VOCALIZATION 71. PROHIBITION/REDIRECTION ~ 0 “ GESTURES/BODYMOVEMENTS CRITICISM , 0 APPROACH/AFFECTION/ EXTRANEOUS CONVERSATION ~Tj~ PLAYFULNESS 20 UNDETERMINED 0 IMITATION 0 NO VOCALIZATION SIGNALLING -3f f — ' #3 GESTURES/BODY MOVEMENTS ACTIVITY-CENTERED 6 AFFECTION/COMFORT Z9 COMPLIANCE TO VERBAL ASSISTANCE r 1 REQUESTS 0 PLAY/GAMES ~ 6 ~ COMPLIANCE TO VERBAL IMITATION n ' REQUESTS & DEMON. 1 SIGNALLING COMPLIANCE TO P.P. 3 OBJECT PREPARATION 2 RESISTANCE/REFUSAL ft OBJECT PRESENTATION/EXCHANGE 12 UNDETERMINED 0 OBJECT DEMONSTRATION n NO GESTURES/BODY MVMTS. 0 PHYSICAL GUIDANCE/POSITIONING 0 VISUAL CONTACT RESTRICTION/REDIRECTION GAZE 78 INTRUSION/PUNISHMENT 0 GLANCE 0 WITHDRAWAL/REFUSAL Q LOOKS ELSEWHERE 1 1 LEAVE/ENTER Q EYES CLOSED it UNDETERMINED . y UNDETERMINED 0 NO GESTURES OR BODY MOVEMENT ] FACIAL EXPRESSION VISUAL CONTACT ATTENTIVE/SERIOUS 27 GAZE AT INFANT % PLEASED/PLAYFUL 2c GLANCE AT INFANT 2 NEUTRAL/DROWSY 0 LOOKS ELSEWHERE 7 DISTURBED 1 UNDETERMINED 0 UNDETERMINED HOLDING POSITION HELD CLOSE 61 HELD AWAY 0 SEPARATE - CLOSE 0 SEPARATE - DISTANT TRANSITION & FACIAL POSITION FACE-TO-FACE - CLOSE FACE-TO-FACE - DISTANT u NOT FACE-TO-FACE 3 FACIAL EXPRESSION PLEASED/PLAYFUL 53 NEUTRAL 0 ! CONCERNED/SYMPATHETIC 6 j DISTURBED o ■! UNDETERMINED Q.ai 177 DYAD 1C RECIPROCITY INDEX PART I (QUANTITATIVE MEASURE) SOCIAL INTERACTION PATTERNS # % TURN-TAKING DIALOGUE 58 \ 8^ % RECIPROCAL CO-ACTING DIALOGUE 1.3 17j_ PARENT MONOLOGUE -*3- 44- \ l 6 % NONRECIPROCAL INFANT MONOLOGUE 2 2 TOTAL # ALL SOCIAL X SOCIAL X SECONDS INTERACTION PATTERNS ( Q7 ) - /or*. INTERACTION _ ,, PER SOCIAL MINUTES OF ( l o ) PATTERNS ' INTERACTION OBSERVATION PER MINUTE PATTERN 178 DYAD: 1C RECIPROCITY INDEX PART II (QUALITATIVE MEASURE) PARENT SOCIAL BEHAVIORS 0 INFANT SOCIAL BEHAVIORS 0 VOCALIZATION VOCALIZATION ACKNOWLEDGEMENT /EMPATHY 5 INTEREST/1 PLEASURE AFFECTION/PRAISE/ENCOURAGEMENT 11 RESPONSE/IMITATION n PLAYFUL i/f NEED/DESIRE n IMITATION ? PROTEST/DISTRESS n ATTENTION-GETTING/ UNDETERMINED .1 INSTRUCTIVE/DESCRIPTIVE 8 NO VOCALIZATION IfQ PROHIBITION/REDIRECTION U GESTURES/BODYMOVEMENTS CRITICISM n APPROACH/AFFECTION/ EXTRANEOUS CONVERSATION • ? PLAYFULNESS ?? UNDETERMINED IMITATION n NO VOCALIZATION 5 Zi SIGNALLING A GESTURES/BODY MOVEMENTS ACTIVITY-CENTERED 11 AFFECTION/COMFORT 10 COMPLIANCE TO VERBAL ASSISTANCE REOUESTS 4 PLAY/GAMES COMPLIANCE TO VERBAL IMITATION 0 i REOUESTS & DEMON. 0 SIGNALLING 9 COMPLIANCE TO P.P. 14 OBJECT PREPARATION 0 RESISTANCE/REFUSAL 0 OBJECT PRESENTATION/EXCHANGE 9 UNDETERMINED 0 OBJECT DEMONSTRATION Q NO GESTURES/BODY MVMTS. Q PHYSICAL GUIDANCE/POSITIONING *8 VISUAL CONTACT RESTRICTION/REDIRECTION n GAZE INTRUSION/PUNISHMENT n GLANCE 1 WITHDRAWAL/REFUSAL n LOOKS ELSEWHERE 1 LEAVE/ENTER o EYES CLOSED n UNDETERMINED . n UNDETERMINED NO GESTURES OR BODY MOVEMENT . n.. FACIAL EXPRESSION VISUAL CONTACT ATTENTIVE/SERIOUS 1 GAZE AT INFANT PLEASED/PLAYFUL 4*5 GLANCE AT INFANT n NEUTRAL/DROWSY n LOOKS ELSEWHERE ? DISTURBED 0 UNDETERMINED n UNDETERMINED y HOLDING POSITION HELD CLOSE T HELD AWAY ? SEPARATE - CLOSE SEPARATE - DISTANT 1? TRANSITION n FACIAL POSITION FACE-TO-FACE - CLOSE 50 FACE-TO-FACE - DISTANT i n NOT FACE-TO-FACE z FACIAL EXPRESSION PLEASED/PLAYFUL £\£\ NEUTRAL 1 CONCERNED/SYMPATHETIC n DISTURBED UNDETERMINED 9 179 DYAD 2H RECIPROCITY INDEX PART I (QUANTITATIVE MEASURE) SOCIAL INTERACTION PATTERNS TURN-TAKING DIALOGUE 8 % % RECIPROCAL CO-ACTING DIALOGUE PARENT MONOLOGUE NONRECIPROCAL INFANT MONOLOGUE TOTAL # ALL SOCIAL X SOCIAL X SECONDS INTERACTION PATTERNS (16? ) n c. INTERACTION = ~ . PER SOCIAL MINUTES OF ( 10) PATTERNS INTERACTION OBSERVATION PER MINUTE PATTERN 180 DYAD: 2H RECIPROCITY INDEX PART II (QUALITATIVE MEASURE) PARENT SOCIAL BEHAVIORS 9 INFANT SOCIAL BEHAVIORS 9 VOCALIZATION VOCALIZATION ACKNOWLEDGEMENT /EMPATHY 1 *7 i n t e r e s t Vp l e a s u r e 7 AFFECTION/PRAISE/ENCOURAGEMENT Q RESPONSE/IMITATION 0 PLAYFUL 2 NEED/DESIRE n IMITATION n PROTEST/DISTRESS 2 ATTENTION-GETTING/ UNDETERMINED 0 INSTRUCTIVE/DESCRIPTIVE 21 NO VOCALIZATION 71 PROHIBITION/REDIRECTION 2 GESTURES/BODYKOVEMENTS CRITICISM n APPROACH/AFFECTION/ EXTRANEOUS CONVERSATION ■14 PLAYFULNESS UNDETERMINED 0 IMITATION NO VOCALIZATION 12 SIGNALLING 2tJ GESTURES/BODY MOVEMENTS ACTIVITY-CENTERED 21 AFFECTION/COMFORT . 7 COMPLIANCE TO VERBAL ASSISTANCE 12 REQUESTS n PLAY/GAMES COMPLIANCE TO VERBAL IMITATION J 1 REQUESTS & DEMON. 1 SIGNALLING 1Q COMPLIANCE TO P.P. 0 OBJECT PREPARATION , 5 RESISTANCE/REFUSAL n OBJECT PRESENTATION/EXCHANGE 43 UNDETERMINED 0 OBJECT DEMONSTRATION 9 NO GESTURES/BODY MVMTS. 2 PHYSICAL GUIDANCE/POSITIONING *? VISUAL CONTACT RESTRICTION/REDIRECTION 1 GAZE 71 INTRUSION/PUNISHMENT n GLANCE . 0 WITHDRAWAL/REFUSAL 7. LOOKS ELSEWHERE Q LEAVE/ENTER 2 EYES CLOSED 0 UNDETERMINED . 0 UNDETERMINED NO GESTURES OR BODY MOVEMENT 2 n FACIAL EXPRESSION VISUAL CONTACT ATTENTIVE/SERIOUS 40 GAZE AT INFANT 104 PLEASED/PLAYFUL 2Q GLANCE AT INFANT NEUTRAL/DROWSY 2 LOOKS ELSEWHERE DISTURBED 0 UNDETERMINED 2 UNDETERMINED n HOLDING POSITION HELD CLOSE Q HELD AWAY n SEPARATE - CLOSE 104 SEPARATE - DISTANT U TRANSITION 2 FACIAL POSITION FACE-TO-FACE - CLOSE 1 04 FACE-TO-FACE - DISTANT 0 NOT FACE-TO-FACE .... 2 FACIAL EXPRESSION PLEASED/PLAYFUL 1 00 NEUTRAL 5 : CONCERNED/SYMPATHETIC o DISTURBED O' UNDETERMINED L 181 DYAD 2c______ RECIPROCITY INDEX PART I (QUANTITATIVE MEASURE) SOCIAL INTERACTION PATTERNS TURN-TAKING DIALOGUE 7 7 % RECIPROCAL CO-ACTING DIALOGUE PARENT MONOLOGUE _ L 2 2£_% NONRECIPROCAL INFANT MONOLOGUE TOTAL # ALL SOCIAL X SOCIAL X SECONDS INTERACTION PATTERNS (l JtiQ ) ^ INTERACTION _ PER SOCIAL MINUTES OF ( 10 ) PATTERNS ^ ' INTERACTION OBSERVATION PER MINUTE PATTERN RECIPROCITY INDEX PART II (QUALITATIVE MEASURE) PARENT SOCIAL BEHAVIORS 0 INFANT SOCIAL BEHAVIORS 0 VOCALIZATION VOCALIZATION c ACKNOWLEDGEMENT/EMPATHY i n t e r e s t /p l e a s u r e 0 AFFECTION/PRAISE/ENCOURAGEMENT a RESPONSE/IMITATION n PLAYFUL 5 NEED/DESIRE n IMITATION n PROTEST/DISTRESS 1 ATTENTION-GETTING/ UNDETERMINED n INSTRUCTIVE/DESCRIPTIVE 32 NO VOCALIZATION 70 PROHIBITION/REDIRECTION GESTURES/BODYMOVEMENTS CRITICISM 3 APPROACH/AFFECTION/ EXTRANEOUS CONVERSATION • < PLAYFULNESS UNDETERMINED 0 IMITATION h NO VOCALIZATION 3 0 SIGNALLING 1 GESTURES/BODY MOVEMENTS ACTIVITY-CENTERED AFFECTION/COMFORT 7 COMPLIANCE TO VERBAL ASSISTANCE REQUESTS if PLAY/GAMES 9 COMPLIANCE TO VERBAL IMITATION i ■ REQUESTS & DEMON. 3 SIGNALLING 17 COMPLIANCE TO P.P. 4 OBJECT PREPARATION *5 RESISTANCE/REFUSAL n OBJECT PRESENTATION/EXCHANGE 36 UNDETERMINED n OBJECT DEMONSTRATION 1n NO GESTURES/BODY MVMTS. _Q„ PHYSICAL GUIDANCE/POSITIONING h VISUAL CONTACT RESTRICTION/REDIRECTION 1 GAZE 68 INTRUSION/PUNISHMENT n GLANCE in ! WITHDRAWAL/REFUSAL n LOOKS ELSEWHERE LEAVE/ENTER n EYES CLOSED n UNDETERMINED - n UNDETERMINED NO GESTURES OR BODY MOVEMENT 0 3 FACIAL EXPRESSION VISUAL CONTACT ATTENTIVE/SERIOUS 3?. GAZE AT INFANT 89 PLEASED/PLAYFUL 39 GLANCE AT INFANT n NEUTRAL/DROWSY n LOOKS ELSEWHERE 7 DISTURBED UNDETERMINED . 0 1 . UNDETERMINED n HOLDING POSITION HELD CLOSE 97 HELD AWAY 0 SEPARATE - CLOSE n SEPARATE - DISTANT n TRANSITION n FACIAL POSITION FACE-TO-FACE - CLOSE 86 FACE-TO-FACE - DISTANT 0 NOT FACE-TO-FACE 11- FACIAL EXPRESSION PLEASED/PLAYFUL 73 NEUTRAL Q i CONCERNED/SYMPATHETIC 3 I DISTURBED n •' UNDETERMINED -3-5— 1 183 DYAD___ RECIPROCITY INDEX PART I (QUANTITATIVE MEASURE) SOCIAL INTERACTION PATTERNS TURN-TAKING DIALOGUE 117 -2Z - % RECIPROCAL CO-ACTING DIALOGUE PARENT MONOLOGUE NONRECIPROCAL INFANT MONOLOGUE TOTAL # ALL SOCIAL X SOCIAL X SECONDS INTERACTION PATTERNS (1.^2) _ INTERACTION _ ^ PER SOCIAL MINUTES OF (10) 5 PATTERNS INTERACTION OBSERVATION PER MINUTE PATTERN DYAD:__ 2H. RECIPROCITY INDEX PART II (QUALITATIVE MEASURE) PARENT SOCIAL BEHAVIORS 9 INFANT SOCIAL BEHAVIORS 9 VOCALIZATION VOCALIZATION ACKNOWLEDGEMENT/EMPATHY i n t e r e s t p l e a s u r e 3-7 / ? AFFECTION/PRAISE/ENCOURAGEMENT RESPONSE/IMITATION n PLAYFUL 3 NEED/DESIRE 7 IMITATION 3 PROTEST/DISTRESS 17 ATTENTION-GETTING/ UNDETERMINED INSTRUCTIVE/DESCRIPTIVE 40 NO VOCALIZATION 1(.Q PROHIBITION/REDIRECTION . ? GESTURES/BODYMOVEMENTS CRITICISM ? APPROACH/AFFECTION/ EXTRANEOUS CONVERSATION • r PLAYFULNESS 3 UNDETERMINED IMITATION n NO VOCALIZATION t B- SIGNALLING ■32 GESTURES/BODY MOVEMENTS ACTIVITY-CENTERED 31 AFFECTION/COMFORT 7 COMPLIANCE TO VERBAL ASSISTANCE REQUESTS R PLAY/GAMES 3 COMPLIANCE TO VERBAL IMITATION n • REQUESTS & DEMON. 1. SIGNALLING ? COMPLIANCE TO P.P. R OBJECT PREPARATION *3 RESISTANCE/REFUSAL d OBJECT PRESENTATION/EXCHANGE A? UNDETERMINED n OBJECT DEMONSTRATION 0 NO GESTURES/BODY MVMTS. n PHYSICAL GUIDANCE/POSITIONING 6 VISUAL CONTACT RESTRICTION/REDIRECTION 8 GAZE 6 q INTRUSION/PUNISHMENT n GLANCE n ! WITHDRAWAL/REFUSAL n LOOKS ELSEWHERE R LEAVE/ENTER n EYES CLOSED n UNDETERMINED . 0 UNDETERMINED n NO GESTURES OR BODY MOVEMENT 1, FACIAL EXPRESSION VISUAL CONTACT ATTENTIVE/SERIOUS Llo GAZE AT INFANT 9 ? PLEASED/PLAYFUL 27 GLANCE AT INFANT QQ NEUTRAL/DROWSY n LOOKS ELSEWHERE n DISTURBED A UNDETERMINED - 4- UNDETERMINED ? HOLDING POSITION HELD CLOSE 17 HELD AWAY 1 SEPARATE - CLOSE 81 SEPARATE - DISTANT n TRANSITION n FACIAL POSITION FACE-TO-FACE - CLOSE 9 1? FACE-TO-FACE - DISTANT 0 NOT FACE-TO-FACE FACIAL EXPRESSION PLEASED/PLAYFUL 92. NEUTRAL 3 ; CONCERNED/SYMPATHETIC 0 DISTURBED ft'1 UNDETERMINED 4 , 185 DYAD 3C RECIPROCITY INDEX PART I (QUANTITATIVE MEASURE) SOCIAL INTERACTION PATTERNS TURN-TAKING DIALOGUE ££_% RECIPROCAL CO-ACTING DIALOGUE PARENT MONOLOGUE - 1 3 18% NONRECIPROCAL INFANT MONOLOGUE TOTAL # ALL SOCIAL X SOCIAL X SECONDS [NTERACTION PATTERNS (l.&i ) _ , , INTERACTION = , * PER SOCIAI MINUTES OF ( 1.0 ) PATTERNS ^.7 INTERACTIC OBSERVATION PER MINUTE PATTERN 186 DYAD :__3£ RECIPROCITY INDEX PART II (QUALITATIVE MEASURE) PARENT SOCIAL BEHAVIORS a INFANT SOCIAL BEHAVIORS 0 VOCALIZATION VOCALIZATION ACKNOWLEDGEMENT /EMPATHY INTEREST/1 PLEASURE 0 AFFECTION/PRAISE/ENCOURAGEMENT RESPONSE/IMITATION 0 PLAYFUL NEED/DESIRE n IMITATION o PROTEST/DISTRESS 0 ATTENTION-GETTING/ UNDETERMINED INSTRUCTIVE/DESCRIPTIVE 25 NO VOCALIZATION R1 PROHIBITION/REDIRECTION 6- GESTURES/BODYMQVEMENTS CRITICISM n APPROACH/AFFECTION/ EXTRANEOUS CONVERSATION • '✓> PLAYFULNESS Ll UNDETERMINED v;?. IMITATION 1 5 NO VOCALIZATION _ SIGNALLING GESTURES/BODY MOVEMENTS ACTIVITY-CENTERED 52 AFFECTION/COMFORT 4 COMPLIANCE TO VERBAL ASSISTANCE ? REQUESTS R PLAY/GAMES 1 COMPLIANCE TO VERBAL IMITATION 1 ; REQUESTS & DEMON. 0 SIGNALLING 1 COMPLIANCE TO P.P. Q OBJECT PREPARATION I. RESISTANCE/REFUSAL 0 OBJECT PRESENTATION/EXCHANGE 26 UNDETERMINED 0 OBJECT DEMONSTRATION NO GESTURES/BODY MVMTS. n PHYSICAL GUIDANCE/POSITIONING 29 VISUAL CONTACT RESTRICTION/REDIRECTION 1/1. GAZE 79 INTRUSION/PUNISHMENT o GLANCE n WITHDRAWAL/REFUSAL 0 LOOKS ELSEWHERE LEAVE/ENTER n EYES CLOSED 0 UNDETERMINED . Q UNDETERMINED NO GESTURES OR BODY MOVEMENT 1 - 3- FACIAL EXPRESSION VISUAL CONTACT 56ATTENTIVE/SERIOUS GAZE AT INFANT 100 PLEASED/PLAYFUL 26 GLANCE AT INFANT 105 NEUTRAL/DROWSY 0 LOOKS ELSEWHERE o DISTURBED 0 UNDETERMINED UNDETERMINED V HOLDING POSITION HELD CLOSE 56 HELD AWAY 0 SEPARATE - CLOSE i:.o SEPARATE - DISTANT TRANSITION 0 FACIAL POSITION FACE-TO-FACE - CLOSE 5^ FACE-TO-FACE - DISTANT n NOT FACE-TO-FACE FACIAL EXPRESSION PLEASED/PLAYFUL NEUTRAL 1 ) : CONCERNED/SYMPATHETIC ■ I 1 DISTURBED 1 UNDETERMINED 187 DYAD__4H______ RECIPROCITY INDEX PART I (QUANTITATIVE MEASURE) SOCIAL INTERACTION PATTERNS TURN-TAKING DIALOGUE 85 % RECIPROCAL CO-ACTING DIALOGUE PARENT MONOLOGUE 15% NONRECIPROCAL INFANT MONOLOGUE TOTAL # ALL SOCIAL X SOCIAL X SECONDS INTERACTION PATTERNS ( 117) _ INTERACTION PER SOCIAL MINUTES OF ( 10) = (LI ?) PATTERNS = ( 5 .1) INTERACTION OBSERVATION PER MINUTE PATTERN 188 DYAD: 4H RECIPROCITY INDEX PART II (QUALITATIVE MEASURE) PARENT SOCIAL BEHAVIORS 0 INFANT SOCIAL BEHAVIORS VOCALIZATION VOCALIZATION ACKNOWLEDGEMENT /EMPATHY 9 i n t e r e s t /p l e a s u r e ? AFFECTION/PRAISE/ENCOURAGEMENT 19 RESPONSE/IMITATION o PLAYFUL 1 0 NEED/DESIRE n IMITATION n PROTEST/DISTRESS n ATTENTION-GETTING/ UNDETERMINED ,n INSTRUCTIVE/DESCRIPTIVE ?n NO VOCALIZATION 52 PROHIBITION/REDIRECTION ? GESTURES/BODYMOVEMENTS CRITICISM APPROACH/AFFECTION/ EXTRANEOUS CONVERSATION ■ 5 PLAYFULNESS UNDETERMINED IMITATION NO VOCALIZATION 3 SIGNALLING 12 GESTURES/BODY MOVEMENTS ACTIVITY-CENTERED 22 AFFECTION/COMFORT 17 COMPLIANCE TO VERBAL ASSISTANCE REQUESTS 3 PLAY/GAMES % COMPLIANCE TO VERBAL IMITATION ?■ REQUESTS & DEMON. 0 SIGNALLING n COMPLIANCE TO P.P. 3 OBJECT PREPARATION n RESISTANCE/REFUSAL n OBJECT PRESENTATION/EXCHANGE UNDETERMINED n OBJECT DEMONSTRATION ,? NO GESTURES/BODY MVMTS. n PHYSICAL GUIDANCE/POSITIONING 1 9 VISUAL CONTACT RESTRICTION/REDIRECTION ? GAZE ^3 INTRUSION/PUNISHMENT n GLANCE A WITHDRAWAL/REFUSAL o LOOKS ELSEWHERE 10 LEAVE/ENTER n EYES CLOSED n UNDETERMINED . n UNDETERMINED 0 NO GESTURES OR BODY MOVEMENT 13 FACIAL EXPRESSION VISUAL CONTACT ATTENTIVE/SERIOUS 11 GAZE AT INFANT 70 PLEASED/PLAYFUL GLANCE AT INFANT 71 NEUTRAL/DROWSY 3 LOOKS ELSEWHERE 'l DISTURBED 0 UNDETERMINED 0 UNDETERMINED 0 HOLDING POSITION HELD CLOSE HELD AWAY 0 SEPARATE - CLOSE 27 SEPARATE - DISTANT n TRANSITION 0 FACIAL POSITION FACE-TO-FACE - CLOSE 7 FACE-TO-FACE - DISTANT ,0 NOT FACE-TO-FACE FACIAL EXPRESSION PLEASED/PLAYFUL ?n NEUTRAL 1 CONCERNED/SYMPATHETIC n DISTURBED , 0 .. UNDETERMINED 189 DYAD ______ RECIPROCITY INDEX PART I (QUANTITATIVE MEASURE) SOCIAL INTERACTION PATTERNS TURN-TAKING DIALOGUE RECIPROCAL CO-ACTING DIALOGUE _ a PARENT MONOLOGUE Jj1 - 1 3 14% NONRECIPROCAL INFANT MONOLOGUE TOTAL # ALL SOCIAL X SOCIAL X SECONDS INTERACTION PATTERNS (122 ) _ , ^ INTERACTION _ , . PER SOCIAL MINUTES OF CIO) 2,2 PATTERNS “ '‘4.9' INTERACTION OBSERVATION PER MINUTE PATTERN 190 DYAD: RECIPROCITY INDEX PART II (QUALITATIVE MEASURE) PARENT SOCIAL BEHAVIORS if INFANT SOCIAL BEHAVIORS if VOCALIZATION VOCALIZATION ACKNOWLEDGEMENT/EMPATHY n i n t e r e s t /p l e a s u r e 7 AFFECTION/PRAISE/ENCOURAGEMENT - 2 L RESPONSE/IMITATION n PLAYFUL n NEED/DESIRE n IMITATION 1 PROTEST/DISTRESS 1 ATTENTION-GETTING/ UNDETERMINED n INSTRUCTIVE/DESCRIPTIVE NO VOCALIZATION 54 PROHIBITION/REDIRECTION GESTURES/BODYMOVEMENTS CRITICISM 9 APPROACH/AFFECTION/ EXTRANEOUS CONVERSATION ■ n PLAYFULNESS 1 UNDETERMINED n IMITATION 0 NO VOCALIZATION n SIGNALLING 7 GESTURES/BODY MOVEMENTS ACTIVITY-CENTERED 39 AFFECTION/COMFORT 10 COMPLIANCE TO VERBAL ASSISTANCE i REOUESTS 2 PLAY/GAMES 0 COMPLIANCE TO VERBAL IMITATION rv REOUESTS & DEMON. SIGNALLING 0 COMPLIANCE TO P.P. i f OBJECT PREPARATION 9 RESISTANCE/REFUSAL 2 OBJECT PRESENTATION/EXCHANGE 4 UNDETERMINED 0 OBJECT DEMONSTRATION NO GESTURES/BODY MVMTS. n I PHYSICAL GUIDANCE/POSITIONING VISUAL CONTACT RESTRICTION/REDIRECTION GAZE 56 INTRUSION/PUNISHMENT 0 GLANCE n WITHDRAWAL/REFUSAL n LOOKS ELSEWHERE z LEAVE/ENTER 0 EYES CLOSED 0 UNDETERMINED . P UNDETERMINED NO GESTURES OR BODY MOVEMENT n FACIAL EXPRESSION VISUAL CONTACT ATTENTIVE/SERIOUS 51 GAZE AT INFANT 71 PLEASED/PLAYFUL 5 GLANCE AT INFANT 7n NEUTRAL/DROWSY n LOOKS ELSEWHERE p DISTURBED 0 UNDETERMINED — & UNDETERMINED 2 HOLDING POSITION HELD CLOSE 27 HELD AWAY n SEPARATE - CLOSE 52 SEPARATE - DISTANT n TRANSITION 2 FACIAL POSITION 1FACE-TO-FACE - CLOSE 1FACE-TO-FACE FACE-TO-FACE - DISTANT Q NOT FACE-TO-FACE _Z L FACIAL EXPRESSION PLEASED/PLAYFUL 76 NEUTRAL m CONCERNED/SYMPATHETIC Di DISTURBED O' UNDETERMINED 191 DYAD 52______ RECIPROCITY INDEX PART I (QUANTITATIVE MEASURE) SOCIAL INTERACTION PATTERNS TURN-TAKING DIALOGUE 1 00 88 % RECIPROCAL CO-ACTING DIALOGUE PARENT MONOLOGUE NONRECIPROCAL INFANT MONOLOGUE TOTAL # ALL SOCIAL X SOCIAL X SECONDS INTERACTION PATTERNS (1 oh. ) _ ~ INTERACTION _ , PER SOCIAL MINUTES OF <10> PATTERNS " V INTERACTION OBSERVATION PER MINUTE PATTERN 192 DYAD:__ RECIPROCITY INDEX PART II (QUALITATIVE MEASURE) PARENT SOCIAL BEHAVIORS 0 INFANT SOCIAL BEHAVIORS tf VOCALIZATION VOCALIZATION O ACKNOWLEDGEMENT/EMPATHY i n t e r e s t /p l e a s u r e AFFECTION/PRAISE/ENCOURAGEMENT 6 RESPONSE/IMITATION Q PLAYFUL £L NEED/DESIRE 2 IMITATION 4 PROTEST/DISTRESS 1 ATTENTION-GETTING/ UNDETERMINED n INSTRUCTIVE/DESCRIPTIVE 7:9 NO VOCALIZATION ■3— PROHIBITION/REDIRECTION 1 GESTURES/BODYMOVEMENTS CRITICISM 0 APPROACH/AFFECTION/ EXTRANEOUS CONVERSATION . 2 PLAYFULNESS ? UNDETERMINED IMITATION NO VOCALIZATION 1 7 SIGNALLING Q GESTURES/BODY MOVEMENTS ACTIVITY-CENTERED 22 AFFECTION/COMFORT 2 COMPLIANCE TO VERBAL ASSISTANCE 6 REOUESTS 2 PLAY/GAMES Q COMPLIANCE TO VERBAL IMITATION 1 • REOUESTS & DEMON. 7 SIGNALLING 5 COMPLIANCE TO P.P. 2 OBJECT PREPARATION i RESISTANCE/REFUSAL 2 OBJECT PRESENTATION/EXCHANGE ?,n UNDETERMINED n OBJECT DEMONSTRATION 11 NO GESTURES/BODY MVMTS. PHYSICAL GUIDANCE/POSITIONING VISUAL CONTACT 2 RESTRICTION/REDIRECTION 1 GAZE ‘5‘J INTRUSION/PUNISHMENT n GLANCE . n WITHDRAWAL/REFUSAL Q LOOKS ELSEWHERE Q LEAVE/ENTER 0 EYES CLOSED n UNDETERMINED . 0 UNDETERMINED 1 NO GESTURES OR BODY MOVEMENT _ z a FACIAL EXPRESSION VISUAL CONTACT ATTENTIVE/SERIOUS GAZE AT INFANT 7 0 PLEASED/PLAYFUL & GLANCE AT INFANT n NEUTRAL/DROWSY n LOOKS ELSEWHERE DISTURBED 1 UNDETERMINED — a UNDETERMINED HOLDING POSITION HELD CLOSE n HELD AWAY 1 SEPARATE - CLOSE ^7 SEPARATE - DISTANT 5 TRANSITION p FACIAL POSITION FACE-TO-FACE - CLOSE 64 FACE-TO-FACE - DISTANT k NOT FACE-TO-FACE FACIAL EXPRESSION PLEASED/PLAYFUL 65 NEUTRAL 1 CONCERNED/SYMPATHETIC 0 DISTURBED . UNDETERMINED 16 193 DYAD $£______ RECIPROCITY INDEX PART I (QUANTITATIVE MEASURE) SOCIAL INTERACTION PATTERNS TURN-TAKING DIALOGUE 8 ZfcJS RECIPROCAL CO-ACTING DIALOGUE PARENT MONOLOGUE JiL NONRECIPROCAL INFANT MONOLOGUE TOTAL # ALL SOCIAL X SOCIAL X SECONDS INTERACTION PATTERNS (l 08 ) INTERACTION . v PER SOCIAL MINUTES OF (10 ) PATTERNS '•5.6'' INTERACTION OBSERVATION PER MINUTE PATTERN 194 DYAD:__ 5C RECIPROCITY INDEX PART II (QUALITATIVE MEASURE) PARENT SOCIAL BEHAVIORS a INFANT SOCIAL BEHAVIORS VOCALIZATION VOCALIZATION ACKNOWLEDGEMENT/EMPATHY 5 i n t e r e s t /p l e a s u r e 3 AFFECTION/PRAISE/ENCOURAGEMENT 6 RESPONSE/IMITATION n PLAYFUL n NEED/DESIRE n IMITATION _? PROTEST/DISTRESS 1 ATTENTION-GETTING/ UNDETERMINED 0 INSTRUCTIVE/DESCRIPTIVE NO VOCALIZATION 53 PROHIBITION /REDIRECTION 0 GESTURES/BODYMOVEMENTS CRITICISM n APPROACH/AFFECTION/ EXTRANEOUS CONVERSATION • n PLAYFULNESS 2 UNDETERMINED s IMITATION K NO VOCALIZATION SIGNALLING GESTURES/BODY MOVEMENTS ACTIVITY-CENTERED 30 AFFECTION/COMFORT 5 COMPLIANCE TO VERBAL ASSISTANCE 9 REOUESTS ij. PLAY/GAMES f COMPLIANCE TO VERBAL IMITATION REOUESTS & DEMON. 5 SIGNALLING 7. COMPLIANCE TO P.P. n OBJECT PREPARATION 7 RESISTANCE/REFUSAL 3 OBJECT PRESENTATION/EXCHANGE J_Q UNDETERMINED f OBJECT DEMONSTRATION 0 NO GESTURES/BODY MVMTS. 1 PHYSICAL GUIDANCE/POSITIONING VISUAL CONTACT RESTRICTION/REDIRECTION 6 GAZE k 6 INTRUSION/PUNISHMENT 0 GLANCE In WITHDRAWAL/REFUSAL g LOOKS ELSEWHERE 0 LEAVE/ENTER n EYES CLOSED 1 UNDETERMINED . 1 UNDETERMINED 1 NO GESTURES OR BODY MOVEMENT 1 0 FACIAL EXPRESSION VISUAL CONTACT ATTENTIVE/SERIOUS ^5 GAZE AT INFANT 59 PLEASED/PLAYFUL 1 n GLANCE AT INFANT n NEUTRAL/DROWSY 0 LOOKS ELSEWHERE DISTURBED T UNDETERMINED n UNDETERMINED 1 HOLDING POSITION HELD CLOSE 21 HELD AWAY n SEPARATE - CLOSE 39 SEPARATE - DISTANT TRANSITION 1 FACIAL POSITION FACE-TO-FACE - CLOSE 12 FACE-TO-FACE - DISTANT 1 NOT FACE-TO-FACE ifcR FACIAL EXPRESSION PLEASED/PLAYFUL 55 NEUTRAL 1 CONCERNED/SYMPATHETIC r \ DISTURBED 8 UNDETERMINED 5 ,j DYAD fa RECIPROCITY INDEX PART I (QUANTITATIVE MEASURE) SOCIAL INTERACTION PATTERNS TURN-TAKING DIALOGUE % RECIPROCAL CO-ACTING DIALOGUE 20 PARENT MONOLOGUE _12 12 % NONRECIPROCAL INFANT MONOLOGUE _Q_ TOTAL # ALL SOCIAL X SOCIAL X SECONDS INTERACTION PATTERNS (i?n ) , . INTERACTION , s PER SOCIAL MINUTES OF ( 10 ^ PATTERNS ^ . 7 ' INTERACTION OBSERVATION PER MINUTE PATTERN 196 DYAD: fa RECIPROCITY INDEX PART II (QUALITATIVE MEASURE) PARENT SOCIAL BEHAVIORS 0 INFANT SOCIAL BEHAVIORS 0 VOCALIZATION VOCALIZATION ACKNOWLEDGEMENT /EMPATHY 19 INTEREST/1 PLEASURE n AFFECTION/PRAISE/ENCOURAGEMENT 10 RESPONSE/IMITATION n PLAYFUL Q NEED/DESIRE -1- IMITATION R PROTEST/DISTRESS 3 ATTENTION-GETTING/ UNDETERMINED n INSTRUCTIVE/DESCRIPTIVE 20 NO VOCALIZATION SO. PROHIBITION /REDIRECTION n GESTURES/BODYMOVEMENTS CRITICISM 0 APPROACH/AFFECTION/ EXTRANEOUS CONVERSATION • 0 PLAYFULNESS 16 UNDETERMINED ,1 IMITATION 0 NO VOCALIZATION 12 SIGNALLING 9 GESTURES/BODY MOVEMENTS ACTIVITY-CENTERED 9.0 AFFECTION/COMFORT 13 COMPLIANCE TO VERBAL ASSISTANCE /|, REQUESTS PLAY/GAMES 13 COMPLIANCE TO VERBAL 0 IMITATION 3 ! REQUESTS & DEMON. SIGNALLING COMPLIANCE TO P.P. it- OBJECT PREPARATION RESISTANCE/REFUSAL 3 OBJECT PRESENTATION/EXCHANGE 9 UNDETERMINED n OBJECT DEMONSTRATION 13 NO GESTURES/BODY MVMTS. 1 PHYSICAL GUIDANCE/POSITIONING Q VISUAL CONTACT RESTRICTION/REDIRECTION 3 GAZE 69 INTRUSION/PUNISHMENT n GLANCE ... 1 WITHDRAWAL/REFUSAL 0 LOOKS ELSEWHERE 9 LEAVE/ENTER n EYES CLOSED n UNDETERMINED . UNDETERMINED NO GESTURES OR. BODY MOVEMENT . 1 - 3- FACIAL EXPRESSION VISUAL CONTACT ATTENTIVE/SERIOUS it-6 GAZE AT INFANT 35 PLEASED/PLAYFUL . 17 GLANCE AT INFANT 0 NEUTRAL/DROWSY n LOOKS ELSEWHERE 2 DISTURBED 3 UNDETERMINED n UNDETERMINED HOLDING POSITION HELD CLOSE 9 HELD AWAY 3 SEPARATE - CLOSE 7$ SEPARATE - DISTANT 0 TRANSITION 1 FACIAL POSITION FACE-TO-FACE - CLOSE 25 FACE-TO-FACE - DISTANT n NOT FACE-TO-FACE ,2. FACIAL EXPRESSION PLEASED/PLAYFUL 25 NEUTRAL 3 CONCERNED/SYMPATHETIC 1 DISTURBED n • UNDETERMINED 197 DYAD 6c RECIPROCITY INDEX PART I (QUANTITATIVE MEASURE) SOCIAL INTERACTION PATTERNS TURN-TAKING DIALOGUE 1 01 flfl % RECIPROCAL CO-ACTING DIALOGUE PARENT MONOLOGUE — 14 12 % NONRECIPROCAL INFANT MONOLOGUE TOTAL # ALL SOCIAL X SOCIAL X SECONDS INTERACTION PATTERNS <3.2 S ) _ _ x INTERACTION _ tu ON PER SOCIAL MINUTES OF ( T o T "" *5 PATTERNS " INTERACTION OBSERVATION PER MINUTE PATTERN 198 DYAD:___ fci RECIPROCITY INDEX PART II (QUALITATIVE MEASURE) PARENT SOCIAL BEHAVIORS 0 INFANT SOCIAL BEHAVIORS a VOCALIZATION VOCALIZATION ACKNOWLEDGEMENT/EMPATHY A INTEREST/1 PLEASURE 0 AFFECTION/PRAISE/ENCOURAGEMENT 11 RESPONSE/IMITATION n PLAYFUL 7 NEED/DESIRE 0 IMITATION n PROTEST/DISTRESS Q ATTENTION-GETTING/ UNDETERMINED .Q INSTRUCTIVE/DESCRIPTIVE 1*f- NO VOCALIZATION 51? PROHIBITION/REDIRECTION 11 GESTURES/BODYKOVEMENTS CRITICISM Q APPROACH/AFFECTION/ EXTRANEOUS CONVERSATION • n PLAYFULNESS 6 UNDETERMINED IMITATION 9 NO VOCALIZATION £1 SIGNALLING 1 GESTURES/BODY MOVEMENTS ACTIVITY-CENTERED ?Q 8AFFECTION/COMFORT COMPLIANCE TO VERBAL ASSISTANCE 7 REQUESTS 1 0 PLAY/GAMES n COMPLIANCE TO VERBAL IMITATION > ‘ REQUESTS & DEMON. 1 SIGNALLING 11 COMPLIANCE TO P.P. *; OBJECT PREPARATION 3 RESISTANCE/REFUSAL Q OBJECT PRESENTATION/EXCHANGE 9 UNDETERMINED 0 OBJECT DEMONSTRATION L NO GESTURES/BODY MOTHS. n PHYSICAL GUIDANCE/POSITIONING 1 Q VISUAL CONTACT RESTRICTION/REDIRECTION 1 n GAZE 36 INTRUSION/PUNISHMENT n GLANCE n ! WITHDRAWAL/REFUSAL 0 LOOKS ELSEWHERE 2 7 LEAVE/ENTER Q EYES CLOSED n UNDETERMINED . 0 UNDETERMINED 0 NO GESTURES OR BODY MOVEMENT V FACIAL EXPRESSION VISUAL CONTACT ATTENTIVE/SERIOUS Li-s GAZE AT INFANT 71 PLEASED/PLAYFUL GLANCE AT INFANT n NEUTRAL/DROWSY 0 LOOKS ELSEWHERE 1 DISTURBED n UNDETERMINED —a— UNDETERMINED 17 HOLDING POSITION HELD CLOSE HELD AWAY Q SEPARATE - CLOSE 55 SEPARATE - DISTANT 3 TRANSITION n FACIAL POSITION FACE-TO-FACE - CLOSE V FACE-TO-FACE - DISTANT 3 NOT FACE-TO-FACE art... FACIAL EXPRESSION 11PLEASED/PLAYFUL NEUTRAL 58 CONCERNED/SYMPATHETIC '0 DISTURBED n i UNDETERMINED L-3— • 199 DYAD 7H RECIPROCITY INDEX PART I (QUANTITATIVE MEASURE) SOCIAL INTERACTION PATTERNS TURN-TAKING DIALOGUE JL£_ 83 % RECIPROCAL CO-ACTING DIALOGUE PARENT MONOLOGUE __ it 17 % NONRECIPROCAL INFANT MONOLOGUE TOTAL # ALL SOCIAL X SOCIAL X SECONDS INTERACTION PATTERNS ( g* INTERACTION _ -g- . PER SOCIAL MINUTES OF (10)” PATTERNS INTERACTION OBSERVATION PER MINUTE PATTERN 200 DYAD: 7H RECIPROCITY INDEX PART II (QUALITATIVE MEASURE) PARENT SOCIAL BEHAVIORS if INFANT SOCIAL BEHAVIORS it VOCALIZATION VOCALIZATION ACKNOWLEDGEMENT /EMPATHY 1 i n t e r e s t /p l e a s u r e 1 AFFECTION/PRAISE/ENCOURAGEMENT I RESPONSE/IMITATION U PLAYFUL 1 NEED/DESIRE 5 IMITATION n PROTEST/DISTRESS 7 ATTENTION-GETTING/ UNDETERMINED INSTRUCTIVE/DESCRIPTIVE i NO VOCALIZATION 14 PROHIBITION /REDIRECTION 0 GESTURES/BODYMOVEMENTS CRITICISM 0 APPROACH/AFFECTION/ EXTRANEOUS CONVERSATION .12 PLAYFULNESS 10 UNDETERMINED 0 IMITATION 0 NO VOCALIZATION &_ SIGNALLING 1 GESTURES/BODY MOVEMENTS ACTIVITY-CENTERED 9 AFFECTION/COMFORT I,,1? COMPLIANCE TO VERBAL ASSISTANCE 1 REQUESTS 0 PLAY/GAMES 4 COMPLIANCE TO VERBAL IMITATION Q ' REQUESTS S. DEMON. 0 SIGNALLING 1 COMPLIANCE TO P.P. 0 OBJECT PREPARATION 0 RESISTANCE/REFUSAL 0 OBJECT PRESENTATION/EXCHANGE 0 UNDETERMINED 2 OBJECT DEMONSTRATION 0 NO GESTURES/BODY MVMTS. 0 PHYSICAL GUIDANCE/POSITIONING 1 VISUAL CONTACT RESTRICTION/REDIRECTION 0 GAZE 10 INTRUSION/PUNISHMENT 0 GLANCE 1 WITHDRAWAL/REFUSAL 0 LOOKS ELSEWHERE 11 LEAVE/ENTER Q EYES CLOSED 0 UNDETERMINED . Q UNDETERMINED 0 NO GESTURES OR BODY MOVEMENT 8 FACIAL EXPRESSION VISUAL CONTACT ATTENTIVE/SERIOUS 19 GAZE AT INFANT 4 PLEASED/PLAYFUL 1 GLANCE AT INFANT 9 NEUTRAL/DROWSY 1 LOOKS ELSEWHERE 17 DISTURBED 1 UNDETERMINED Q UNDETERMINED 0 HOLDING POSITION HELD CLOSE 6 HELD AWAY ?4 SEPARATE - CLOSE n SEPARATE - DISTANT 0 TRANSITION n FACIAL POSITION FACE-TO-FACE - CLOSE 29 FACE-TO-FACE - DISTANT n NOT FACE-TO-FACE . FACIAL EXPRESSION PLEASED/PLAYFUL 28 NEUTRAL ? j CONCERNED/SYMPATHETIC 0 DISTURBED 0 ! ... UNDETERMINED 0..1 201 DYAD 7C______ RECIPROCITY INDEX PART I (QUANTITATIVE MEASURE) SOCIAL INTERACTION PATTERNS # % TURN-TAKING DIALOGUE -31- -5Z- \ qq % RECIPROCAL CO-ACTING DIALOGUE -1 2 L 32 PARENT MONOLOGUE 11. \ 11 % NONRECIPROCAL INFANT MONOLOGUE __ 0 __0 TOTAL // ALL SOCIAL X SOCIAL X SECONDS INTERACTION PATTERNS ( 5^ ) INTERACTION PER SOCIAL = (5.W = (1 1 .1) MINUTES OF (10 ) PATTERNS INTERACTION OBSERVATION PER MINUTE PATTERN 202 DYAD: 7C RECIPROCITY INDEX PART II (QUALITATIVE MEASURE) PARENT SOCIAL BEHAVIORS INFANT SOCIAL BEHAVIORS VOCALIZATION VOCALIZATION ACKNOWLEDGEMENT/EMPATHY <7 INTEREST/1 PLEASURE 5 AFFECTION/PRAISE/ENCOURAGEMENT 6 RESPONSE/IMITATION n PLAYFUL 4 NEED/DESIRE n IMITATION fl PROTEST/DISTRESS (? ATTENTION-GETTING/ UNDETERMINED 0 INSTRUCTIVE/DESCRIPTIVE 13 NO VOCALIZATION 99 PROHIBITION/REDIRECTION Q GESTURES/BODYMOVEMENTS CRITICISM Q APPROACH/AFFECTION/ EXTRANEOUS CONVERSATION • 0 PLAYFULNESS 9 UNDETERMINED 2 IMITATION 0 NO VOCALIZATION 9 SIGNALLING ?. GESTURES/BODY MOVEMENTS ACTIVITY-CENTERED 2 AFFECTION/COMFORT 6 COMPLIANCE TO VERBAL ASSISTANCE 0 REOUESTS 9 PLAY/GAMES 8 COMPLIANCE TO VERBAL IMITATION 0 • REOUESTS & DEMON. 0 SIGNALLING i COMPLIANCE TO P.P. 8 OBJECT PREPARATION 2 RESISTANCE/REFUSAL I OBJECT PRESENTATION/EXCHANGE i UNDETERMINED n OBJECT DEMONSTRATION 19 NO GESTURES/BODY MVMTS. 1 PHYSICAL GUIDANCE/POSITIONING 0 VISUAL CONTACT RESTRICTION/REDIRECTION Q GAZE 14 INTRUSION/PUNISHMENT GLANCE 1 WITHDRAWAL/REFUSAL n LOOKS ELSEWHERE 17 LEAVE/ENTER 0 EYES CLOSED Q UNDETERMINED . 0 UNDETERMINED 1 NO GESTURES OR BODY MOVEMENT 1 FACIAL EXPRESSION VISUAL CONTACT ATTENTIVE/SERIOUS 21 GAZE AT INFANT 38 PLEASED/PLAYFUL 5" GLANCE AT INFANT 0 NEUTRAL/DROWSY Q LOOKS ELSEWHERE 9 DISTURBED UNDETERMINED 0 UNDETERMINED 3 HOLDING POSITION HELD CLOSE 1 HELD AWAY 11 SEPARATE - CLOSE 98 SEPARATE - DISTANT n TRANSITION 0 FACIAL POSITION FACE-TO-FACE - CLOSE 19 FACE-TO-FACE - DISTANT NOT FACE-TO-FACE 21 FACIAL EXPRESSION PLEASED/PLAYFUL 8 NEUTRAL ? 9 CONCERNED/SYMPATHETIC Q DISTURBED UNDETERMINED 3,^ 203 DYAD 8ff______ RECIPROCITY INDEX PART I (QUANTITATIVE MEASURE) SOCIAL INTERACTION PATTERNS TURN-TAKING DIALOGUE QZj. % RECIPROCAL CO-ACTING DIALOGUE 12 PARENT MONOLOGUE 6 % NONRECIPROCAL INFANT MONOLOGUE TOTAL # ALL SOCIAL X SOCIAL X SECONDS INTERACTION PATTERNS ( ^9 ) , , ^ ^ INTERACTION INTERACTION .. . PER SOCIAL MINUTES OF ( 10 ) ( 9 PATTERNS PATTERNS v ' INTERACTION OBSERVATION PER MINUTE PATTERN 204 DYAD: 8H RECIPROCITY INDEX PART II (QUALITATIVE MEASURE) PARENT SOCIAL BEHAVIORS a INFANT SOCIAL BEHAVIORS a VOCALIZATION VOCALIZATION ACKNOWLEDGEMENT /EMPATHY INTEREST)PLEASURE ■ 4 AFFECTION/PRAISE/ENCOURAGEMENT 13 RESPONSE/IMITATION n PLAYFUL 1 NEED/DESIRE 1 IMITATION 0 PROTEST/DISTRESS n ATTENTION-GETTING/ UNDETERMINED n INSTRUCTIVE/DESCRIPTIVE 3 NO VOCALIZATION 21 PROHIBITION/REDIRECTION 0 GESTURES/BODYMOVEMENTS CRITICISM Q APPROACH/AFFECTION/ EXTRANEOUS CONVERSATION . 6 PLAYFULNESS 8 UNDETERMINED 9 IMITATION 0 NO VOCALIZATION i SIGNALLING i GESTURES/BODY MOVEMENTS ACTIVITY-CENTERED 12 AFFECTION/COMFORT 3 COMPLIANCE TO VERBAL ASSISTANCE IQ REQUESTS 2 PLAY/GAMES 5 COMPLIANCE TO VERBAL IMITATION 0 ; REQUESTS & DEMON. 1 SIGNALLING 3 COMPLIANCE TO P.P. 2 OBJECT PREPARATION o RESISTANCE/REFUSAL n OBJECT PRESENTATION/EXCHANGE 3 UNDETERMINED 0 OBJECT DEMONSTRATION 9 NO GESTURES/BODY MVMTS. 0 PHYSICAL GUIDANCE/POSITIONING j VISUAL CONTACT RESTRICTION/REDIRECTION o GAZE 21 INTRUSION/PUNISHMENT n GLANCE Q WITHDRAWAL/REFUSAL n LOOKS ELSEWHERE 4 LEAVE/ENTER 0 EYES CLOSED jj) UNDETERMINED . n UNDETERMINED NO GESTURES OR BODY MOVEMENT ?. FACIAL EXPRESSION VISUAL CONTACT ATTENTIVE/SERIOUS 11 GAZE AT INFANT 29 PLEASED/PLAYFUL 11 GLANCE AT INFANT 0 NEUTRAL/DROWSY 0 LOOKS ELSEWHERE n DISTURBED n UNDETERMINED Q UNDETERMINED 4 HOLDING POSITION HELD CLOSE 15 HELD AWAY o SEPARATE - CLOSE 14 SEPARATE - DISTANT o TRANSITION 0 FACIAL POSITION FACE-TO-FACE - CLOSE 13 FACE-TO-FACE - DISTANT 0 NOT FACE-TO-FACE .15. FACIAL EXPRESSION PLEASED/PLAYFUL NEUTRAL 0 CONCERNED/SYMPATHETIC o DISTURBED 0 i UNDETERMINED 205 DYAD 8C RECIPROCITY INDEX PART I (QUANTITATIVE MEASURE) SOCIAL INTERACTION PATTERNS TURN-TAKING DIALOGUE 82 % RECIPROCAL CO-ACTING DIALOGUE 20 PARENT MONOLOGUE NONRECIPROCAL INFANT MONOLOGUE TOTAL # ALL SOCIAL X SOCIAL X SECONDS INTERACTION PATTERNS (7*4- ) , . INTERACTION = , » PER SOCIAL MINUTES OF (10 ) PATTERNS INTERACTION OBSERVATION PER MINUTE PATTERN 206 DYAD: 8C RECIPROCITY INDEX PART II (QUALITATIVE MEASURE) PARENT SOCIAL BEHAVIORS 0 INFANT SOCIAL BEHAVIORS 0 VOCALIZATION VOCALIZATION ACKNOWLEDGEMENT /EMPATHY INTEREST/PLEASURE 2 AFFECTION/PRAISE/ENCOURAGEMENT 21 RESPONSE/IMITATION 1 PLAYFUL 4 NEED/DESIRE ? IMITATION n PROTEST/DISTRESS 1 ATTENTION-GETTING/ UNDETERMINED 0 INSTRUCTIVE/DESCRIPTIVE 18 NO VOCALIZATION 81 PROHIBITION /REDIRECTION i GESTURES/BODYMOVEMENTS CRITICISM APPROACH/AFFECTION/ EXTRANEOUS CONVERSATION PLAYFULNESS 6 UNDETERMINED ? IMITATION NO VOCALIZATION ?, SIGNALLING § GESTURES/BODY MOVEMENTS ACTIVITY-CENTERED 6 AFFECTION/COMFORT 10 COMPLIANCE TO VERBAL ASSISTANCE REOUESTS 5 PLAY/GAMES A COMPLIANCE TO VERBAL IMITATION n ■ REOUESTS & DEMON. 0 SIGNALLING 3 COMPLIANCE TO P.P. - in OBJECT PREPARATION 1 RESISTANCE/REFUSAL 6 OBJECT PRESENTATION/EXCHANGE 7 UNDETERMINED n NO GESTURES/BODY MVMTS. OBJECT DEMONSTRATION 8 .. Q PHYSICAL GUIDANCE/POSITIONING 17 VISUAL CONTACT RESTRICTION/REDIRECTION 1 GAZE 2,7 INTRUSION/PUNISHMENT n GLANCE 0 WITHDRAWAL/REFUSAL Q LOOKS ELSEWHERE 10 -LEAVE/ENTER 0 EYES CLOSED 0 UNDETERMINED . 1 UNDETERMINED NO GESTURES OR BODY MOVEMENT 0 Q FACIAL EXPRESSION VISUAL CONTACT ATTENTIVE/SERIOUS 23 GAZE AT INFANT 54 PLEASED/PLAYFUL 8 GLANCE AT INFANT n NEUTRAL/DROWSY 1 LOOKS ELSEWHERE 1 DISTURBED Q UNDETERMINED 6 UNDETERMINED 5 HOLDING POSITION HELD CLOSE 5 HELD AWAY 1 SEPARATE - CLOSE 4S SEPARATE - DISTANT 0 TRANSITION 1. FACIAL POSITION FACE-TO-FACE - CLOSE 46 FACE-TO-FACE - DISTANT Q NOT FACE-TO-FACE 9 FACIAL EXPRESSION PLEASED/PLAYFUL NEUTRAL n CONCERNED/SYMPATHETIC o DISTURBED 0 UNDETF.RMJ NED 207 DYAD 9H RECIPROCITY INDEX PART I (QUANTITATIVE MEASURE) SOCIAL INTERACTION PATTERNS TURN-TAKING DIALOGUE H i _aa gk % RECIPROCAL CO-ACTING DIALOGUE PARENT MONOLOGUE 6 % NONRECIPROCAL INFANT MONOLOGUE TOTAL # ALL SOCIAL X SOCIAL X SECONDS INTERACTION PATTERNS (j?? ) _ INTERACTION PER SOCIAL = (1 3,3 = (4 .5 > MINUTES OF ( 10 ) PATTERNS INTERACTION OBSERVATION PER MINUTE PATTERN 208 DYAD: 9H RECIPROCITY INDEX PART II (QUALITATIVE MEASURE) PARENT SOCIAL BEHAVIORS INFANT SOCIAL BEHAVIORS VOCALIZATION VOCALIZATION ACKNOWLEDGEMENT /EMPATHY 22 INTEREST/1 PLEASURE 14 AFFECTION/PRAISE/ENCOURAGEMENT 11 RESPONSE/IMITATION 5 PLAYFUL IQ NEED/DESIRE 5 IMITATION 5 PROTEST/DISTRESS 3 ATTENTION-GETTING/ UNDETERMINED Q INSTRUCTIVE/DESCRIPTIVE 31 NO VOCALIZATION _/l£_ PROHIBITION/REDIRECTION 2 GESTURES/BODYMOVEMENTS CRITICISM 1 APPROACH/AFFECTION/ EXTRANEOUS CONVERSATION • ? PLAYFULNESS 16 UNDETERMINED 9 IMITATION 14 NO VOCALIZATION Z SIGNALLING 12 GESTURES/BODY MOVEMENTS ACTIVITY-CENTERED 22 AFFECTION/COMFORT 4 COMPLIANCE TO VERBAL ASSISTANCE 6 REQUESTS 2 PLAY/GAMES 4 COMPLIANCE TO VERBAL IMITATION 8 1 REOUESTS & DEMON. 2 SIGNALLING 18 COMPLIANCE TO P.P. 4 OBJECT PREPARATION ? RESISTANCE/REFUSAL 1. OBJECT PRESENTATION/EXCHANGE 6 UNDETERMINED 9 OBJECT DEMONSTRATION 14 NO GESTURES/BODY MVMTS. 0 PHYSICAL GUIDANCE/POSITIONING s VISUAL CONTACT RESTRICTION/REDIRECTION 2 GAZE 68 INTRUSION/PUNISHMENT Q GLANCE Q WITHDRAWAL/REFUSAL Q LOOKS ELSEWHERE 5 LEAVE/ENTER ? EYES CLOSED 0 UNDETERMINED . 0 UNDETERMINED u NO GESTURES OR BODY MOVEMENT 3,4 FACIAL EXPRESSION VISUAL CONTACT ATTENTIVE/SERIOUS 61 GAZE AT INFANT 81 PLEASED/PLAYFUL 3 GLANCE AT INFANT 0 NEUTRAL/DROWSY 1 LOOKS ELSEWHERE 4 DISTURBED 1 UNDETERMINED 1 UNDETERMINED b Ho l d i n g p o s i t i o n HELD CLOSE 0 HELD AWAY T SEPARATE - CLOSE 8,3 SEPARATE - DISTANT n TRANSITION 2 FACIAL POSITION FACE-TO-FACE - CLOSE 82 FACE-TO-FACE - DISTANT Q NOT FACE-TO-FACE 5 FACIAL EXPRESSION PLEASED/PLAYFUL 54 NEUTRAL 72 CONCERNED/SYMPATHETIC 0 DISTURBED 0 UNDETERMINED 209 DYAD or RECIPROCITY INDEX PART I (QUANTITATIVE MEASURE) SOCIAL INTERACTION PATTERNS TURN-TAKING DIALOGUE % RECIPROCAL CO-ACTING DIALOGUE PARENT MONOLOGUE 5 % NONRECIPROCAL INFANT MONOLOGUE TOTAL # ALL SOCIAL X SOCIAL X SECONDS INTERACTION PATTERNS ( QQ ) , Q INTERACTION = n PER SOCIAL MINUTES OF ( 10 ) ” PATTERNS " * INTERACTION OBSERVATION PER MINUTE PATTERN 210 DYAD: 9C RECIPROCITY INDEX PART II (QUALITATIVE MEASURE) PARENT SOCIAL BEHAVIORS a INFANT SOCIAL BEHAVIORS If VOCALIZATION VOCALIZATION ACKNOWLEDGEMENT / EMPATHY INTEREST/PLEASURE 14 AFFECTION/PRAISE/ENCOURAGEMENT RESPONSE/IMITATION L PLAYFUL 3 NEED/DESIRE 1 IMITATION 9 PROTEST/DISTRESS 1 ATTENTION-GETTING/ UNDETERMINED 1 INSTRUCTIVE/DESCRIPTIVE 19 NO VOCALIZATION 2.9.. PROHIBITION /REDIRECTION 0 GESTURES/BODYMOVEMENTS CRITICISM 0 APPROACH/AFFECTION/ EXTRANEOUS CONVERSATION ■ 1 PLAYFULNESS 8 UNDETERMINED ? IMITATION .3 NO VOCALIZATION n_ SIGNALLING 10 GESTURES/BODY MOVEMENTS ACTIVITY-CENTERED 24 AFFECTION/COMFORT 4 COMPLIANCE TO VERBAL ASSISTANCE 16 REOUESTS 1 PLAY/GAMES 7 COMPLIANCE TO VERBAL IMITATION n 1 REOUESTS & DEMON. n SIGNALLING in COMPLIANCE TO P.P. 9 OBJECT PREPARATION 1 1 RESISTANCE/REFUSAL 1 OBJECT PRESENTATION/EXCHANGE 8 UNDETERMINED ■ u OBJECT DEMONSTRATION 2 NO GESTURES/BODY MVMTS. I PHYSICAL GUIDANCE/POSITIONING 3 VISUAL CONTACT RESTRICTION/REDIRECTION 0 GAZE 38 INTRUSION/PUNISHMENT n GLANCE o ! WITHDRAWAL/REFUSAL 0 LOOKS ELSEWHERE 1 6 LEAVE/ENTER n EYES CLOSED 0 UNDETERMINED . i UNDETERMINED 0 NO GESTURES "OR BODY MOVEMENT 7 FACIAL EXPRESSION VISUAL CONTACT ATTENTIVE/SERIOUS 43 GAZE AT INFANT 58 PLEASED/PLAYFUL If) GLANCE AT INFANT 0 NEUTRAL/DROWSY 0 LOOKS ELSEWHERE 0 DISTURBED 6 UNDETERMINED n UNDETERMINED 1 HOLDING POSITION HELD CLOSE 4 HELD AWAY q SEPARATE - CLOSE 33 SEPARATE - DISTANT 12 TRANSITION 0 FACIAL POSITION FACE-TO-FACE - CLOSE 46 FACE-TO-FACE - DISTANT 12 NOT FACE-TO-FACE _CL. FACIAL EXPRESSION PLEASED/PLAYFUL 47 NEUTRAL 8 CONCERNED/SYMPATHETIC 1 DISTURBED 1 UNDETERMINED . . 211 DYAD 1 off______ RECIPROCITY INDEX PART I (QUANTITATIVE MEASURE) SOCIAL INTERACTION PATTERNS TURN-TAKING DIALOGUE _aa % RECIPROCAL CO-ACTING DIALOGUE _1H PARENT MONOLOGUE NONRECIPROCAL INFANT MONOLOGUE ___Q TOTAL # ALL SOCIAL X SOCIAL X SECONDS [NTERACTION PATTERNS ( 97 ) , . INTERACTION _ , , PER SOCIAI MINUTES OF (10/ PATTERNS '>6.2/ INTERACTIC OBSERVATION PER MINUTE PATTERN 212 DYAD; 10H RECIPROCITY INDEX PART II (QUALITATIVE MEASURE) PARENT SOCIAL BEHAVIORS a INFANT SOCIAL BEHAVIORS 9 VOCALIZATION VOCALIZATION ACKNOWLEDGEMENT/EMPATHY 5 INTEREST/PLEASURE 3() AFFECTION/PRAISE/ENCOURAGEMENT 0 RESPONSE/IMITATION 0 PLAYFUL 19 NEED/DESIRE 0 IMITATION 2 PROTEST/DISTRESS Q ATTENTION-GETTING/ UNDETERMINED 0 INSTRUCTIVE/DESCRIPTIVE 17 NO VOCALIZATION 2 4 PROHIBITION/REDIRECTION 0 GESTURES/BODYMOVEMENTS CRITICISM 0 APPROACH/AFFECTION/ EXTRANEOUS CONVERSATION • 0 PLAYFULNESS 29 UNDETERMINED o IMITATION 0 NO VOCALIZATION 15. SIGNALLING , 0 GESTURES/BODY MOVEMENTS ACTIVITY-CENTERED 14 AFFECTION/COMFORT 2 COMPLIANCE TO VERBAL ASSISTANCE I REQUESTS 2 PLAY/GAMES 33 COMPLIANCE TO VERBAL IMITATION 0 1 REQUESTS & DEMON. 0 SIGNALLING 1 COMPLIANCE TO P.P. 2 OBJECT PREPARATION 0 RESISTANCE/REFUSAL OBJECT PRESENTATION/EXCHANGE 4 UNDETERMINED OBJECT DEMONSTRATION 0 NO GESTURES/BODY MVMTS. 0 PHYSICAL GUIDANCE/POSITIONING 7 VISUAL CONTACT RESTRICTION/REDIRECTION U GAZE 38 INTRUSION/PUNISHMENT 0 GLANCE 0 WITHDRAWAL/REFUSAL Q LOOKS ELSEWHERE 16 LEAVE/ENTER 0 EYES CLOSED U UNDETERMINED . 0 UNDETERMINED 0 NO GESTURES OR BODY MOVEMENT 0 FACIAL EXPRESSION VISUAL CONTACT ATTENTIVE/SERIOUS 6 GAZE AT INFANT 56 PLEASED/PLAYFUL 48 GLANCE AT INFANT 0 NEUTRAL/DROWSY 0 LOOKS ELSEWHERE ? DISTURBED n UNDETERMINED 0 UNDETERMINED 0 HOLDING POSITION HELD CLOSE 58 HELD AWAY Q SEPARATE - CLOSE Q SEPARATE - DISTANT Q TRANSITION 0 FACIAL POSITION FACE-TO-FACE - CLOSE 58 FACE-TO-FACE - DISTANT n NOT FACE-TO-FACE CL. FACIAL EXPRESSION PLEASED/PLAYFUL 44 NEUTRAL 1ft 1 CONCERNED/SYMPATHETIC 0 DISTURBED n ' UNDETERMINED Q_j 213 DYAD j oo______ RECIPROCITY INDEX PART I (QUANTITATIVE MEASURE) SOCIAL INTERACTION PATTERNS # % TURN-TAKING DIALOGUE -32 JZL \ 86 % RECIPROCAL CO-ACTING DIALOGUE 8 JA PARENT MONOLOGUE 6 12 \ U*% NONRECIPROCAL INFANT MONOLOGUE __ 2 TOTAL # ALL SOCIAL X SOCIAL X SECONDS INTERACTION PATTERNS ( 5 9 ) INTERACTION PER SOCIAL MINUTES OF PATTERNS INTERACTION OBSERVATION PER MINUTE PATTERN 214 DYAD: IOC RECIPROCITY INDEX PART II (QUALITATIVE MEASURE) PARENT SOCIAL BEHAVIORS INFANT SOCIAL BEHAVIORS 0 VOCALIZATION VOCALIZATION ACKNOWLEDGEMENT/EMPATHY 0 INTEREST/PLEASURE 4 AFFECTION/PRAISE/ENCOURAGEMENT 2 RESPONSE/IMITATION 0 PLAYFUL 10 NEED/DESIRE 0 IMITATION 1 PROTEST/DISTRESS 0 ATTENTION-GETTING/ UNDETERMINED 0 INSTRUCTIVE/DESCRIPTIVE 14 NO VOCALIZATION 27 PROHIBITION /REDIRECTION 0 GESTURES/BODYMOVEMENTS CRITICISM 0 APPROACH/AFFECTION/ EXTRANEOUS CONVERSATION • 1 PLAYFULNESS 5 UNDETERMINED 0 IMITATION 2 NO VOCALIZATION 6— SIGNALLING n GESTURES/BODY MOVEMENTS ACTIVITY-CENTERED 22 AFFECTION/COMFORT 2 COMPLIANCE TO VERBAL ASSISTANCE ft REQUESTS 0 PLAY/GAMES 8 COMPLIANCE TO VERBAL IMITATION 1 ' REQUESTS & DEMON. 0 SIGNALLING 10 COMPLIANCE TO P.P. 1 OBJECT PREPARATION 1 RESISTANCE/REFUSAL 1, OBJECT PRESENTATION/EXCHANGE 5 UNDETERMINED n OBJECT DEMONSTRATION NO GESTURES/BODY MVMTS. 0 PHYSICAL GUIDANCE/POSITIONING 4 VISUAL CONTACT RESTRICTION/REDIRECTION n GAZE 19 INTRUSION/PUNISHMENT 0 GLANCE 0 WITHDRAWAL/REFUSAL LOOKS ELSEWHERE n LEAVE/ENTER n EYES CLOSED 0 UNDETERMINED . 0 UNDETERMINED 1 NO GESTURES OR BODY MOVEMENT 3 FACIAL EXPRESSION VISUAL CONTACT ATTENTIVE/SERIOUS 10 GAZE AT INFANT 39 PLEASED/PLAYFUL 19 GLANCE AT INFANT n NEUTRAL/DROWSY l LOOKS ELSEWHERE 1 DISTURBED 0 UNDETERMINED 0 UNDETERMINED 1 HOLDING POSITION HELD CLOSE ,39 HELD AWAY 1 SEPARATE - CLOSE n SEPARATE - DISTANT n TRANSITION — 0- FACIAL POSITION FACE-TO-FACE - CLOSE 36 FACE-TO-FACE - DISTANT 0 NOT FACE-TO-FACE 4 FACIAL EXPRESSION PLEASED/PLAYFUL 38 NEUTRAL 1 i CONCERNED/SYMPATHETIC (!) DISTURBED p ' UNDETERMINED 1 - 215 DYAD 11w RECIPROCITY INDEX PART I (QUANTITATIVE MEASURE) SOCIAL INTERACTION PATTERNS TURN-TAKING DIALOGUE 56 % RECIPROCAL CO-ACTING DIALOGUE _ d PARENT MONOLOGUE An A4 % NONRECIPROCAL INFANT MONOLOGUE __ Q TOTAL # ALL SOCIAL X SOCIAL X SECONDS INTERACTION PATTERNS ( qi ) _ , ^ INTERACTION _ ,, PER SOCIAL MINUTES OF (lo ) ” PATTERNS b,b INTERACTION OBSERVATION PER MINUTE PATTERN 216 DYAD: 11H RECIPROCITY INDEX PART II (QUALITATIVE MEASURE) PARENT SOCIAL BEHAVIORS 0 INFANT SOCIAL BEHAVIORS 0 VOCALIZATION VOCALIZATION ACKNOWLEDGEMENT /EMPATHY 20 INTEREST/1 PLEASURE 3 AFFECTION/PRAISE/ENCOURAGEMENT 10 RESPONSE/IMITATION 0 PLAYFUL 4 NEED/DESIRE 2 IMITATION 1 PROTEST/DISTRESS 6 ATTENTION-GETTING/ UNDETERMINED n INSTRUCTIVE/DESCRIPTIVE 31 NO VOCALIZATION 20 PROHIBITION /REDIRECTION 1 GESTURES/BODYMOVEMENTS CRITICISM 0 APPROACH/AFFECTION/ EXTRANEOUS CONVERSATION • ? PLAYFULNESS 2 UNDETERMINED n. IMITATION 0 NO VOCALIZATION ft SIGNALLING 2 GESTURES/BODY MOVEMENTS ACTIVITY-CENTERED 22 AFFECTION/COMFORT 13 COMPLIANCE TO VERBAL ASSISTANCE n REQUESTS 1 PLAY/GAMES 3 COMPLIANCE TO VERBAL IMITATION n REQUESTS & DEMON. 0 SIGNALLING 8 COMPLIANCE TO P.P. 0 OBJECT PREPARATION 3 RESISTANCE/REFUSAL tx OBJECT PRESENTATION/EXCHANGE 17 UNDETERMINED n OBJECT DEMONSTRATION s NO GESTURES/BODY MVMTS. ..0, PHYSICAL GUIDANCE/POSITIONING VISUAL CONTACT RESTRICTION/REDIRECTION n GAZE 23 INTRUSION/PUNISHMENT n GLANCE 0 WITHDRAWAL/REFUSAL X' LOOKS ELSEWHERE s LEAVE/ENTER n EYES CLOSED l UNDETERMINED . 0 UNDETERMINED 0 NO GESTURES OR BODY MOVEMENT 6 FACIAL EXPRESSION VISUAL CONTACT ATTENTIVE/SERIOUS 15 GAZE AT INFANT 74 PLEASED/PLAYFUL 11 GLANCE AT INFANT o NEUTRAL/DROWSY 0 LOOKS ELSEWHERE i DISTURBED 4 UNDETERMINED i UNDETERMINED 1 HOLDING POSITION HELD CLOSE 2 8 HELD AWAY 1 SEPARATE - CLOSE SEPARATE - DISTANT 13 TRANSITION 1 FACIAL POSITION FACE-TO-FACE - CLOSE 15 FACE-TO-FACE - DISTANT 13 NOT FACE-TO-FACE .48. FACIAL EXPRESSION PLEASED/PLAYFUL o NEUTRAL 67 CONCERNED/SYMPATHETIC n DISTURBED n UNDETERMINED ,,a.j 217 DYAD 11g RECIPROCITY INDEX PART I (QUANTITATIVE MEASURE) SOCIAL INTERACTION PATTERNS TURN-TAKING DIALOGUE 30- % RECIPROCAL CO-ACTING DIALOGUE ±Q_ -15. PARENT MONOLOGUE ^2% NONRECIPROCAL INFANT MONOLOGUE TOTAL # ALL SOCIAL X SOCIAL X SECONDS INTERACTION PER SOCIAL INTERACTION PATTERNS ( 6Q ) = (8.7) MINUTES OF ( 10 ) = (6.9) PATTERNS INTERACTION OBSERVATION PER MINUTE PATTERN 218 DYAD: 11C RECIPROCITY INDEX PART II (QUALITATIVE MEASURE) PARENT SOCIAL BEHAVIORS & INFANT SOCIAL BEHAVIORS t VOCALIZATION VOCALIZATION ACKNOWLEDGEMENT/EMPATHY i n t e r e s t /p l e a s u r e 10 AFFECTION/PRAISE/ENCOURAGEMENT 12 RESPONSE/IMITATION 1 PLAYFUL 5 NEED/DESIRE 1 IMITATION 0 PROTEST/DISTRESS 1 ATTENTION-GETTING/ UNDETERMINED 1 INSTRUCTIVE/DESCRIPTIVE 14 NO VOCALIZATION _1XL PROHIBITION /REDIRECTION 1 GESTURES/BODYMOVEMENTS CRITICISM 0 APPROACH/AFFECTION/ EXTRANEOUS CONVERSATION . d PLAYFULNESS 2 UNDETERMINED IMITATION 0 NO VOCALIZATION 1ft SIGNALLING GESTURES/BODY MOVEMENTS ACTIVITY-CENTERED i AFFECTION/COMFORT i fi COMPLIANCE TO VERBAL ASSISTANCE REQUESTS 0 PLAY/GAMES 2 COMPLIANCE TO VERBAL IMITATION 0 : REQUESTS & DEMON. 0 SIGNALLING COMPLIANCE TO P.P. 4 OBJECT PREPARATION 3 RESISTANCE/REFUSAL 4 OBJECT PRESENTATION/EXCHANGE ft UNDETERMINED 0 OBJECT DEMONSTRATION NO GESTURES/BODY MVMTS. 0 PHYSICAL GUIDANCE/POSITIONING 15 VISUAL CONTACT RESTRICTION/REDIRECTION ? GAZE 17 INTRUSION/PUNISHMENT 0 GLANCE n WITHDRAWAL/REFUSAL n LOOKS ELSEWHERE LEAVE/ENTER 0 EYES CLOSED 0 UNDETERMINED . 0 UNDETERMINED 2 NO GESTURES OR BODY MOVEMENT 4 FACIAL EXPRESSION VISUAL CONTACT ATTENTIVE/SERIOUS 11 GAZE AT INFANT 55 PLEASED/PLAYFUL 8 GLANCE AT INFANT 1 NEUTRAL/DROWSY 2 LOOKS ELSEWHERE 1 DISTURBED 0 UNDETERMINED n UNDETERMINED 3 HOLDING POSITION HELD CLOSE 39 HELD AWAY n SEPARATE - CLOSE lfi SEPARATE - DISTANT n TRANSITION Q FACIAL POSITION FACE-TO-FACE - CLOSE 4 FACE-TO-FACE - DISTANT o NOT FACE-TO-FACE 53 FACIAL EXPRESSION PLEASED/PLAYFUL 4 NEUTRAL 52 ! CONCERNED/SYMPATHETIC n i DISTURBED n i UNDETERMINED 1 219 D Y A D _ ^ RECIPROCITY INDEX PART I (QUANTITATIVE MEASURE) SOCIAL INTERACTION PATTERNS TURN-TAKING DIALOGUE _ Z 5 87% RECIPROCAL CO-ACTING DIALOGUE PARENT MONOLOGUE 1? % NONRECIPROCAL INFANT MONOLOGUE TOTAL # ALL SOCIAL X SOCIAL X SECONDS INTERACTION PATTERNS ( 122 ) . _ INTERACTION _ .. . PER SOCIAL MINUTES OF ( 10) " PATTERNS ~ INTERACTION OBSERVATION PER MINUTE PATTERN 220 DYAD: 12H RECIPROCITY INDEX PART II (QUALITATIVE MEASURE) PARENT SOCIAL BEHAVIORS a INFANT SOCIAL BEHAVIORS a VOCALIZATION VOCALIZATION ACKNOWLEDGEMENT /EMPATHY 3-? i n t e r e s t /p l e a s u r e 25 AFFECTION/PRAISE/ENCOURAGEMENT 14 RESPONSE/IMITATION 8 PLAYFUL 7 NEED/DESIRE 3 IMITATION 7 PROTEST/DISTRESS 0 ATTENTION-GETTING/ UNDETERMINED A INSTRUCTIVE/DESCRIPTIVE 29 NO VOCALIZATION 23 PROHIBITION/REDIRECTION 1 GESTURES/BODYMOVEMENTS CRITICISM 0 APPROACH/AFFECTION/ EXTRANEOUS CONVERSATION • 1, PLAYFULNESS 15 UNDETERMINED 0 IMITATION 4 NO VOCALIZATION 2 SIGNALLING u GESTURES/BODY MOVEMENTS ACTIVITY-CENTERED 23 AFFECTION/COMFORT l COMPLIANCE TO VERBAL ASSISTANCE 3 REQUESTS 3 PLAY/GAMES COMPLIANCE TO VERBAL IMITATION f? ■ REQUESTS & DEMON. 0 SIGNALLING in COMPLIANCE TO P.P. 3 OBJECT PREPARATION A RESISTANCE/REFUSAL 0 OBJECT PRESENTATION/EXCHANGE 11 UNDETERMINED 8 OBJECT DEMONSTRATION IJj NO GESTURES/BODY MVMTS. 9 1 PHYSICAL GUIDANCE/POSITIONING VISUAL CONTACT RESTRICTION/REDIRECTION 0 GAZE 44 INTRUSION/PUNISHMENT n GLANCE 1 WITHDRAWAL/REFUSAL o LOOKS ELSEWHERE 15 LEAVE/ENTER n EYES CLOSED 0 UNDETERMINED - n UNDETERMINED 0 NO GESTURES OR BODY MOVEMENT 31 FACIAL EXPRESSION VISUAL CONTACT 35ATTENTIVE/SERIOUS GAZE AT INFANT 70 PLEASED/PLAYFUL 5 GLANCE AT INFANT NEUTRAL/DROWSY 0 LOOKS ELSEWHERE 3 DISTURBED n UNDETERMINED ?. UNDETERMINED 2Q HOLDING POSITION HELD CLOSE 2 HELD AWAY 2 SEPARATE - CLOSE 71 SEPARATE - DISTANT ?. TRANSITION 2 FACIAL POSITION FACE-TO-FACE - CLOSE 7Q FACE-TO-FACE - DISTANT 1 NOT FACE-TO-FACE _8.. FACIAL EXPRESSION PLEASED/PLAYFUL 71 NEUTRAL 1, CONCERNED/SYMPATHETIC 1 | DISTURBED 0 i UNDETERMINED 221 DYAD ion RECIPROCITY INDEX PART I (QUANTITATIVE MEASURE) SOCIAL INTERACTION PATTERNS TURN-TAKING DIALOGUE £ 3 % RECIPROCAL CO-ACTING DIALOGUE PARENT MONOLOGUE % NONRECIPROCAL INFANT MONOLOGUE TOTAL # ALL SOCIAL X SOCIAL X SECONDS INTERACTION PATTERNS ( 66 ) N INTERACTION . . . . PER SOCIAL( MINUTES OF ((10 lo ) PATTERNS 7* J INTERACTION OBSERVATION PER MINUTE PATTERN 222 DYAD: 12C RECIPROCITY INDEX PART II (QUALITATIVE MEASURE) PARENT SOCIAL BEHAVIORS INFANT SOCIAL BEHAVIORS if VOCALIZATION VOCALIZATION ACKNOWLEDGEMENT /EMPATHY 4 i n t e r e s t /p l e a s u r e 7 AFFECTION/PRAISE/ENCOURAGEMENT RESPONSE/IMITATION n PLAYFUL 4 NEED/DESIRE Q IMITATION 3 PROTEST/DISTRESS 2 ATTENTION-GETTING/ UNDETERMINED 0 INSTRUCTIVE/DESCRIPTIVE 18 NO VOCALIZATION 29 PROHIBITION/REDIRECTION 1, GESTURES/BODYMOVEMENTS CRITICISM n APPROACH/AFFECTION/ EXTRANEOUS CONVERSATION • 0 PLAYFULNESS 4 UNDETERMINED i IMITATION 2 NO VOCALIZATION 3 SIGNALLING 3 GESTURES/BODY MOVEMENTS ACTIVITY-CENTERED 22 AFFECTION/COMFORT 1 COMPLIANCE TO VERBAL ASSISTANCE 3 ■ REQUESTS 0 PLAY/GAMES ? COMPLIANCE TO VERBAL IMITATION 0 • REQUESTS & DEMON. 0 SIGNALLING 14 COMPLIANCE TO P.P. 2 OBJECT PREPARATION 0 RESISTANCE/REFUSAL 3 OBJECT PRESENTATION/EXCHANGE 8 UNDETERMINED 0 OBJECT DEMONSTRATION q NO GESTURES/BODY MVMTS. , 2 PHYSICAL GUIDANCE/POSITIONING 2 VISUAL CONTACT RESTRICTION/REDIRECTION 1 GAZE 26 INTRUSION/PUNISHMENT 0 GLANCE i ! WITHDRAWAL/REFUSAL n LOOKS ELSEWHERE n LEAVE/ENTER 0 EYES CLOSED n UNDETERMINED . n UNDETERMINED NO GESTURES OR BODY MOVEMENT 0 2 FACIAL EXPRESSION VISUAL CONTACT ATTENTIVE/SERIOUS 26 GAZE AT INFANT 41 PLEASED/PLAYFUL io GLANCE AT INFANT n NEUTRAL/DROWSY o LOOKS ELSEWHERE 1 DISTURBED n UNDETERMINED — Q_ UNDETERMINED 2 HOLDING POSITION HELD CLOSE 3 HELD AWAY 2 SEPARATE - CLOSE 37 SEPARATE - DISTANT Q TRANSITION 6 FACIAL POSITION FACE-TO-FACE - CLOSE 40 FACE-TO-FACE - DISTANT n NOT FACE-TO-FACE -2 .. FACIAL EXPRESSION PLEASED/PLAYFUL 36 NEUTRAL 6 CONCERNED/SYMPATHETIC 0 DISTURBED UNDETERMINED P 223 DYAD 1 3H______ RECIPROCITY INDEX PART I (QUANTITATIVE MEASURE) SOCIAL INTERACTION PATTERNS TURN-TAKING DIALOGUE k6 £3_% RECIPROCAL CO-ACTING DIALOGUE 20 PARENT MONOLOGUE 17 % NONRECIPROCAL INFANT MONOLOGUE TOTAL # ALL SOCIAL X SOCIAL X SECONDS INTERACTION PATTERNS ( lb ) . . INTERACTION = . . PER SOCIAL MINUTES OF (10 ) ^ 7 PATTERNS INTERACTION OBSERVATION PER MINUTE PATTERN 224 DYAD: 13H RECIPROCITY INDEX PART II (QUALITATIVE MEASURE) PARENT SOCIAL BEHAVIORS INFANT SOCIAL BEHAVIORS 0 VOCALIZATION VOCALIZATION ACKNOWLEDGEMENT/EMPATHY 4 i n t e r e s t /p l e a s u r e 7 AFFECTION/PRAISE/ENCOURAGEMENT 4 RESPONSE/IMITATION 2 PLAYFUL H NEED/DESIRE 0 IMITATION 2 PROTEST/DISTRESS 1 ATTENTION-GETTING/ UNDETERMINED n INSTRUCTIVE/DESCRIPTIVE 26 NO VOCALIZATION ?8 PROHIBITION/REDIRECTION 2 GESTURES/BODYMOVEMENTS CRITICISM 0 APPROACH/AFFECTION/ EXTRANEOUS CONVERSATION - PLAYFULNESS b UNDETERMINED 0 IMITATION 2 NO VOCALIZATION a SIGNALLING 2 GESTURES/BODY MOVEMENTS ACTIVITY-CENTERED 15 AFFECTION/COMFORT i, COMPLIANCE TO VERBAL ASSISTANCE n REQUESTS 2 PLAY/GAMES 13 COMPLIANCE TO VERBAL IMITATION REQUESTS & DEMON. 1 SIGNALLING 1,0 COMPLIANCE TO P.P. 7 OBJECT PREPARATION i RESISTANCE/REFUSAL 4 OBJECT PRESENTATION/EXCHANGE i UNDETERMINED 3 OBJECT DEMONSTRATION 4 NO GESTURES/BODY MVMTS. Q PHYSICAL GUIDANCE/POSITIONING r VISUAL CONTACT RESTRICTION/REDIRECTION 2 GAZE 32 INTRUSION/PUNISHMENT 1 GLANCE i ! WITHDRAWAL/REFUSAL 0 LOOKS ELSEWHERE 4 LEAVE/ENTER i EYES CLOSED 0 UNDETERMINED - UNDETERMINED NO GESTURES OR BODY MOVEMENT 1 . 1 8 FACIAL EXPRESSION VISUAL CONTACT ATTENTIVE/SERIOUS 20 GAZE AT INFANT 43 PLEASED/PLAYFUL 15 GLANCE AT INFANT 1 NEUTRAL/DROWSY 0 LOOKS ELSEWHERE n DISTURBED 0 UNDETERMINED 11 UNDETERMINED 3 HOLDING POSITION HELD CLOSE 0 HELD AWAY 4 SEPARATE - CLOSE 36 SEPARATE - DISTANT TRANSITION FACIAL POSITION FACE-TO-FACE - CLOSE 33 FACE-TO-FACE - DISTANT 3 NOT FACE-TO-FACE JJ_ FACIAL EXPRESSION PLEASED/PLAYFUL V NEUTRAL 17 CONCERNED/SYMPATHETIC n DISTURBED ,n UNDE.TFRMJNF.D Sl.j 225 DYAD 1 ir. RECIPROCITY INDEX PART I (QUANTITATIVE MEASURE) SOCIAL INTERACTION PATTERNS TURN-TAKING DIALOGUE 80 % RECIPROCAL CO-ACTING DIALOGUE _ a PARENT MONOLOGUE 20% NONRECIPROCAL INFANT MONOLOGUE TOTAL # ALL SOCIAL X SOCIAL X SECONDS INTERACTION PATTERNS (1 qg> ) ^ INTERACTION _ , ,* PER SOCIAL MINUTES OF ( 10 ) PATTERNS INTERACTION OBSERVATION PER MINUTE PATTERN 226 DYAD: 13C RECIPROCITY INDEX PART II (QUALITATIVE MEASURE) PARENT SOCIAL BEHAVIORS ft INFANT SOCIAL BEHAVIORS ft VOCALIZATION VOCALIZATION ACKNOWLEDGEMENT/EMPATHY 6 INTEREST/PLEASURE 3 AFFECTION/PRAISE/ENCOURAGEMENT 5 RESPONSE/IMITATION 0 PLAYFUL 5 NEED/DESIRE 1 IMITATION 0 PROTEST/DISTRESS n ATTENTION-GETTING/ UNDETERMINED n INSTRUCTIVE/DESCRIPTIVE 20 NO VOCALIZATION 87 PROHIBITION/REDIRECTION 3 GESTURES/BODYMOVEMENTS CRITICISM 0 APPROACH/AFFECTION/ EXTRANEOUS CONVERSATION • 1 PLAYFULNESS 1 UNDETERMINED 2 IMITATION 15 NO VOCALIZATION I k SIGNALLING 2 GESTURES/BODY MOVEMENTS ACTIVITY-CENTERED fi7 AFFECTION/COMFORT 1 COMPLIANCE TO VERBAL ASSISTANCE 5 REQUESTS 0 PLAY/GAMES 7 COMPLIANCE TO VERBAL IMITATION 8 ■ REQUESTS & DEMON. 2 SIGNALLING in COMPLIANCE TO P.P. 2 OBJECT PREPARATION 6 RESISTANCE/REFUSAL 1 OBJECT PRESENTATION/EXCHANGE 2? UNDETERMINED n OBJECT DEMONSTRATION ?? NO GESTURES/BODY MVMTS. 0 PHYSICAL GUIDANCE/POSITIONING 10 VISUAL CONTACT RESTRICTION/REDIRECTION 1 ? GAZE 73 INTRUSION/PUNISHMENT n GLANCE 2 WITHDRAWAL/REFUSAL n LOOKS ELSEWHERE 16 LEAVE/ENTER _ n EYES CLOSED 0 UNDETERMINED . i UNDETERMINED NO GESTURES OR BODY MOVEMENT 0 8 FACIAL EXPRESSION VISUAL CONTACT ATTENTIVE/SERIOUS 75 GAZE AT INFANT n o PLEASED/PLAYFUL 16 GLANCE AT INFANT o NEUTRAL/DROWSY n LOOKS ELSEWHERE 8 DISTURBED n UNDETERMINED n UNDETERMINED 0 HOLDING POSITION HELD CLOSE 35 HELD AWAY 0 SEPARATE - CLOSE 83 SEPARATE - DISTANT n TRANSITION 0 FACIAL POSITION FACE-TO-FACE - CLOSE 77 FACE-TO-FACE - DISTANT 0 NOT FACE-TO-FACE _4J- FACIAL EXPRESSION PLEASED/PLAYFUL 88 NEUTRAL 30 CONCERNED/SYMPATHETIC 0 i DISTURBED 0 1 UNDETERMINED n 227 DYAD 1 RECIPROCITY INDEX PART I (QUANTITATIVE MEASURE) SOCIAL INTERACTION PATTERNS TURN-TAKING DIALOGUE £3_% RECIPROCAL CO-ACTING DIALOGUE PARENT MONOLOGUE .12. 17 % NONRECIPROCAL INFANT MONOLOGUE TOTAL # ALL SOCIAL X SOCIAL X SECONDS INTERACTION PATTERNS (108 ) _ . ~ INTERACTION _ , ^ PER SOCIAL MINUTES OF ( 10 ) PATTERNS “ 50 INTERACTION OBSERVATION PER MINUTE PATTERN 228 DYAD: 14H RECIPROCITY INDEX PART II (QUALITATIVE MEASURE) PARENT SOCIAL BEHAVIORS 0 INFANT SOCIAL BEHAVIORS $ VOCALIZATION VOCALIZATION ACKNOWLEDGEMENT /EMPATHY 6 i n t e r e s t /p l e a s u r e 12 AFFECTION/PRAISE/ENCOURAGEMENT 5 RESPONSE/IMITATION 0 PLAYFUL 9 NEED/DESIRE 3 IMITATION 2 PROTEST/DISTRESS 3 ATTENTION-GETTING/ UNDETERMINED 7 INSTRUCTIVE/DESCRIPTIVE 36 NO VOCALIZATION 35 PROHIBITION /REDIRECTION 18 GESTURES/BODYMOVEMENTS CRITICISM 0 APPROACH/AFFECTION/ EXTRANEOUS CONVERSATION - 7 PLAYFULNESS 4 UNDETERMINED 3 IMITATION 0 NO VOCALIZATION 6 SIGNALLING 18 GESTURES/BODY MOVEMENTS ACTIVITY-CENTERED 12 AFFECTION/COMFORT 2 COMPLIANCE TO VERBAL ASSISTANCE 3 REQUESTS 1 PLAY/GAMES 8 COMPLIANCE TO VERBAL IMITATION „Q REOUESTS & DEMON. 1 SIGNALLING 15 COMPLIANCE TO P.P. 2 OBJECT PREPARATION 1 RESISTANCE/REFUSAL 1 s OBJECT PRESENTATION/EXCHANGE 29 UNDETERMINED 2 OBJECT DEMONSTRATION 3 NO GESTURES/BODY MOTHS. 0 1 PHYSICAL GUIDANCE/POSITIONING 13 VISUAL CONTACT RESTRICTION/REDIRECTION 6 GAZE 30 | INTRUSION/PUNISHMENT Q GLANCE o ! WITHDRAWAL/REFUSAL 2 LOOKS ELSEWHERE 16 LEAVE/ENTER 1 EYES CLOSED 0 UNDETERMINED . 2 UNDETERMINED NO GESTURES OR BODY MOVEMENT 9 7 FACIAL EXPRESSION VISUAL CONTACT ATTENTIVE/SERIOUS 21 GAZE AT INFANT 73 PLEASED/PLAYFUL 9 GLANCE AT INFANT 0 NEUTRAL/DROWSY 0 LOOKS ELSEWHERE 3 DISTURBED ,1 UNDETERMINED 14 UNDETERMINED 24 HOLDING POSITION HELD CLOSE 2 HELD AWAY 2 SEPARATE - CLOSE 76 SEPARATE - DISTANT 12 TRANSITION Q FACIAL POSITION FACE-TO-FACE - CLOSE 70 FACE-TO-FACE - DISTANT 7 NOT FACE-TO-FACE JJ5L, FACIAL EXPRESSION PLEASED/PLAYFUL NEUTRAL 3228 CONCERNED/SYMPATHETIC 0 DISTURBED UNDETERMINED i3 - 229 DYAD 1 kc,______ RECIPROCITY INDEX PART I (QUANTITATIVE MEASURE) SOCIAL INTERACTION PATTERNS TURN-TAKING DIALOGUE R7 % RECIPROCAL CO-ACTING DIALOGUE PARENT MONOLOGUE 13 % NONRECIPROCAL INFANT MONOLOGUE TOTAL # ALL SOCIAL X SOCIAL X SECONDS INTERACTION PATTERNS (1Q8 ) _ INTERACTION _ , 0 * PER SOCIAL MINUTES OF ( 10 ) PATTERNS V INTERACTION OBSERVATION PER MINUTE PATTERN 230 DYAD: 14C RECIPROCITY INDEX PART II (QUALITATIVE MEASURE) PARENT SOCIAL BEHAVIORS 0 INFANT SOCIAL BEHAVIORS a VOCALIZATION VOCALIZATION ACKNOWLEDGEMENT/EMPATHY 0 INTEREST JPLEASURE n AFFECTION/PRAISE/ENCOURAGEMENT 11 RESPONSE/IMITATION 0 PLAYFUL 3 NEED/DESIRE n IMITATION 0 PROTEST/DISTRESS 0 ATTENTION-GETTING/ UNDETERMINED n INSTRUCTIVE/DESCRIPTIVE ,15 NO VOCALIZATION 97 PROHIBITION/REDIRECTION 5 GESTURES/BODYMOVEMENTS CRITICISM 9 APPROACH/AFFECTION/ EXTRANEOUS CONVERSATION . 0 PLAYFULNESS 5 UNDETERMINED 5 IMITATION 3 NO VOCALIZATION 7=) SIGNALLING 5 GESTURES/BODY MOVEMENTS ACTIVITY-CENTERED 63 AFFECTION/COMFORT 3 COMPLIANCE TO VERBAL ASSISTANCE 14 REOUESTS 3 PLAY/GAMES 4 COMPLIANCE TO VERBAL REOUESTS & DEMON. 2 IMITATION i 1 SIGNALLING 28 COMPLIANCE TO P.P. 3 OBJECT PREPARATION „2 RESISTANCE/REFUSAL 2 OBJECT PRESENTATION/EXCHANGE 20 UNDETERMINED 11 OBJECT DEMONSTRATION 1.4 NO GESTURES/BODY MVMTS. 0 PHYSICAL GUIDANCE/POSITIONING 15 VISUAL CONTACT RESTRICTION/REDIRECTION 6 GAZE 81 INTRUSION/PUNISHMENT 9 GLANCE 0 WITHDRAWAL/REFUSAL 0 LOOKS ELSEWHERE 16 LEAVE/ENTER ? EYES CLOSED 0 UNDETERMINED - Q UNDETERMINED NO GESTURES OR BODY MOVEMENT Q 6 FACIAL EXPRESSION VISUAL CONTACT 80 107 ATTENTIVE/SERIOUS GAZE AT INFANT PLEASED/PLAYFUL 17 GLANCE AT INFANT 1 NEUTRAL/DROWSY 0 LOOKS ELSEWHERE S DISTURBED 0 UNDETERMINED 1 UNDETERMINED 0 HOLDING POSITION HELD CLOSE 0 HELD AWAY 2 SEPARATE - CLOSE 1 OR SEPARATE - DISTANT 4 TRANSITION 0 FACIAL POSITION FACE-TO-FACE - CLOSE 104 FACE-TO-FACE - DISTANT ? NOT FACE-TO-FACE 7 FACIAL EXPRESSION PLEASED/PLAYFUL 55 NEUTRAL 57 CONCERNED/SYMPATHETIC 0 DISTURBED UNDETERMINED X * 231 DYAD 1 w RECIPROCITY INDEX PART I (QUANTITATIVE MEASURE) SOCIAL INTERACTION PATTERNS TURN-TAKING DIALOGUE 5Q_% RECIPROCAL CO-ACTING DIALOGUE PARENT MONOLOGUE JL NONRECIPROCAL INFANT MONOLOGUE TOTAL # ALL SOCIAL X SOCIAL X SECONDS INTERACTION PATTERNS ( 77h * 0) _ , . _ ,,,.x INTERACTION , . . PER SOCIAL( MINUTES OF ( 10 ) ~ PATTERNS * ' INTERACTION OBSERVATION PER MINUTE PATTERN 232 DYAD: 15H RECIPROCITY INDEX PART II (QUALITATIVE MEASURE) PARENT SOCIAL BEHAVIORS 9 INFANT SOCIAL BEHAVIORS 9 VOCALIZATION VOCALIZATION ACKNOWLEDGEMENT /EMPATHY 3 i n t e r e s t /p l e a s u r e 0 AFFECTION/PRAISE/ENCOURAGEMENT I RESPONSE/IMITATION 0 PLAYFUL 4 NEED/DESIRE 0 IMITATION 0 PROTEST/DISTRESS 0 ATTENTION-GETTING/ UNDETERMINED i Q INSTRUCTIVE/DESCRIPTIVE 2 NO VOCALIZATION 22 PROHIBITION/REDIRECTION 0 GESTURES/BODYMOVEMENTS CRITICISM 0 APPROACH/AFFECTION/ EXTRANEOUS CONVERSATION •2.6 PLAYFULNESS 0 UNDETERMINED L IMITATION 0 NO VOCALIZATION 19 SIGNALLING 16 GESTURES/BODY MOVEMENTS ACTIVITY-CENTERED n AFFECTION/COMFORT 24 COMPLIANCE TO VERBAL ASSISTANCE n REOUESTS 0 PLAY/GAMES 3 COMPLIANCE TO VERBAL IMITATION 2 ■ REOUESTS & DEMON. 0 SIGNALLING 2 COMPLIANCE TO P.P. '6 OBJECT PREPARATION 0 RESISTANCE/REFUSAL n OBJECT PRESENTATION/EXCHANGE 2 UNDETERMINED Q OBJECT DEMONSTRATION 1 NO GESTURES/BODY MVMTS. 0 PHYSICAL GUIDANCE/POSITIONING 23 VISUAL CONTACT RESTRICTION/REDIRECTION 0 GAZE l INTRUSION/PUNISHMENT U GLANCE ' 0 ! WITHDRAWAL/REFUSAL 0 LOOKS ELSEWHERE 6 LEAVE/ENTER n EYES CLOSED 0 UNDETERMINED . n UNDETERMINED 15 NO GESTURES OR BODY MOVEMENT n FACIAL EXPRESSION VISUAL CONTACT ATTENTIVE/SERIOUS 2 GAZE AT INFANT 40 PLEASED/PLAYFUL 9 GLANCE AT INFANT u NEUTRAL/DROWSY 5 LOOKS ELSEWHERE o DISTURBED 0 UNDETERMINED i UNDETERMINED 15 HOLDING POSITION HELD CLOSE 25 HELD AWAY 22 SEPARATE - CLOSE 11 SEPARATE - DISTANT n TRANSITION 1 FACIAL POSITION FACE-TO-FACE - CLOSE 44 FACE-TO-FACE - DISTANT ,0 NOT FACE-TO-FACE 15 FACIAL EXPRESSION PLEASED/PLAYFUL 52 NEUTRAL 4 CONCERNED/SYMPATHETIC 0 DISTURBED 0 UNDETERMINED ... !L 233 DYAD 1 5C______ RECIPROCITY INDEX PART I (QUANTITATIVE MEASURE) SOCIAL INTERACTION PATTERNS TURN-TAKING DIALOGUE 52_% RECIPROCAL CO-ACTING DIALOGUE PARENT MONOLOGUE k8% NONRECIPROCAL INFANT MONOLOGUE TOTAL # ALL SOCIAL X SOCIAL X SECONDS INTERACTION PATTERNS ( 61 ) , ^ INTERACTION = , PER SOCIAL MINUTES OF ( 10 ) PATTERNS INTERACTION OBSERVATION PER MINUTE PATTERN 234 DYAD: 15C RECIPROCITY INDEX PART II (QUALITATIVE MEASURE) PARENT SOCIAL BEHAVIORS INFANT SOCIAL BEHAVIORS VOCALIZATION VOCALIZATION ACKNOWLEDGEMENT/EMPATHY 3 i n t e r e s t /p l e a s u r e 0 AFFECTION/PRAISE/ENCOURAGEMENT 1 RESPONSE/IMITATION o PLAYFUL 1 NEED/DESIRE 1 IMITATION 0 PROTEST/DISTRESS 5 ATTENTION-GETTING/ UNDETERMINED n INSTRUCTIVE/DESCRIPTIVE 3 NO VOCALIZATION 11 PROHIBITION /REDIRECTION 0 GESTURES/BODYMOVEMENTS CRITICISM 1 APPROACH/AFFECTION/ EXTRANEOUS CONVERSATION - 9 PLAYFULNESS 0 UNDETERMINED 1 IMITATION 0 NO VOCALIZATION 34 SIGNALLING 3 GESTURES/BODY MOVEMENTS ACTIVITY-CENTERED 1 AFFECTION/COMFORT' 10 COMPLIANCE TO VERBAL ASSISTANCE n REOUESTS 0 PLAY/GAMES ,3 COMPLIANCE TO VERBAL IMITATION 0 ' REOUESTS & DEMON. 0 SIGNALLING 7 COMPLIANCE TO P.P. 7 OBJECT PREPARATION 0 ! RESISTANCE/REFUSAL l OBJECT PRESENTATION/EXCHANGE 13 UNDETERMINED Q OBJECT DEMONSTRATION 1 NO GESTURES/BODY MVMTS. 3 PHYSICAL GUIDANCE/POSITIONING 16 VISUAL CONTACT RESTRICTION/REDIRECTION n GAZE 4 INTRUSION/PUNISHMENT n GLANCE 0 WITHDRAWAL/REFUSAL n LOOKS ELSEWHERE 4 LEAVE/ENTER n EYES CLOSED 4 UNDETERMINED . i UNDETERMINED 3 NO GESTURES OR BODY MOVEMENT i FACIAL EXPRESSION VISUAL CONTACT 5ATTENTIVE/SERIOUS GAZE AT INFANT 40 PLEASED/PLAYFUL 0 GLANCE AT INFANT 3 NEUTRAL/DROWSY 3 LOOKS ELSEWHERE Q DISTURBED 2 UNDETERMINED n UNDETERMINED 3 HOLDING POSITION HELD CLOSE 43 HELD AWAY 9 SEPARATE - CLOSE 0 SEPARATE - DISTANT n TRANSITION n FACIAL POSITION FACE-TO-FACE - CLOSE 47 FACE-TO-FACE - DISTANT 0 NOT FACE-TO-FACE 7 FACIAL EXPRESSION PLEASED/PLAYFUL lb NEUTRAL 3? CONCERNED/SYMPATHETIC n DISTURBED 6 -i UNDETERMINED APPENDIX J VALIDITY STUDY DATA FOR EACH DYAD 235 236 Dyad PARENT-INFANT INTERACTION BEHAVIORS INFANT PROGRAM TEACHER OBSERVATIONS VALIDITY STUDY PARENT INTERACTION BEHAVIORS often soon smtma seen seWom/navT unsr/ean't (low freqJ VOCALIZATION (high fraq.) (msdo freqj ans/ d.k. ACKNOWIEDGEMENT /EMPATHY AFI-ECraON/FRAISE/EKCOUHACMlElir -t- PLAYFUL + ATTENTION-GETTING/ e btr u c t i ve /descriptive + PROHIBITION + CRITICISM 4- EXTRANEOUS CONVERSATION 4- UNDETERMINED NO VOCALIZATION GESTURES/BODY MOVEMENTS AFFECTION/COMFORT + ASSISTANCE 4. PLAY/GAMES ....+ DOTATION + SIGNALLING .... "" + OBJECT {REPARATION rt i : : n OBJECT HtESENTATION/ESCHANGE + OBJECT DEMONSTRATION PHYSICAL GUIDANCE / PCS IT IONING + RESTRICTION/REDffiECTION i OTrauSION/PtJNISHMENP WirHDRAMVL/REFUS&L IEAVE/ENTER 4- UNDETERMINED NO GESTURES CR BODY MOVEMENTS VISUAL CONTACT GAZE AT INFANT + GLANCE AT INFANT LOOKS ELSEWHERE + UNDETERMINED HOIDING POSITION HE ID CLOSE + HE ID AWAY + SEPARATE - CLOSE + SEPARATE - DISTANT + TRANSITION FACIAL POSITION FACE-TO-FACE - CLOSE + FACE-TO-FACE - DISTANT + NOT FACE-TO-FACE + FACIAL EXPRESSION PLEASED/PLAYFUL + NEUTRAL + concerned/sympathetic + DISTURBED + undetermined 237 Dyad:_1 PARENT-INFANT INTERACTION BEHAVIORS INFANT PROGRAM TEACHER OBSERVATIONS VALIDITY STUDY INFANT INTERACTION BEHAVIORS oftan seen SujfcHS S3©B2 soldcm/novr unsr/can't (high frsq.) (naasd. fTssq.) (low freq.) ana/ d.k. VOCALIZATION INTEREST/PIEASURE + RESPONSE/DOTATION + NEED/DESIRE + PROTEST /DISTRESS + UNDETERMINED NO VOCALIZATION GESTURES/BODY MOVEMENTS AFFROACH/AFFECTION/ PLAYFULNESS + ACTIVITY-CENTERED + IMITATION + SIGNALLING + COMPLIANCE TO VERBAL/ SIGNALS + COMPLIANCE TO VERBAL/ SIGNALS 4- DEMONSTRATION + COMPLIANCE TO PHYSICAL PROMPT /HANDLING + RESISTANCE/REFUSAL + UNDETERMINED NO -COMMUNICATIVE GESTURES OR BODY MOVEMENTS VISUAL CONTACT GAZE AT PARENT/ACTIVITY + GLANCE AT PARENT/ACTIVITY + LOONS ELSEWHERE + EYES CLOSED + UNDETERMINED FACIAL EXPRESSION ATTENTIVE/SERIOUS + PLEASED/PLAYFUL + NEUTRAL/DROWSY 4. DISTURBED + I UNDETERMINED PARENT-INFANT INTERACTION BEHAVIORS INFANT PROGRAM TEACHER OBSERVATIONS VALIDITY STUDY RECIPROCITY QUESTIONS 1. To what kinds of infant behaviors does this parent respond positively? Smiles, eye contact, positive (successful) interaction with activity/teacher. 2. To what kinds of infant behaviors does this parent respond negatively? Disinterest in activity - lack of cooperation; fussiness; refusal of eye contact. 3. To what kinds of parent behaviors does this infant respond positively? Inconsistently to social game; tickles; cuddling. 4. To what kinds of parent behaviors does this infant respond negatively? Physical demands. 5. How "balanced" is the flow of social communication between this parent and infant? Do they typically alternate (take turns) initi ating interactions and responding to each other, or is, one more likely to initiate, one less likely to respond, etc.? Turn-taking limited but beginning; largeLy parent-initiated; possibly 20^ of time chiId-initiated, 6. What is the general "tone"of the parent-infant social interactions Is it playful and pleasureable to both? Rewarding to one but not the other? Stressful to either? Consistent or changeable? Inconsistently pleasurable. Mom sometimes seems anxious, unsure of how to get/attain "successful, pleasurabLe interactiori'with ner child. Child often "closes" mom out; looking away, ignoring her. 239 Dyad: 2 PARENT-INFANT INTERACTION BEHAVIORS INFANT PROGRAM TEACHER OBSERVATIONS VALIDITY STUDY PARENT INTERACTION BEHAVIORS j often seen stntna seen 1 saldcm/nevi unst*/can't (med. fraqj | (low freqj ans/ d.k. VOCALIZATION (high freq.) ACKNOWLEDGEMENT /EMPATHY + AFFECTION/PHAISE/EKCOURAlSMEiff + 1 HAYFUL + 1 JmEETIOBMETTING/ INSTRUCTIVE/DESCRIPTIVE + PROHIBITION + CRITICISM + EXTRANEOUS CONVERSATION + UNDETERMINED NO VOCALIZATION + GESTURES/BODY MOVEMENTS AFFECTION/COMFORT + j ASSISTANCE 1 + 1 PLAY/GAMES + S IMITATION 4- (1 ' SIGNALLING 4- ii 1 OBJECT PREPARATION + i 1 OBJECT KLESENTmON/liXCHAiK + i 1 OBJECT DEMONSTRATION + i FHYSICAL GOmKE/POSlTKNSiG + i RESTRICTION /REDIRECTION 1 4- INTRUSION/PUNISHMENT ■h WITHDRAWAL/REFUSAL + ie&ve/Enter + UNDETERMINED NO (SLURBS OR' BODY MOVEMENTS VISUAL CONTACT GAZE AT INFANT + GLANCE AT INFANT + LOOKS ELSEWHERE + UNDETERMINED HOLDING POSITION HE ID CLOSE + HEID AWAY + SEPARATE - CLOSE + SEPARATE - DISTANT + TRANSITION FACIAL POSITION FACE-TO-FACE - CLOSE + FACE-TO-FACE - DISTANT 4- NOT FACE-TO-FACE + FACIAL EXPRESSION PIEAsED/PLAYFUL + NKUrRATi T CONCERNED/SYMPATHETIC + DISTURBED + UNDETERMINED 240 Dyad:__ £ PARENT-INFANT INTERACTION BEHAVIORS INFANT PROGRAM TEACHER OBSERVATIONS VALIDITY STUDY INFANT INTERACTION BEHAVIORS often saan smtas seaa ssldom/naw unar/can't (high fTeq.) (msd. froq.) (low freq.) ans/ d.k. VOCALIZATION INTEREST/PLEASURE + RESPONSE/IMITATION + NEED/DESIRE + PROTEST/DISTRESS + UNDETERMINED NO VOCALIZATION T GESTURES/BODY MOVEMENTS ap p r o a c h /af fe cti on/ PLAYFULNESS ACTIVITY-CENTERED + IMITATION + SIGNALLING + COMPLIANCE TO VERBAL/ SIGNALS + COMPLIANCE TO VERBAL/ SIGNALS + DEMONSTRATION + COMPLIANCE TO PHYSICAL PROMPT/HANDLING + RESISTANCE/REFUSAL + UNDETERMINED NO -COMMUNICATIVE CSSTURES OR BODY MOVEMENTS + VISUAL CONTACT GAZE AT PARENT/ACTIVITY + GLANCE AT PARENT/ACTIVITY + LOOKS ELSEWHERE + EYES CLOSED + UNDETERMINED FACIAL EXPRESSION ATTENTIVE/SERIOUS + PLEASED/PLAYFUL + NEUTRAL/DROWSY DISTURBED + UNDETERMINED 1 PARENT-INFANT INTERACTION BEHAVIORS INFANT PROGRAM TEACHER OBSERVATIONS VALIDITY STUDY RECIPROCITY QUESTIONS 1. To what kinds of infant behaviors does this parent respond positively? 1. Signing. 2, Using schemes. 2. To what kinds of infant behaviors does this parent respond negatively? 1. Throwing. 2, Not eating. 3. To what kinds of parent behaviors does this infant respond positively? 1, Feeding. 4. To what kinds of parent behaviors does this infant respond negatively? 1, Putting on glasses and earmolds. 5. How "balanced" is the flow of social communication between this parent and infant? Do they typically alternate (take turns) initi ating interactions and responding to each other, or is, one more likely to initiate, one less likely to respond, etc.? Parent does most initiating. Child gives most responses. 6. What is the general "tone"of the parent-infant social interactions Is it playful and pleasureable to both? Rewarding to one but not the other? Stressful to either? Consistent or changeable? Seems very tasK-oriented - doesn't usually "play." Parent is very serious and does not usually give free time or breaks between activities. 242 Dyad: \ PARENT-INFANT INTERACTION BEHAVIORS INFANT PROGRAM TEACHER OBSERVATIONS VALIDITY STUDY PARENT INTERACTION BEHAVIORS ofton soen amtms soon 1 soUom/nsvt unsr/ean't | VOCALIZATION (high freq.] (mod. freqj jj (low freq J ana/ d.k. 1 ACKNOWLEDGEMENT /EMPATHY 1 + AFraCTION/FRAISE/EECOURAGEMENT PLAYFUL + ATTENTION-GETTING/ IKSTRUCTIVE/lESCRXFl’IVB + FROHZBITIOH CRITICISM + EXTRANEOUS CONVERSATION + UNDETERMINED no vocamaTioN GESTURES/BODY MOVEMENTS AFFECTION/COMFORT + ASSISTANCE ■f j PLAT/GAMES . i IMITATION 8 + SIGNALLING + a OBJECT PREPARATION +■ r ...... o b j e c t h ^ s n p a t i o n /e x c h a n S: + I OBJECT DEMONSTRATION PHYSICAL GUIDANCE/FOSiriOICnCG + 1 1 RESTRICTION /REDIRECTION 4- ...... i ...... ; IOTRU3I0N/FUNISHKENT WITHDRAFiAL/REFUSAL + ULAVE/ENTER + UNDETERMINED NO GESTURES OR BCDT MOVH-ffiNTS VISUAL CONTACT GAZE AT INFANT ♦ GLANCE AT INFANT + LOOKS ELSEWHERE + UNDETERMINED HOLDING POSITION HE ID CLOSE + HEID AWAY SEPARATE - CLOSE + SEPARATE - DISTANT + TRANSITION FACIAL POSITION FACE-TO-FACE - CLOSE + FACE-TO-FACE - DISTANT + NOT FACE-TO-FACE + FACIAL EXPRESSION PIEASED/PLAYFUL + NEUTRAL + concerned/sympathetic + DISTURBED + UNDETERMINED 1 243 Dyad:___3 PARENT-INFANT INTERACTION BEHAVIORS INFANT PROGRAM TEACHER OBSERVATIONS VALIDITY STUDY INFANT INTERACTION BEHAVIORS often seen statmo soon soldoa/novr unar/can't (high freq.) (nod. freq.) (low freq.) a na/ d.k. VOCALIZATION INTEREST / PLEASURE + RESPONSE / DO T A T I O N + NEED/DESIRE + fRCTEST/DISTRESS + UNDETERMINED NO VOCALIZATION GESTURES/BOOT MOVEMENTS a p p r o a c h /a f f e c t i o n / PLAYFULNESS + ACTIVITY-CENTERED + DOTATION SIGNALLING + COMPLIANCE TO VERBAL/ SIGNALS + COMPLIANCE TO VERBAL/ SIGNALS <■ DEMONSTRATION + COMPLIANCE TO PHYSICAL PROMPT /HANDLING + RESISTANCE/REFUSAL 4- " ' UNDETERMINED NO -COMMUNICATIVE GESTURES OR BODY MOVEMENTS VISUAL CONTACT GAZE AT PARENT/ACTIVITY + GLANCE AT PARENT/ACTIVITY + LOCKS ELSEWHERE + EYES CLOSED + UNDETERMINED FACIAL EXPRESSION ATTENTIVE/SERIOUS + FTEASED/PLAYFUL NEUTRAL/DROWSY f DISTURBED + UNDETERMINED ■ 244 Dyad: 3______ PARENT-INFANT INTERACTION BEHAVIORS INFANT PROGRAM TEACHER OBSERVATIONS VALIDITY STUDY RECIPROCITY QUESTIONS 1. To what kinds of infant behaviors does this parent respond positively? Smiles, imitations. Child's participation in social games. Reflects child's smiles, "happy reactions" to various activities. 2. To what kinds of infant behaviors does this parent respond negatively? Lack of attention to activity. 3. To what kinds of parent behaviors does this infant respond positively? Holding, talking, social games, positive verbal input ("Good girl"). 4. To what kinds of parent behaviors does this infant respond negatively? Child usually very positive. Doesn't always like to be kept on task, made to sit still. 5. How "balanced" is the flow of social communication between this parent and infant? Do they typically alternate (take turns) initi ating interactions and responding to each other, or is, one more likely to initiate, one less likely to respond, etc.? 6. What, is the general "tone"of the parent-infant social interactions? Is it playful and pleasureable to both? Rewarding to one but not the other? Stressful to either? Consistent or changeable? 245 Dyad:4 PARENT-INFANT INTERACTION BEHAVIORS INFANT PROGRAM TEACHER OBSERVATIONS VALIDITY STUDY PARENT INTERACTION BEHAVIORS | often soon smtms seen s©ldom/n«VT unsr/can'-t | VOCALIZATION j(high freq.) (msdo freqj (low freq J ans/ d.k. 1 ACKNOWIEDGEMENF^SMPATHY 1 AFFECTION/PRAISE/ENCOURAGEMENT. 1 + PLAYFUL L ...... + ATTENTION-GETTING/ INSTRUCTIVE/DESCRIPTIVE ... _ T+ 1 RioHiBirion O O T I C I S M ...... ■r EXTRANEOUS CONVERSATION + UNDETERMINED 3 . .... I NO VOCALIZATION . r r GESTURES/BODY MOVEMENTS AFFECTI0N/CCMF03T + 1 1 ASSISTANCE i- j ] PUY/GAMES '' ’ . . . + 8 : IMITATION + 1 1 SIGNAtXING + . i OBJECT PREPARATION T ! OBJECT fiSESENTATIOH/EXCHANGE ■ 11 .. ■1 1 OBJECT DEMONSTRATION + 1 physical GumNCE/FosrrioirrNG + 1 RESTRICTION/REDIRECTION + :l INTRUSION/PUNISHMENT + WTTHDR&mL/REFUSAL 4- i LEAVE/ENTER + UNDETSlMINSD NO GESTURES CR BOUT MOVEMENTS 4* ' VISUAL CONTACT GAZE AT INFANT + GLANCE AT INFANT lAORS ELSEWHERE + UNDETERMINED HOLDING POSITION HE ID CLOSE + HEID A WAY + SEPARATE - CLOSE + SEPARATE - DISTANT ’ + TRANSITION FACIAL POSITION FACE-TO-FACE - CLOSE + FACE-TO-FACE - DISTANT + N O T FACE-TO-FACE + FACIAL EXPRESSION PIEASED/PLAYFUL + NEUTRAL CONCERNED/SYMPATHETIC + DISTURBED + ... UNDETERMINED 246 Dyad:__ /£ PARENT-INFANT INTERACTION BEHAVIORS INFANT PROGRAM TEACHER OBSERVATIONS VALIDITY STUDY INFANT INTERACTION BEHAVIORS often seen siatma sees so Idea/now unar/can't (high £*®q.) (wd< freqo) (low frcq.) ans/ d.k. VOCALIZATION i n t e r e s t /p i e a s u r e + RESPONSE/BCTAIION + NEED/DESIRE + PROTEST/DISTRESS UNDETERMINED N O VOCALIZATION + GESTURES /BOUT MOVEMENTS APRROACHyAFEECTION/ PLAYFULNESS + ACTIVITY-CENTERED + IMITATION + SIGNALLING + COMPLIANCE TO VERBAL/ SIGNALS + COMPLIANCE TO VERBAL/ SIGNALS * DEMONSTRATION .+ COMPLIANCE TO PHYSICAL PROMPT /HANDLING + RESISTANCE /REFUSAL + UNDETERMINED NO COMMUNICATIVE GESTURES OR BODY MOVEMENTS + VISUAL CONTACT GAZE AT PARENT/ACTIVITY + GLANCE AT PARENT/ACTIVITY + LOONS ELSEWHERE + EYES CLOSED + UNDETERMINED F ACIAL EXPRESSION ATTENTIVE/SERIOUS + PLEASED/PLAYFUL + NEUTRAL/DROWSY + DISTURBED + UNDETERMINED 1 247 Dyad: ^____ PARENT-INFANT INTERACTION BEHAVIORS INFANT PROGRAM TEACHER OBSERVATIONS VALIDITY STUDY RECIPROCITY QUESTIONS 1. To what kinds of infant behaviors does this parent respond positively? When she does something they want to see - standing, pulling to stand, holding a spoon, etc.,.. Really, any kind of behavior that they expect her to be doing 2. To wtia^ ^xrrcfsf behaviors does this parent respond negatively? 1 ) When she is looking at the lights, they say "Head up." 2) When she is tired at school - "You can sleep at home;" "Youire at school, you need to work now." 3. To what kinds of parent behaviors does this infant respond positively? Physical contact - hugging - really responds. 4. To what kinds of parent behaviors does this infant respond negatively? When redirected or told "no." 5. How "balanced" is the flow of social communication between this parent and infant? Do they typically alternate (take turns) initi ating interactions and responding to each other, or is, one more likely to initiate, one less likely to respond, etc.? I think they try to take turns but child is so stubborn at times that I feel they really go by her mood. 6. What is the general "tone"of the parent-infant social interactions? Is it playful and pleasureable to both? Rewarding to one but not the other? Stressful to either? Consistent or changeable? The tone is good. Mom is very sensitive to ner needs and enjoys playing with her. 248 Dyad: 5 PARENT-INFANT INTERACTION BEHAVIORS INFANT PROGRAM TEACHER OBSERVATIONS VALIDITY STUDY PARENT INTERACTION BEHAVIORS often seen | smtm3 seen seUom/nnvr unsr/can't (high freq.) (mad. frsq,) (low freq,) ans/ d«k. VOCALIZATION ACKNOWIEDGEMENT/EMPATHY 4* AFFBCnON/PRAISE/EKCOBRAtSENr + PLAYFUL 4* a t t e n ^ o n -g e t t i n g / INSTRUCTIVE/DESCRIPTIVE + HIOHIB3TIOH + CRITICISM "" ' "" " + EXTRANEOUS CONVERSATION + .. UNDETERMINED NO VOC&UZATION ... . . GESTURES /BOB? MOVEMENTS AFFECTTQN/CCMFORX 4* ASSISTANCE ■4. 1 FUY/GAMES + 8 D O T A T I O N D + S I G m t U N G + OBJECT PREPARATION + OBJECT H!ESENTATIOn M c H a S + OBJECT DEMONSTRATION i + p h y s i c a l fflnDara/FosinioSinjg T- restriction /redirection + i n t r u s i o n /p u n i s h m e n t OTTHBMteAL/REFUSAL + , LEAVE/ENTER + 1 UNDETERMINED NO GESTURES OR BODY MOVEMENTS VISUAL CONTACT GAZE AT INFANT + GUNGE AT INFANT 4* LOOKS ELSEWHERE + UNDETERMINED HOIDING POSITION HEID CLOSE + HELD A WAY + SEPARATE - CLOSE 4* SEPARATE - DISTANT + TRANSITION FACIAL POSITION FACE-TO-FACE - CLOSE + FACE-TO-FACE - DISTANT 4- NOT FACE-TO-FACE + FACIAL EXPRESSION FIEASED/PLAYFUL + NEUTRAL + CONCERNED/SYMPATHETIC + DISTURBED + ... UNDETERMINED 1 249 Dyad:__ 5 PARENT-INFANT INTERACTION BEHAVIORS INFANT PROGRAM TEACHER OBSERVATIONS VALIDITY STUDY INFANT INTERACTION BEHAVIORS often seen SBitias s©©ia seldom/nevr unar/ean't (high freq.) (mad. freq.) (low freq.) a n a / d.k. VOCALIZATION INTEREST/PLEASURE 4. RESPONSE/IMITATION + NEED/DESIRE + PROTEST /DISTRESS + UNDETERMINED NO VOCALIZATION GESTURES/BODY MOVEMENTS a f h i o a c h /a f f e c t i o n / PLAYFULNESS + ACTIVITY-CENTERED + IMITATION + SIGNALLING COMPLIANCE TO VERBAL/ SIGNALS + COMPLIANCE TO VERBAL/ SIGNALS + DEMONSTRATION + COMPLIANCE TO PHYSICAL PROMPT/HANDLING + RESISTANCE/REFUSAL + UNDETERMINED NO COMMUNICATIVE ffiSTURES OR BODY MOVEMENTS VISUAL CONTACT GAZE AT PARENT/ACTIVITY + GLANCE AT PARENT/ACTIVITY + LOCKS ELSEWHERE + EYES CLOSED + UNDETERMINED FACIAL EXPRESSION ATTENTIVE/SERIOUS PLEASED/PLAYFUL + NEUTRAL/DROWSY 4- DISTURBED + UNDETERMINED 1 250 Dyad: 5_____ PARENT-INFANT INTERACTION BEHAVIORS INFANT PROGRAM TEACHER OBSERVATIONS VALIDITY STUDY RECIPROCITY QUESTIONS 1. To what kinds of infant behaviors does this parent respond positively? ChiLd climbing on table. Child's trying uew activities (e.g., climbing through the tunnel). 2. To what kinds of infant behaviors does this parent respond negatively? Not seen. 3. To what kinds of parent behaviors does this infant respond positively? Mom's tickling child and talking to child. 4. To what kinds of parent behaviors does this infant respond negatively? Diaper-changing. 5. How "balanced" is the flow of social communication between this parent and infant? Do they typically alternate (take turns) initi ating interactions and responding to each other, or is, one more likely to initiate, one less likely to respond, etc.? There is usualLy little social communication between parent and infant. When there is, it is usually initiated by the parent. 6. What is the general "tone"of the parent-infant social interactions? Is it playful and pleasureable to both? Rewarding to one but not the other? Stressful to either? Consistent or changeable? The parent-infant social interactions always appear comfortable and unstrained. At times Mom initiates tickling and more playful games that the infant really enjoys. The parent reacts most positively to the infant's achieving the goals in the classroom setting. 251 Dyad:_6 PARENT-INFANT INTERACTION BEHAVIORS INFANT PROGRAM TEACHER OBSERVATIONS VALIDITY STUDY PARENT INTERACTION BEHAVIORS often soon | stiitma soon geWom/nnvt unsr/can't | (high freq.) (medo freqj (low freq,) ana/ d.k. | VOCALIZATION ACKNOWU2DGEMENT /EMPATHY + AFFECTIOIJ/PRAISE/EECOURAGENENT + PLAYFUL + ATTEOTIOH-(2?mKG/ ESTRUCPIVE/DjSCRIFnVS + FROHIBSIOH + CRITICISM + EETRANKOUS CONVERSATION + UNDETERMINED .. k o vocauzATioi GESTURES/BOOT MOVEMENTS AFFECTION/COMFORT .+ ASSISTANCE ■ + 1 PLAY/GAMES ..... EOTATIOM + I) SIGNALLING + ll I OBJECT PREPARATION 4- .1| ““ OBJECT KJESENTATION/EXCMNGE 1 1 OBJECT DEMONSTRATION + i PHXSIC&L GtllDACT/RBITIoi&KG1 i + RESTRICTION/REDIRECTION + 8 1 INTRUSION/ PUNISHMENT 8 + I VOTHERAVSL/REFUSAL + J IEAVE/ENTER + 1 UNDETERMINED ( KO GESTURES (St BODY KOVEffiNTS I VISUAL CONTACT GAZE AT INFANT + | GLANCE AT INFANT "4- ( LOOKS EISEWHERE + UNDETERMINED HOLDING FOS33TON HELD CLOSE + HEID AWAY + SEPARATE - CLOSE + SEPARATE - DISTANT + TRANSITION FACIAL POSITION FACE-TO-FACE - CLOSE + FACE-TO-FACE - DISTANT + NOT FACE-TO-FACE + FACIAL EXPRESSION PLEASED/PLAYFUL + NEUTRAL + H CONCERNED/SYMPATHETIC + DISTURBED + UNDETERMINED 252 Dyad:__ 6 PARENT-INFANT INTERACTION BEHAVIORS INFANT PROGRAM TEACHER OBSERVATIONS VALIDITY STUDY INFANT INTERACTION BEHAVIORS often soon snfciso sees sold ora/novr unar/can't (high freq.) (sssd« fTeq.) (low freq.) ana/ d.k. VOCALIZATION INTEREST/PIEASURE + RESPONSE /IMITATION . + NEED/DESroE + racrrEST /DISTRESS UNDETERMINED NO VOCALIZATION GESTURES /30DT MOVEMENTS a p p r o a c h /a f f e c t i o n / PLAYFULNESS + ACTXVTT7-CEOTERED + IMITATION + SIGNALLING + COMPLIANCE TO VERBAL/ SIGNALS .+ COMPLIANCE TO VERBAL/ SIGNALS * DEMONSTRATION + COMPLIANCE TO PHYSICAL PROMPT/HANDLING + RESISTANCE /REFUSAL f UNDETERMINED NO .COMMUNICATIVE GESTURES OR BODY MOVEMENTS VISUAL CONTACT GAZE AT PARENT/ACTIVITY + STANCE AT PARENT/ACTIVITY + LOOKS ELSEWHERE + EYES CLOSED + UNDETERMINED FACIAL EXPRESSION ATTENTIVE/SERIOUS + PTEASED/PLAYFUL + NEUTRAL/DROWSY + DISTURBED + I UNDETERMINED 1 253 Dyad: PARENT-INFANT INTERACTION BEHAVIORS INFANT PROGRAM TEACHER OBSERVATIONS VALIDITY STUDY RECIPROCITY QUESTIONS 1. To what kinds of infant behaviors does this parent respond positively? Physical contact,, playful social interactions. 2. To what kinds of infant behaviors does this parent respond negatively? 3. To what kinds of parent behaviors does this infant respond positively? 4. To what kinds of parent behaviors does this infant respond negatively? 5. How "balanced" is the flow of social communication between this parent and infant? Do they typically alternate (take turns) initi ating interactions and responding to each other, or is, one more likely to initiate, one less likely to respond, etc.? Possibly more chiLd-initiated. Interactions seem more physical. 6. What is the general "tone"of the parent-infant social interactions? Is it playful and pleasureable to both? Rewarding to one but not the other? Stressful to either? Consistent or changeable? Quiet. Very caring (especially on Dad's part). Pleasurable to both. Child is olayful. 254 Dyad: 7 PARENT-INFANT INTERACTION BEHAVIORS INFANT PROGRAM TEACHER OBSERVATIONS VALIDITY STUDY PARENT INTERACTION BEHAVIORS often seen sTiTtma seen seldom/navt unar/can't (high freq.) (mod. fpeqj (low fr©qJ ana/ d.k. i VOCALIZATION ACKNOWLEDGEMENT/EMPATHY + AFTSCnON/FHAISE/EECONHACSMEtJT a- 1 FLAYFUL + ATTENTION-GETTING/ INSTRUCTIVE /DESCRIPTIVE + ...... i prohibition CRITICISM + EXTRANEOUS CONVERSATION + UNDETERMINED ' ’ NO VOCALIZATION _ .. -1... 1 .. GESTURES /BOOT MOVEMENTS [ AFFECTION/COMFORT + ASSISTANCE + I k a y /g a m e s + it DOTATION i 4* SIGNALLING 6 + OBJECT PREPARATION it OBJECT KffiSEOTATION/EXCHAKa; + i OBJECT DEMONSTRATION + i PHYSICAL GUIDAKCE/FOSir'ioilDiG 4- i restriction /redirection + i n t r u s i o n /p u n i s h m e n t 1 *4- WITHDRAWAL/REFUSAL s 4* i LEAVE/ENTER + UNDETERMINED NO GESTURES CR BODY MOVEMENTS VISUAL CONTACT GAZE AT INFANT + GLANCE AT INFANT -t- LOOKS ELSEWHERE i- undetermined HOIDING POSITION HEID CLOSE + HELD AWAY +■ SEPARATE - CLOSE + SEPARATE - DISTANT + TRANSITION FACIAL POSITION FACE-TO-FACE - CLOSE + FACE-TO-FACE - DISTANT + N O T FACE-TO-FACE FACIAL EXPRESSION p i e As e d /f u i f u l NEUTRAL + c o n c e r n e d /sympathetic + d i s t u r b e d ~ + UNDETERMINED 255 Dyad:__ £ PARENT-INFANT INTERACTION BEHAVIORS INFANT PROGRAM TEACHER OBSERVATIONS VALIDITY STUDY INFANT INTERACTION BEHAVIORS oftan seon gtflfcfgg $S€?!3 saldosa/navr unsr/can't (high freq.) (Eodo freq.) (low freq.) ano/ d.ko VOCALIZATION i n t e r e s t /ft e a s u r e + RESPONSE /DOTATION + NEED/DESIRE + PROTEST/DISTRESS + UNDETERMINED NO VOCALIZATION GESTURES/SCOT MOVEMENTS AFFROACH/ AFFECTION/ PLAYFULNESS + ACTTVTTY-CENrERED + DOTATION + SIGNALLING + COMPLIANCE TO VERBAL/ SIGNALS + COMPLIANCE TO VERBAL/ SIGNALS DEMONSTRATION + COMPLIANCE TO PHYSICAL FROMPT /HANDLING + RESISTANCE /REFUSAL " — " UNDETERMINED NO -COMMUNICATIVE GESTURES OR BODY MOVEMENTS VISUAL CONTACT GAZE AT PARENT/ACTIVITY + GLANCE AT PARENT/ACTIVITY 1 + LOOKS ELSEWHERE + EYES CLOSED + UNDETERMINED FACIAL EXPRESSION ATTENTIVE/SERIOUS + PLEASED/PLAYFUL + NEUTRAL/DROWSY + DLSTURHED + UNDETERMINED t 256 Dyad: 7______ PARENT-INFANT INTERACTION BEHAVIORS INFANT PROGRAM TEACHER OBSERVATIONS VALIDITY STUDY RECIPROCITY QUESTIONS 1. To what kinds of infant behaviors does this parent respond positively? Very positive in his interactions with child» almost generalized - not to a specific behavior• 2. To what kinds of infant behaviors does this parent respond negatively? More concerned father than negative# 3. To what kinds of parent behaviors does this infant respond positively? Touch, eye contact, holding. 4. To what kinds of parent behaviors does this infant respond negatively? 5. How "balanced" is the flow of social communication between this parent and infant? Do they typically alternate (take turns) initi ating interactions and responding to each other, or is, one more likely to initiate, one less likely to respond, etc.? More parent-initiated. A lot of eye contact from child. 6. What is the general "tone"of the parent-infant social interactions? Is it playful and pleasureable to both? Rewarding to one but not the other? Stressful to either? Consistent or changeable? Seems pleasurable, not stressful to either. 257 Dyad:8 PARENT-INFANT INTERACTION BEHAVIORS INFANT PROGRAM TEACHER OBSERVATIONS VALIDITY STUDY PARENT INTERACTION BEHAVIORS j ofton soon J srntias soon 1 soldors/nsvr unsr/ean't | (high froq.) (mod. froq J | (low froqJ an3 / d.k. VOCALIZATION ACKNOWLEDGEMENT /EMPATHT + AFFEC^ON/PRAISE/ENCOURAGEMENT 1* PLAYFUL +• a x t e k t i INSTRUCFXVE/nESCRIFTTVB + PROHIBITION CRITICISM ...... + EXTRANEOUS CONVERSATION + UNDETERMINED NO VOCALIZATION GESTURES/BCOY MOVEMENTS a f f e c t i o n /co m f o r t + ASSISTANCE + PLAY/GAMES + DOTATION r SIGNALLING a ^ OBJECT PREPARATION OBJECT PRESENTATION/EXCHANGE ' •r OBJECT BSOTSTRATIOn “ •h p h y s i c a l GumNWFosxrioNiNG + restriction /redirection ' ■ TL. + 1 i n t r u s i o n /p u n i s h m e n t *r WITHDRAWAL/REFUSAL + , LEAVE/ENTER 4- UNDETERMINED NO GESTURES OR BODY MOfeffitffS VISUAL CONTACT GAZE AT INFANT + GLANCE AT INFANT + LOOKS ELSEWHERE + UNDETERMINED HOLDING FOSITION HELD CLOSE + HEID AWAY + SEPARATE - CLOSE + SEPARATE - DISTANT + TRANSITION FACIAL POSITION j FACE-TO-FACE - CLOSE + FACE-TO-FACE - DISTANT NOT FACE-TO-FACE FACIAL EXPRESSION PLEASED/PLAYFUL + NEUTRAL 1 + CONCERNED/SYMPATHETIC DISTURBED •f UNDETERMINED 258 Dyad:_g PARENT-INFANT INTERACTION BEHAVIORS INFANT PROGRAM TEACHER OBSERVATIONS VALIDITY STUDY INFANT INTERACTION BEHAVIORS oftan saan S0tO0 soldraa/navr unar/can't (high fraq.) (sssdo froq.) (low freq.) ana/ d.k. VOCALIZATION i n t e r e s t /p l e a s u r e + RESPONSE/DOTATION + NEED/DESIRE + PROTEST /DISTRESS ■h UNDETERMINED NO VOCALIZATION GESTURES/BODY MOVEMENTS AFHLOACH/AFFECTION/ PLAYFULNESS + ACTIVTTY-CENrERED + IMITATION + SIGNALLING + COMPLIANCE TO VERBAL/ SIGNALS + COMPLIANCE TO VERBAL/ SIGNALS + DEMONSTRATION + COMPLIANCE TO PHYSICAL PROMPT /HANDLING + RESISTANCE /REFUSAL + UNDETERMINED NO -COMMUNICATIVE (SSTURES OR BODY MOVEMENTS VISUAL CONTACT GAZE AT PARENT/ACTIVITY + GLANCE AT PARENT/ACTIVITY + LOOKS ELSEWHERE 1 + EYES CLOSED + UNDETERMINED FACIAL EXPRESSION ATTENTIVE/SERIOUS + PLEASED/PLAYFUL + NEUTRAL/DRCWSY + DISTURBED + UNDETERMINED t 259 Dyad; 8 PARENT-INFANT INTERACTION BEHAVIORS INFANT PROGRAM TEACHER OBSERVATIONS VALIDITY STUDY RECIPROCITY QUESTIONS 1. To what kinds of infant behaviors does this parent respond positively? Eye contact, cooing, crying (indicating need), 2. To what kinds of infant behaviors does this parent respond negatively? Passivity, fussiness toward activity - not real negative, just "holds back," 3. To what kinds of parent behaviors does this infant respond positively? Touch, eye contact, talking. 4. To what kinds of parent behaviors does this infant respond negatively? Being moved through activities; she prefers being still, cuddled, 5. How "balanced" is the flow of social communication between this parent and infant? Do they typically alternate (take turns) initi ating interactions and responding to each other, or is, one more likely to initiate, one less likely to respond, etc.? More parent initiating - 25/75* 6. What is the general "tone"of the parent-infant social interactions? Is it playful and pleasureable to both? Rewarding to one but not the other? Stressful to either? Consistent or changeable? Pleasurable to both - more rewarding to child. Largely parent-initiated at this time. Lac* of response (development overall) seems somewhat stressful to Mom. 260 Dyad:__ o PARENT-INFANT INTERACTION BEHAVIORS INFANT PROGRAM TEACHER OBSERVATIONS VALIDITY STUDY PARENT INTERACTION BEHAVIORS often seen 1 smtms soon 1 saldom/nnvt unsr/can't [J (high freq.) (mod. freq*)j (low freq J ana/ d.k. | VOCALIZATION ACKNOWLEDGEMENT /EMPATHY + AFFECTION/PiSAISE/EECOlMSiEOT FL&YFUL ATTENTION-CETTING/ USTRUKTVE/teSCSmTVS + PROHIBITION + CRITICISM + EXTRANEOUS CONVERSATION 4* UNDETERMINED NO VOCALIZATION GESTURES/BODY MOVEMENTS AFFECTION/COMFORT + ASSISTANCE FLAY/GAMES IMITATION SIGNALLING OBJECT {REPARATION + OBJECT ERESEIffiATION/EXCHANlS; OBJECT DEMONSTRATION 8 PHYSICAL GUIMKCE/FOSITlbiS'G + RESTRICTION/REDIRECTION ... _ t — i n t r u s i o n /p u n i s h m e n t WITHDRAWAL/REFUSAL + LEAVE/ENTER + UNDETERMINED NO GESTURES OR B COT MOVEMENTS VISUAL CONTACT GAZE AT INFANT + GLANCE AT INFANT LOOKS ELSEWHERE + UNDETERMINED j HOLDING POSITION HELD CLOSE + HEID A WAY 1 + SEPARATE - CLOSE + SEPARATE - DISTANT | 4- TRANSITION | FACIAL POSITION FACE-TO-FACE - CLOSE + FACE-TO-FACE - DISTANT + NOT FACE-TO-FACE . + FACIAL EXPRESSION p i e As e d /p l a y f u l 4» I HETJTRATj A c o n c e r n e d /sympathetic DISTURBED + UNDETERMINED Dyad:__ 9 PARENT-INFANT INTERACTION BEHAVIORS INFANT PROGRAM TEACHER OBSERVATIONS VALIDITY STUDY INFANT INTERACTION BEHAVIORS often ssan ocrtias seem seLdom/navr unsr/can't (high freq.) (rasd. freq.) (l VOCALIZATION i n t e r e s t /p l e a s u r e RESPONSE/DOTATION + n e e d /d e s i r e + PROTEST/DISTRESS + UNDETERMINED NO VOCALIZATION GESTURES/BODT MOVEMENTS A p p r o a c h /a f f e c t i o n / PLAYFULNESS + ACTIVITY-CENTERED + IMITATION + SIGNALLING + COMPLIANCE TO VERBAL/ SIGNALS + COMPLIANCE TO VERBAL/ SIGNALS DEMONSTRATION + COMPLIANCE TO PHYSICAL PROMPT/HANDLING + RESISTANCE /REPOSAL + UNDETERMINED NO -COMMUNICATIVE GESTURES OR BODY MOVEMENTS VISUAL CONTACT GAZE AT PARENT/ACTIVITY + GLANCE AT PARENT/ACTIVITY + LOCKS ELSEWHERE + EYES CLOSED + UNDETERMINED FACIAL EXPRESSION ATTENTIVE/SERIOUS + PLEASED/PLAYFUL + NEUTRAL/DROWSY DISTURHED + UNDETERMINED 1 262 Dyad: 9 PARENT-INFANT INTERACTION BEHAVIORS INFANT PROGRAM TEACHER OBSERVATIONS VALIDITY STUDY RECIPROCITY QUESTIONS 1. To what kinds of infant behaviors does this parent respond positively? Participation in social games, imitation, child’s positive interaction with others. 2. To what kinds of infant behaviors does this parent respond negatively? Fussiness; child clinging to parent only, refusing interaction with others. 3. To what kinds of parent behaviors does this infant respond positively? Cuddles, social games/imitation - mild surprises. Likes calm, gentle, easy movement, soft voices. 4. To what kinds of parent behaviors does this infant respond negatively? Roughousing, being worked through activities he doesn’t want to participate in. 5. How "balanced" is the flow of social communication between this parent and infant? Do they typically alternate (take turns) initi ating interactions and responding to each other, or is, one more likely to initiate, one less likely to respond, etc.? Mom initiates more than child. Nice turn-taking. 6. What is the general "tone"of the parent-infant social interactions? Is it playful and pleasureable to both? Rewarding to one but not the other? Stressful to either? Consistent or changeable? Sometimes stressful to both, but more to shild. Generally pleasurable. 263 Dyad :__J0 PARENT-INFANT INTERACTION BEHAVIORS INFANT PROGRAM TEACHER OBSERVATIONS VALIDITY STUDY PARENT INTERACTION BEHAVIORS often seen smtms soon soldora/nevi unsr/can't (high freq.) (mod* freq*) (low freqJ ana/ d,lc. VOCALIZATION ACKNOWLEDGEMENT /EMPATHY + AFFECTCON/PHAISE/EBCOURAG^Nr + PLAYFUL + ATTENTION-GETTING/ msTRDcmB/tescaiFfivs + PROHIBITION CRITICISM f EXTRANEOUS CONVERSATION *5- UNDETERMINED NO VOCALIZATION + GESTURES/BOD? MOVEMENTS AFFECTION / COMFORT + ASSISTANCE - « FLAY/GAMES + i | IMITATION + i i SIGNALLING OBJECT REPARATION ( !j OBJECT FRESEHTATXOH/EXCMNGE B 1 I OBJECT DEMONSTRATION + FHYSICAL GUIDANCE /F03XT TONING » RESTRICTION /REDIRECTION 1 + BJTRUSIOH/FUHISHMENr WITHDRAWAL/REFUSAL 8 + i LEAVE/ENTER 1 + UWiCTERHlNSD i NO GESTURES OR BOB? MOVE® NTS ---- + --- - VISUAL CONTACT GAZE AT INFANT + GLANCE AT INFANT + LOOKS ELSEWHERE + UNDETERMINED HOLDING FOSITCON HELD CLOSE + HELD AWAY + SEPARATE - CLOSE + SEPARATE - DISTANT + TRANSITION FACIAL POSITION FACE-TO-FACE - CLOSE + FACE-TO-FACE - DISTANT + NOT FACE-TO-FACE + FACIAL EXPRESSION PLEASED/PLAYFUL + NEUTRAL + CONCERNED/SYMPATHETIC + DISTURBED + UNDETERMINED 264 D y a d : j Q PARENT-INFANT INTERACTION BEHAVIORS INFANT PROGRAM TEACHER OBSERVATIONS VALIDITY STUDY INFANT INTERACTION BEHAVIORS o t t u n saon satins seem soldcm/navy unsr/ean't (high fVeq») (m d . ffr©q.) (low a n a / d . k . VOCALIZATION INTEREST/PIEASURE + RESPONSE/IMITATION f NEED/DSSIRE + PROTEST/DISTRESS T UNDETERMINED NO VOCALIZATION + GESTURES/BOOT MOVEMENTS AFFROACH/AFFECTION/ PLAYFULNESS + ACTIVITY-CENTERED f IMITATION + SIGNALLING + COMPLIANCE TO VERBAL/ SIGNALS + COMPLIANCE TO VERBAL/ SIGNALS * DEMONSTRATION + COMPLIANCE TO PHYSICAL PROMPT/HANDLING + RESISTANCE /REFUSAL + UNDETERMINED NC -COMMUNICATIVE GESTURES OR BCD! MOVEMENTS + VISUAL CONTACT GAZE AT PARENT/ACTIVITY + GLANCE AT PARENT/ACTIVITY + LOOKS ELSEWHERE EYES CLOSED + UNDETERMINED FACIAL EXPRESSION ATTENTIVE/SERIOUS + PtEASED/PLAYFUL + NEUTRAL/DROWSY + DISTURBED + UNDETERMINED ' 265 Dyad: 1 Q_____ PARENT-INFANT INTERACTION BEHAVIORS INFANT PROGRAM TEACHER OBSERVATIONS VALIDITY STUDY RECIPROCITY QUESTIONS 1. To what kinds of infant behaviors does this parent respond positively? Smiles; attempt at task, whether he succeeds or not. 2. To what kinds of infant behaviors does this parent respond negatively? Crying, not much else. 3. To what kinds of parent behaviors does this infant respond positively? Smiles, close contact. 4. To what kinds of parent behaviors does this infant respond negatively? Stern voice. 5. How "balanced" is the flow of social communication between this parent and infant? Do they typically alternate (take turns) initi ating interactions and responding to each other, or is, one more likely to initiate, one less likely to respond, etc.? Mom is more likely to initiate, only because of child's handicap. 6. What is the general "tone"of the parent-infant social interactions? Is it playful and pleasureable to both? Rewarding to one but not the other? Stressful to either? Consistent or changeable? Mom and child have a very playful and rewarding relationship. Consistent relationship and rewarding to both. 2 6 6 Dyad: 11 PARENT-INFANT INTERACTION BEHAVIORS INFANT PROGRAM TEACHER OBSERVATIONS VALIDITY STUDY PARENT INTERACTION BEHAVIORS often seen sntms seen 1 seldcra/navi unnr/can’t (high freq.) (mod. freq j (low freq J ans/ d.k. VOCALIZATION ACKNOWLEDGEMENT /EMPATHY + AFFECTION/PKAI^/EMCOURA g S sNT + FIATFUL + m E O T I O I W 2i f r a » / “ INSTRUCTIVE /DESQHFTXVE , ------+ frohibitioh CRITICISM ...... + EXTRANEOUS CONVERSATION + undetermined H O V O C A U Z A T I O U f GESTURES/BOOT MOVEMENTS AFFECTION/COMFORT + ASSISTANCE I + FIAT y GAMES IMITATION + .1 .. SIGNALLING 4- OBJECT REPARATION 4- . UjS 1 OBJECT KJESENTATION/EXCHANGE I OBJECT DKLOKSTRATIOM + Mj,, FHTSICAL GUIDANCE/POSITIONING . ... RESTRICTION/REDIRECTION INTRUSION/ PUNISHMENT + OTTHDR&WAL/SEFUSAL + HEAVE/ENTER + undetermined KO GESTURES CR BOB? MOVEMENTS VISUAL CONTACT GAZE AT INFANT ■F I GLANCE AT INFANT + I LOOKS ELSEWHERE + UNDETERMINED HOLDING POSITION HELD CLOSE + HELL A W A Y + SEPARATE - CLOSE + . SEPARATE - DISTANT + TRANSITION FACIAL POSITION FACE-TO-FACE - CLOSE + FACE-TO-FACE - DISTANT + NOT FACE-TO-FACE + FACIAL EXPRESSION PLEASED/PLAYFUL + NEtTFRAIe 4- c o n c e r n e d /sympathetic + DISTURBED + UNDETERMINED 267 Dyad: 1_1 PARENT-INFANT INTERACTION BEHAVIORS INFANT PROGRAM TEACHER OBSERVATIONS VALIDITY STUDY INFANT INTERACTION BEHAVIORS often aeon SHStslS 8©S3E1 soldffia/nsvr unsr/can't (high freq.) (msd, fpsq.) (low freq.) ana/ d.k. VOCALIZATION INTEREST/PTEASURE + RESPONSE/DOTATION + NEED/DESIRE + PROTEST/DISTRESS + UNDETERMINED NO VOCALIZATION GESTURES/BODY MOVEMENTS AFPROACH/AFFECTION/ PLAYFULNESS + ACTIVITY-CENTERED + DOTATION + SIGNALLING + COMPLIANCE TO VERBAL/ SIGNALS + COMPLIANCE TO VERBAL/ + SIGNALS + DEMONSTRATION COMPLIANCE TO PHYSICAL PROMPT/HANDLING + RESISTANCE /REFUSAL + UNDETERMINED NO COMMUNICATIVE GESTURES OR BODY MOVEMENTS VISUAL CONTACT GAZE AT PARENT/ACTIVITY + GLANCE AT PARENT/ACTIVITY + LOOKS ELSEWHERE EYES CLOSED T UNDETERMINED FACIAL E XPRESSION ATTENTIVE/SERIOUS + PIEASED/PLAYFUL NEUTRAL/DROWSY + DISTURBED - " '4- UNDETERMINED PARENT-INFANT INTERACTION BEHAVIORS INFANT PROGRAM TEACHER OBSERVATIONS VALIDITY STUDY RECIPROCITY QUESTIONS 1. To what kinds of infant behaviors does this parent respond positively? Action-orientd} verbal responses; success; distress cues. 2. To what kinds of infant behaviors does this parent respond negatively? Some failure, although this is rarely seen. Response seems due to disappointment in self and infant. 3. To what kinds of parent behaviors does this infant respond positively? Physical playj facial expressions (smiles, etc,)j activating a mechanical toy. 4. To what kinds of parent behaviors does this infant respond negatively? Gross motor sometimes. Verbal cues - child is deaf but responds with noise if verbal is not intrusive, 5. How "balanced" is the flow of social communication between this parent and infant? Do they typically alternate (take turns) initi ating interactions and responding to each other, or is, one more likely to initiate, one less likely to respond, etc.? Mom invests more in it, although child responds to many activities with smiles, vocalizations, movement. If activity is familiar, there is turn-taking. Mom is respond, always initiator. Mom always responds. Child does not always 6. What is the general "tone"of the parent-infant social interactions? Is it playful and pleasureable to both? Rewarding to one but not the other? Stressful to either? Consistent or changeable? Excellent tone of social interaction - playful, pleasurable, both seem to desire it. Rewarding to both (more if it is a familiar activity to infant). Stressful to infant for new or "unpleasant" activities - also to parent. Behavior is very consistent. 269 Dyad PARENT-INFANT INTERACTION BEHAVIORS INFANT PROGRAM TEACHER OBSERVATIONS VALIDITY STUDY PARENT INTERACTION BEHAVIORS often soon | snrtms soon I saMosa/nevr unsr/ean’t (high freq.] (msd. treqj | (low freqJ ana/ <3*k. VOCALIZATION ACKNOWIEDGEMENT /EMPATHY + AimwioN/pmxsE/EKcoumdm&'ik' + PLAYFUL + ATTENTION-GETTING/ INSTRUCTIVE /EHSCRXFTXVB + PROHIBITION CRITICISH + EXTRANEOUS CONVERSATION + 1 UNDETERMINED ‘ NO VOCALIZATION 1 GESTURES/BODY MOVEMENTS AFFECTION/COMFOKT + ASSISTANCE __ + FLAY/GAMES "" ... + DOTATION •4- SIGNALLING -t- OBJECT REPARATION + OBJECT raBSENTATION/EXCHANGB ‘~ ‘l + OBJECT DEMONSTRATION '+ PHISICAL GOIDANCE/POSiribNlSiG f RESTRICTION/REDIRECTION 4- i n t r u s i o n /p u n i s h m e n t t- WITHDRAWAL/REFUSAL + IEAVE/ENTER 4- UNDETERMINED NO GESTURES CR BQDT MOVEMENTS VISUAL CONTACT GAZE AT INFANT + GLANCE AT INFANT + LOOKS ELSEWHERE + UNDETERMINED HOLDING POSITION HELD CLOSE + HEID A WAY + SEPARATE - CLOSE + SEPARATE - DISTANT + TRANSITION FACIAL POSITION FACE-TO-FACE - CLOSE + FACE-TO-FACE - DISTANT + NOT FACE-TO-FACE + FACIAL EXPRESSION PLEASED/PLAYFUL + NEUTRAL + c o n c e r n e d /sympathetic + DISTURBED + UNDETERMINED 1 270 Dyad; 1 2 PARENT-INFANT INTERACTION BEHAVIORS INFANT PROGRAM TEACHER OBSERVATIONS VALIDITY STUDY INFANT INTERACTION BEHAVIORS often saon Sotos s o o t h so Idran/nov p unar/can't (high f*©q.) (n®d, frsq.) (l ow freq.) a n a / d.k. VOCALIZATION INTEREST / PIEASURE + RESPONSE /IMITATION + NhiED/DBS 1 kK + PROTEST/DISTRESS UNDETERMINED NO VOCALIZATION GESTURES/BODY MOVEMENTS a f f r o a c h /a f f e c t i o n / PLAYFULNESS 4 ACTIVITY-CENTERED 4 IMITATION 4 SIGNALLING 4 COMPLIANCE TO VERBAL/ SIGNALS + COMPLIANCE TO VERBAL/ SIGNALS + DEMONSTRATION 4 COMPLIANCE TO PHYSICAL FRCMPT /HANDLING 4 RESISTANCE /REFUSAL 4 UNDETERMINED NO -COMMUNICATIVE C2STURES OR BODY MOVEMENTS VISUAL CONTACT GAZE AT PARENT/ACTIVITY 4 GLANCE AT PARENT/ACTIVITY 4 LOOKS ELSEWHERE + EYES CLOSED + UNDETERMINED FACIAL EXPRESSION ATTENTIVE/SERIOUS 4 PLEASED/PLAYFUL 4 NEUTRAL/DROWSY 4 DISTURBED 4 I UNDETERMINED 1 271 Dyad ; 1 2 PARENT-INFANT INTERACTION BEHAVIORS INFANT PROGRAM TEACHER OBSERVATIONS VALIDITY STUDY RECIPROCITY QUESTIONS 1. To what kinds of infant behaviors does this parent respond positively? Imitation, smiles, social games, 2. To what kinds of infant behaviors does this parent respond negatively? 3. To what kinds of parent behaviors does this infant respond positively? Cuddies; calm, quiet social games. 4. To what kinds of parent behaviors does this infant respond negatively? 5. How "balanced" is the flow of social communication between this parent and infant? Do they typically alternate (take turns) initi ating interactions and responding to each other, or is, one more likely to initiate, one less likely to respond, etc.? 6. What is the general "tone"of the parent-infant social interactions? Is it playful and pleasureable to both? Rewarding to one but not the other? Stressful to either? Consistent or changeable? 272 Dyad; 13 PARENT-INFANT INTERACTION BEHAVIORS INFANT PROGRAM TEACHER OBSERVATIONS VALIDITY STUDY PARENT INTERACTION BEHAVIORS oftsn soon | smtos sson J a e l d c m / m m unar/can't I (high frsq.] (msd. freqc) | (lew freqj ana/ d.tc. | VOCALIZATION £CKNOUI£DGEHEI7F + Ai^cnoN/misE/EECouRA(Esi:Nr 4* PLAYFUL + ATTENTION-GETTING/ marRuenvE/DSsraiPTivE + FHOHIBXriOH + CRITICISM ..... " ' ...... + EXTRANEOUS CONVERSATION UHDETERMEED NO VOCALIZATION + GESTURES/BOB? MOVEMENTS AFFECTION/COMPORT + ASSISTANCE + PLAY/GAMES + IMITATION + SIGNALLING v OBJECT {REPARATION + o b j e c t hesentation TSISS + OBJECT DmONSTRATION + PHYSICAL GUmKCE/POSlflONiNB restriction /redirection + r INTRUSION/PUNISHMENT + • WITHDRAWAL/REFUSAL - ... ? 4 LEAVE/ENTER + UNDETERMINED NO GESTURES OR BOD? MOVEMENTS "-T ■ VISUAL CONTACT GAZE AT INFANT + GLANCE AT INFANT + LOOKS.ELSEWHERE + UNDETERMINED HOIDING POSITION HEID CLOSE + HE ID AWAY + SEPARATE - CLOSE SEPARATE - DISTANT + TRANSITION FACIAL POSITION FACE-TO-FACE - CLOSE FACE-TO-FACE - DISTANT + NOT FACE-TO-FACE + FACIAL EXPRESSION PIEASED/PLAYFUL + | NEUTRAL ■■ 4 CONCERNED/SYMPATHETIC + DISTURBED + UNDETERMINED 273 Dyad :__V3 PARENT-INFANT INTERACTION BEHAVIORS INFANT PROGRAM TEACHER OBSERVATIONS VALIDITY STUDY INFANT INTERACTION BEHAVIORS often soan SBitias 30013 ssldoa/navr unsr/can't (high fpeq») (imdi £roq») (lour fp©q.) a na/ d.k. VOCALIZATION INTEREST / PIEASURE + RESPONSE/IMITATION + NEED/DESIRE 4- PROTEST /DISTRESS + UNDETERMINED NO VOCALIZATION + GESTURES/BOUT MOVEMENTS a f f k o a c h /a f f e c t i o n / PLAYFULNESS + ACTIVITY-CENTERED + IMITATION SIGNALLING .... COMPLIANCE TO VERBAL/ SIGNALS COMPLIANCE TO VERBAL/ SIGNALS <■ DEMONSTRATION + COMPLIANCE TO PHYSICAL PROMPT/HANDLING + RESISTANCE /REFUSAL UNDETERMINED NO -COMMUNICATIVE GESTURES OR BODY MOVEMENTS VISUAL CONTACT GAZE AT PARE NT/ACTIVITY + GLANCE AT PARENT/ACTIVITY + LOCKS ELSEWHERE + EYES CLOSED + JNDETERM1NED FACIAL EXPRESSION ATTENTIVE/SERIOUS + FTEASED/PLAYFUL '+ NEUTRAL/DROWSY + DISTURBED + UNDETERMINED 1 274 '3 Dyad: PARENT-INFANT INTERACTION BEHAVIORS INFANT PROGRAM TEACHER OBSERVATIONS VALIDITY STUDY RECIPROCITY QUESTIONS 1. To what kinds of infant behaviors does this parent respond positively? I think Mom responds positively to most everything child does. 2. To what kinds of infant behaviors does this parent respond negatively? X've never really seen her get upset at child except when he becomes aggressive with his brother. 3. To what kinds of parent behaviors does this infant respond positively? Loves it when Mom smiles, laughs, kisses him. 4. To what kinds of parent behaviors does this infant respond negatively? When Mom leaves the room or ignores him, he gets unset. 5. How "balanced" is the flow of social communication between this parent and infant? Do they typically alternate (take turns) initi ating interactions and responding to each other, or is, one more likely to initiate, one less likely to respond, etc.? I think Mom is very intrusive and initiates a lot of interactions. She is very physical with nim. 6. What is the general "tone"of the parent-infant social interactions? Is it playful and pleasureable to both? Rewarding to one but not the other? Stressful to either? Consistent or changeable? Playful and pleasurable to both. I don't thxntc it j.s stressful. 275 Dyad PARENT-INFANT INTERACTION BEHAVIORS INFANT PROGRAM TEACHER OBSERVATIONS VALIDITY STUDY PARENT INTERACTION BEHAVIORS often seen sratms sesn soWcsi/natrr unsr/can't Ij (mad. freqj (low freqj ans/ d.k. | VOCALIZATION (high ffroq.) ACKNOWLEDGEMENT /EMPATHY + AH^CTION/miSE/ENCOURAGE® NT PLAYFUL ... _ + I. ATTENTION-GETTING/ INSTRUCTIVE/iDESCRIETIVB + I KIOHYBHIOM CRITICISM + EXTRANEOUS CONVERSATION + UNDETERMINED NO VOCALIZATION + GESTURES/BODY MOVEMENTS AFFECTION/COMFORT + ASSISTANCE 1 * T PLAY/GAMES + i : DOTATION + 8 3 1 SIGNALLING + ! OBJECT PREPARATION 3 i i OBJECT raBSE®mON/EXCSi'KGE 4 >1 i OBJECT DfflONSTRATIOK PHYSICAL GUIDANCE/POSITIONING RESTRICTION/RED IRE CTIOH + 1 1 INTRUSION/ PUNISHMENT .... L + I WITHDRAWAL/REFUSAL + i LEAVE/ENTER + UnDETEriOKS NO GESTURES CR BODY MOMENTS + VISUAL CONTACT GAZE AT INFANT + GLANCE AT INFANT + LOOKS ELSEWHERE UNDETERMINED HOLDING POSITION HELD CLOSE + HELD AWAY + SEPARATE - CLOSE + SEPARATE - DISTANT + TRANSITION FACIAL POSITION FACE-TO-FACE - CLOSE — jjj.-+ FACE-TO-FACE - DISTANT NOT FACE-TO-FACE +■ FACIAL EXPRESSION PLEASED/PLAYFUL + NEUTRAL + CONCERNED/SYMPATHETIC + DISTURBED s + undetermined S + 276 Dyad :_J_4 PARENT-INFANT INTERACTION BEHAVIORS INFANT PROGRAM TEACHER OBSERVATIONS VALIDITY STUDY INFANT INTERACTION BEHAVIORS often aeon gnten seam ssldom/navr unsr/can't (high (load • fpoq.) (low fj*©q.) ana/ d.k. VOCALIZATION i n t e r e s t / p i e a s u r e + RESPONSE/IMITATION + NEED/DESIRE PROTEST/DISTRESS + undetermined NO VOCALIZATION -t- GESTURES/BODY MOVEMENTS a p p r o a c h /a f f e c t i o n / PLAYFULNESS + ACTIVITY-CENTERED t- IMITATION + SIGNALLING + COMPLIANCE TO VERBAL/ SIGNALS + COMPLIANCE TO VERBAL/ SIGNALS * DEMONSTRATION + COMPLIANCE TO PHYSICAL PROMPT/HANDLING + RESISTANCE/REFUSAL + UNDETERMINED NO -COMMUNICATIVE GESTURES OR BODY MOVEMENTS + VISUAL CONTACT GAZE AT PARENT/ACTIVITY + GLANCE AT PARENT/ACTIVITY + LOOKS ELSEWHERE “ + EYES CLOSED + UNDETERMINED FACIAL EXPRESSION ATTENTIVE/SERIOUS H- PLEASED/PLAYFUL + NEUTRAL/DROWSY ■f DISTURBED 4- UNDETERMINED 1 Ill Dyad; ^ PARENT-INFANT INTERACTION BEHAVIORS INFANT PROGRAM TEACHER OBSERVATIONS VALIDITY STUDY RECIPROCITY QUESTIONS 1. To what kinds of infant behaviors does this parent respond positively? Mom responds positiveLy to just about any of child's oenav-ors■ 2. To what kinds of infant behaviors does this parent respond negatively? None that I have seen. 3. To what kinds of parent behaviors does this infant respond positively? Anything Mom does( as far as I’ve seen. 4. To what kinds of parent behaviors does this infant respond negatively? None. 5. How "balanced” is the flow of social communication between this parent and infant? Do they typically alternate (take turns) initi ating interactions and responding to each other, or is, one more likely to initiate, one less likely to respond, etc.? Yes, they do take turns initiating} however Mom does initiate more. Child plays more of a passive role. 6. What is the general ”tone”of the parent-infant social interactions? Is it playful and pleasureable to both? Rewarding to one but not the other? Stressful to either? Consistent or changeable? Interactions appear to be playful and pleasurable for both Mom and child. Does not appear to be stressful for either. 278 Dyad: PARENT-INFANT INTERACTION BEHAVIORS INFANT PROGRAM TEACHER OBSERVATIONS VALIDITY STUDY PARENT INTERACTION BEHAVIORS I ofton soon stutnia soon 3 geLdosn/nnvr unsi*/can't VOCALIZATION (high ft-eq.) (mad. freqj jj (low freqj ans/ d.k. ACKNOWLEDGEMENT /EMPATH? 1 AFFECTION/FRAISE/EKCOURAffiMENT . + 1 .. PLAYFUL 4- ATTEOTION«<2STTING/ raSTRUCTXVE/BSSCRIH'IVE + PRCOTBETOH CRITICISM ...... _5 _ EXTRANEOUS CONVERSATION UNDETERMINED NO VOCALIZATION GESTURES/BOD? M C 7 W W S AFFECTION/COMFORT + ASSISTANCE .t. 1 FLAY/GAMES i 4 IMITATION 1 4 SIGNALLING 1 T OBJECT FREB1RATIOH 4" i OBJECT KUSSElgATIOM/l^CHAKGE 4- OBJECT DEMONSTRATION + PHYSICAL GUIDANCE/POSITIONING 4* RESTRICTION/REDIRECTION 4* INTRUSION/ PUNISHMENT 4- WITHDRAWAL/REFUSAL 1 l e a v e /terass 1 + UNDETERMINED NO GESTURES OR BOD? MOVEMENTS VISUAL CONTACT GAZE AT INFANT GLANCE AT INFANT 4- LOOKS ELSEWHERE + UNDETERMINED HOLDING POSITION HELD CLOSE + HEID AWAY SEPARATE - CLOSE + SEPARATE - DISTANT 4- TRANSITION FACIAL POSITION FACE-TO-FACE - CLOSE + FACE-TO-FACE - DISTANT 4- NOT FACE-TO-FACE + FACIAL EXPRESSION PLEASED/PLAYFUL ___ ... 4- NEUTRAL + c o n c e r n e d /sympathetic + DISTURBED 4- UNDETERMINED i 279 Dyad: \ z PARENT-INFANT INTERACTION BEHAVIORS INFANT PROGRAM TEACHER OBSERVATIONS VALIDITY STUDY INFANT INTERACTION BEHAVIORS often seen scrims seem said ora/novp unsp/can't (high fp©q.) (mod. freq.) (l o w freq.) a n a / d.k. VOCALIZATION INTEREST/PLEASURE RESPONSE/IMITATION NEED/DESIRE PROTEST/DISTRESS + UNDETERMINED NO VOC ALIZ ATION ■ GESTURES /30DT MOVEMENTS a p p r o a c h /a f f e c t i o n / PLAYFULNESS ACTIVITY-CENTERED IMITATION SIGNALLING COMPLIANCE TO VERBAL/ SIGNALS COMPLIANCE TO VERBAL/ SIGNALS + DEMONSTRATION COMPLIANCE TO PHYSICAL PROMPT /HANDLING RESISTANCE/REFUSAL UNDETERMINED NO COMMUNICATIVE GESTURES OR BODY MOVEMENTS + VISUAL CONTACT GAZE AT PARENT/ACTIVITY + GLANCE AT PARENT/ACTIVITY + LOCKS ELSEWHERE + EYES CLOSED + UNDETERMINED FACIAL EXPRESSION a t t e n t i v e /s e r i o u s + PLEASED/PLAYFUL + NEUTRAL/DRCWSY + DISTURBED UNDETERMINED 1 280 Dyad: 1-5_____ PARENT-INFANT INTERACTION BEHAVIORS INFANT PROGRAM TEACHER OBSERVATIONS VALIDITY STUDY RECIPROCITY QUESTIONS 1. To what kinds of infant behaviors does this parent respond positively? Sounds infant makes of distress. Watches other infants, but exhibits no response. 2. To what kinds of infant behaviors does this parent respond negatively? None. 3. To what kinds of parent behaviors does this infant respond positively? Positioning, holding. Gives eye contact. 4. To what kinds of parent behaviors does this infant respond negatively? Being put down and left alone. 5. How "balanced" is the flow of social communication between this parent and infant? Do they typically alternate (take turns) initi ating interactions and responding to each other, or is, one more likely to initiate, one less likely to respond, etc.? Mom gives more in just stimulation activities, holding, gazing. No turn-taking. Minimal eye contact. Mom always initiates. 6. What is the general "tone"of the parent-infant social interactions? Is it playful and pleasureable to both? Rewarding to one but not the other? Stressful to either? Consistent or changeable? Very "low"' cnra, little interaction. No evidence of being really pleasurable to either. Mom is more concerned aoout nealth, responding to distress cues. Infant is m distress a Lot. Consistent behavior. APPENDIX K INSTRUCTIONS FOR CODING SEQUENCE PATTERNS 281 282 INSTRUCTIONS FOR CODING SEQUENCE PATTERNS Definitions/Assumptions 1) Videotapes of naturally occurring parent-infant interac tions provide empirical data for the assessement of dyadic reciprocal interaction patterns. The videotapes are played in brief segments (approximately fifteen seconds) at normal speed, and then stopped while all of the behaviors of the parent and infant which were observed during that segment are recorded on the Reciprocal Interaction Patterns Check- sheet. The videotape may be replayed as necessary to fa cilitate recording. The Listings of Parent Social Behav iors and Infant Social Behaviors serve as guides for cate gorizing the parent and infant behaviors. 2) The "sequence" of social interaction refers to the order in which parent and infant behaviors occur. Each of the 25 rows on the Reciprocal Interaction Patterns Checksheet contains a successive social behavior of the parent and/or infant. A checkmark in each row within the sequence col umns indicates which partner was demonstrating a behavior at that point in time; or whether both partners were act ing simultaneously (co-acting). Corresponding checkmarks along the same row describe the specific modes of communi cation and behavior classes that the parent and/or infant used. 283 3) Successive parent and infant social beahviors comprise four types of "sequence patterns," illustrated below. P I PI PI 16 X 16 X 16 XX 17 X 17 X 17 XX DIALOGUES 18 X 18 X 18 X X 19 X 19 X 19 X X turn-taking co-acting P I PI 16 X 16 X 17 17 MONOLOGUE X X 18 X 18 X 19 X 19 X parent infant monologue monologue A "dialogue" is a social interaction pattern in which the parent and infant both actively participate and provide each other with contingency experiences. Dialogues have two forms: "turn-taking," in which the parent and infant alternate or take turns interacting; and "co-acting," in which the parent and infant appear to be interacting simul taneously. A "monologue" is a social interaction pattern in which one individual acts repeatedly; in the absence of contingency responses from the partner, the individual (parent or infant) either varies his/her behavior or re peats the previous behavior. Monologues have two forms: "parent monologues" and "infant monologues." 284 4) Quiescent states - brief periods during which neither the parent or infant is acting - are not scored in this sys tem because they are accounted for by the measure of rate of interaction. Dyads who demonstrate relatively lengthy and frequent "pauses" in their interactions average fewer interaction sequence patterns per minute than dyads whose 4 pauses are briefer and less numerous. Consequently, dyads who average fewer sequence patterns per minute, or more seconds per sequence pattern, have slower rates of inter action. 5) Any behavior of the parent or infant may be a response/ reinforcer to the previous behavior (of the parent or in fant) , and, simultaneously, an initiator for the next be havior (of the parent or infant) in the interaction sequence. P I xi X1 = response to ?, initiator to X2 X2 X2 = response to X1 . initiator to X3 X3 X3 = response to x2 , initiator to X4 X4 X4 = response to X3, initiator to ? Decision Rules: 1) Sequence patterns are identified by drawing connecting lines between successive checkmarks in the sequence columns. Each line connecting one checkmark to the adjacent one signifies 285 a particular type of sequence pattern. X X X X X X X X g— X Diagonal lines designate turn-taking (a, b, d, f). Vertical lines designate parent or infant monologues (c, e). Horizontal lines designate co-acting (g). 2) When the parent and infant are co-acting, the behaviors which immediate precede and follow the co-acting sequence are scored as turn-taking. X1 = iniator to X3 2 3 X and X = co-acting X 3 = initiator to X 4 X^ = initiator to X3 This situation requires an arbitrary decision about the re lationship of antecedent and consequent behaviors to the 286 co-acting behaviors. One cannot know with certainty whether a monologue or turn-taking behavior immediately preceded or fol lowed the co-acting. The assumption of turn-taking in both cases ensures that the extent of actual reciprocity in the sequence patterns of a dyad will not be underestimated. As a result, one can be confident that the reported levels of nonreciprocal interactions are conservative estimates. BIBLIOGRAPHY Affleck, G., Allen, D, McGrade, B., and McQueeney, R. Parental mood and relationships with their high-risk infants during the first year: summary of preliminary findings. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the American Association on Mental Deficiency. San Francisco: May, 1980. Alfasi, G. A failure-to-thrive infant at play. Journal of Pediatric Psychology, 1982, _7: 111-123. Ainsworth, M. and Bell, S. Mother-infant interaction and the develop ment of competence. In. K. Connolly and J. Bruner (Eds.), The growth of competence. New York: Academic Press, 1974, 97-118. Ainsworth, M., Bell, S., and Stayton, D. Individual differences in the development of some attachment behaviors. Merrill-Palmer Quarterly, 1972, 18: 123-143. Ainsworth, M., Bell, S., and Stayton, D. Infant-mother attachment and social development: socialization as a product of recipro cal responsiveness to signals. In M. Richards (Ed.), The inte gration of a child into the social world. London: Cambridge University Press, 1974, 88-135. American Psychological Association. Standards for educational and psychological tests. Washington: American Psychological As sociation, 1974. Anderson, B., Vietze, P., and Dokecki, P. Reciprocity in vocal in teractions of mothers and infants. Child Development, 1977, 48: 1676-1681. Anderson, C. Enhancing reciprocity between mother and neonate. Nursing Research, 1981, 30: 89. Bakeman, R., and Brown, J. Behavioral dialogues: an approach to the assessment of mother-infant interaction. Child Development, 1977, 48: 195-203. 287. 288 Barnett, C., Leiderman, P., Grobstein, R., and Klaus, M. Neonatal separation: the maternal side of interactional deprivation. Pediatrics, 1970, 45: 197-205- Bateson, M. Mother-infant exchanges: the epigenesis of conversational interaction. Annals of the New York Academy of Sciences, 1975, 263: 1101-1131. Beckwith, L., Cohen S., Kopp, C., Parmelee, A., and Marcy, T. Care giver-infant interaction and early cognitive development in pre term infants. Child Development, 1976, k]_: 479-587. Bell, R. A reinterpretation of direction of effects in studies of so cialization. Psychological Review, 1968, 75: 81-95. Bell, R. Contributions of human infants to caregiving and social in teraction. In M. Lewis and L. Rosenblum (Eds.), The effect of the infant on its caregiver. New York: Wiley, 1974, 1-19. Bell, S. and Ainsworth, M. Infant crying and maternal responsiveness. Child Development, 1972, 43: 1171-1190. Berger, J. and Cunningham, C. The development of eye contact between mothers and normal versus Down's Syndrome infants. Developmental Psychology, 1981, 13: 678. Blehar, M., Lieberman, A., and Ainsworth, M. Early face-to-face inter action and its relation to later infant-mother attachment. Child Development, 1977, 48j 182-194. Brachel, S., Goldberg, S., and Sloman, J. Parent-infant interaction in free play at 8 and 12 months - effects of prematurity and immatur ity. Infant Behavior and Development, 1980, _3: 282. Brazelton, T., Kozlowski, B., and Main, M. The origins of reciprocity: early mother-infant interaction. In M. Lewis and L. Rosenblum (Eds.), The effect of the infant on its caregiver. New York: Wiley, 1974, 49-76. Brazelton, B., Tronick, E., Adamson, L., Als, H., and Wise, S. Early mother-infant reciprocity. In M. Hofer (Ed.), Parent-Infant In teraction. Amsterdam: Associated Scientific Publications, 1975, 137-154. Bromwich, R. Focus on maternal behavior in infant intervention. Amer ican Journal of Orthopsychiatry, 1976, 43: 439-446. Bromwich, R., and Parmelee, A. An intervention program for pre-term infants. In T. Field, A. Sostek, S. Goldberg, and H. Shuman (Eds.), Infants born at risk. Jamaica, N.Y.: Spectrum, 1979, 389-411. 289 Buckhalt, J., Rutherford, R., and Goldberg, K. Verbal and nonverbal in teractions of mothers with their Down's Syndrome and nonretarded infants. American Journal of Mental Defiency, 1978, j32: 337-343. Caldwell, B. and Stedman, D. (Eds.) Infant education: a guide for help ing handicapped children in the first three years. New York: Walker, 1977. Cicetti, D., and Sroufe, L. The relationship between affective and cogni tive development in Down's Syndrome infants. Child Development, 1976, 47: 920-929. Clarke-Stewart, K. Interactions between mothers and their young chil dren: characteristics and consequences. Monographs of the Soci ety for Research in Child Development, 1973, 38. Condon, W. and Sander, L. Neonate movement is synchronized with adult speech: interactional participation and language acquisition. Science, 1974, 183: 99-101. DiVitto, B. and Goldberg, S. The effects of newborn medical status on early parent-infant interaction. In. T. Field, A. Sostek, S. Goldberg, and H. Shuman (Eds.), Infants born at risk. Jamaica, N.Y.: Spectrum, 1979, 389-411. Drotar, D., Baskiewicz, A., Irvin, N., Kennel, J., and Klaus, M. The adaptation of parents to the birth of an infant with a congenital malformation: a hypothetical model. Pediatrics, 1975, 56: 710- 717. Emde, R. , and Brown, C. Adaptation to the birth of a Down's Syndrome infant: grieving and maternal attachment. In G. Sackett and C. Haywood (Eds.), Application of observational ethological methods to the study of mental retardation. Baltimore: University Park Press, 1978, 299-323. Field, T. Effects of early separation, interactive deficits, and ex perimental manipulations on infant-mother face-to-face interaction. Child Development, 1977, 4£5: 763-771. Field, T. Interaction patterns of pre-term and term infants. In T. Field, A. Sostek, S. Goldberg, and H. Shuman (Eds.), Infants born at risk. Jamaica, N.Y.: Spectrum, 1979, 333-356. Fraiberg, S. Intervention in infancy: a program for blind infants. Journal of the American Academy of Child Psychiatry, 1971, 10: 381-405. 290 Fraiberg, S., Adelson, E. , and Shapiro, V. Ghosts in the nursery: a psychoanalytic approach to the problems of impaired mother-infant relationships. Journal of the American Academy of Child Psychia try, 1975, 14, 387-421. Goldberg, S. Social competence in infancy: a model of parent-infant interaction. Merrill-Palmer Quarterly, 1977, 23: 163-177. Greenberg, H. A comparison of mother-infant interactional behavior in infants with atypical behavior and normal infants. In J. Hellmuth (Ed.), The exceptional infant, Vol. II. New York: Bruner Mazel, 1971, 390-418. Helwig, J. and K. Council, SAS users guide, 1979 edition. Cary, N.C.: SAS Institute, 1979. Holland, J., and Skinner, B. The analysis of behavior. New York: Mc Graw-Hill, 1961. Hollingshead, A., and Redlich, F. Social class and mental illness: a community study. New York: Wiley, 1958. Klaus, M. and Kennell, J. Maternal-infant bonding. Saint Louis: C.V. Mosby Co., 1976. Klaus, M. and Kennell, J. Mothers separated from their newborn infants. Pediatric Clinics of North America, 1970, r7: 1001-1037. Kogan, K. and Tyler, N. Mother-child interaction in young physically handicapped children. American Journal on Mental Deficiency, 1973, 27: 492-497. Kogan, K. and Wimberger, H. An approach to defining mother-child inter action styles. Perceptual Motor Skills, 1966, 23: 1171-1177. Lacoste, R. Early intervention: can it hurt? Mental Retardation, 1978: 266-268. Leiderman, P. Leifer, A., Seashore, M. Barnett, C., and Grobstein, R. Mother-infant interaction: effects of early deprivation, prior experience and sex of infant. Early Development, 1973, 51: 154- 175. Leifer, A. Liederman, P., Barnett, C., and Williams, J. Effects of mother-infant separation on maternal attachment behavior. Child Development, 1972, 43: 1203-1218. 291 Leland, H. and Smith, D. Mental retardation: present and future per spectives . Belmont, CA: Wadsworth, 1974. Lewis, M. and Freedle, R. Mother-infant dyad: the cradle of meaning. In P. Pliner, L. Krames, and T. Alloway (Eds.), Communication and Affect: Language and Thought. New York: Academic Press, 1973. Lewis, M. and Goldberg, S. Perceptual cognitive development in infancy: a generalized expectancy model as a function of the mother-infant interaction. Merrill-Palmer Quarterly, 1969, 15^: 81-100. Lewis, M. and Lee-Painter, S. An interactional approach to the mother- infant dyad. In M. Lewis and L. Rosenblum (Eds.). The effect of the infant on its caregiver. New York: Wiley, 1974, 21-48. Loadman, W. and Leland, H. Adaptive behavior - children's scale develop ment . Columbus: Nisonger Center, 1981. Lytton, H. Observation studies of parent-child interactions: a method ological review. Child Development, 1971, 42: 651-684. Marsh, E., Terdal, L., and Anderson, K. The response class matrix: a procedure for recording parent-child interactions. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 1973, 40, 163-164. Osofsky, J. Neonatal characteristics and mother-infant interaction in two observational situations. Child Development, 1976, 47: 1138- 1147. Parke, R. Parent-infant interaction: progress, paradigms, and problems. In G. Sackett and C. Haywood (Eds.), Application of observational ethological methods to the study of mental retardation. Baltimore: University Park Press, 1978, 69-94. Parke, R. and O'Leary, S. Father-mother interaction in the newborn period: some findings, some observations, and some unresolved issues. In. K. Riegel and J. Meacham (Eds.), The developing in dividual in a. changing world. The Hague: Morton, 1976, 66-81. Parke, R., O'Leary, S., and West, S. Mother-father-newborn interaction: effects of maternal medication, labor, and sex of the infant. Pro- ceedings of The American Psychological Association, 1972, 85-86. Patterson, G., Ray, R., Shaw, D., and Cobb, J. Manual for the coding of family interactions. Unpublished manuscript, Oregon Research Institute, Eugene, OR, 1969. Pederson, F. Mother, father, and infant as an interaction system. Paper presented at the annual convention of the American Psy chological Association, Chicago, 1975. 292 Ramey, C., Starr, R., Pallas, J., Whitten, C., and Reed, V. Nutrition response contingent stimulation, and the maternal deprivation syn drome: results of an early intervention program. Merrill-Palmer Quarterly, 1975, 2JL: 45-53. Sackett, G. A nonparametric lag sequential analysis for studying de pendency among responses in observational scoring systems. Unpub lished manuscript, University of Washington, Seattle, WA, 1974. Seashore, M. Leifer, A., Barnett, C., and Leiderman, P. The effects of denial of early mother-infant interaction on maternal self- confidence. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 1973, 26: 369-378. Sroufe, L. Attachment and the roots of competence. Human Nature, October, 1978: 50-57. Sroufe, L.,-Waters, E., and Matas, L. Contextual determinants of in fant affective response. In M. Lewis and L. Rosenblum (Eds.), The origins of behavior, Vol. II. New York: Wiley, 1974. Stern, D. Mother and infant at play. In M. Lewis and L. Rosenblum (Eds.), The effect of the infant on its caregiver. New York: Wiley, 1974. Stern, D. The first relationship: mother and infant. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 1977. Stern, D. Jaffe, J., Beebe, B., and Bennett, S. Vocalizing in unison and in alternation: two modes of communication within the mother- infant dyad. Annals of the New York Academy of Science, 1975, 263: 89-100. Stone, N. and Chesney, B. Attachment behaviors in handicapped infants. Mental Retardation, 1978: 8-12. Terdal, L., Jackson, R., and Garner, A. Mother-child interactions: a comparison between normal and developmentally delayed groups. In E. Mash, L. Hamerlynck, and L. Handy (Eds.), Behavior modification and families. New York: Bruner Mazel, 1976, 249-264. Thoman, E., Beeker, P., and Freese, M. Individual patterns of mother- infant interaction. In G. Sackett, and C. Haywood (Eds.), Appli cation of observational/ethological methods to the study of mental retardation. Baltimore: University Park Press, 1978, 95-114. Thoman, E. and Trotter, S. (Eds.), Social responsiveness of infants. Sausolito, CA: Johnson & Johnson, 1978. 293 Thomas, E. and Martin, J. Analyses of parent-infant interaction. Psychological Review, 1976, 82_: 141-156. Tjossem, T. Intervention strategies for high-risk infants and young children. Baltimore: University Park Press, 1976. Toub, G. A rapid assessment procedure for mother-child interactions. Journal of Clinical Child Psychology, 1978: 132-135. Trout, M. The language of parent-infant interaction: a tool in the assessment of jeopardized attachment in infancy, 1978. (Available from Michael D. Trout, Infant Development Project, Parent-Child Center, 3188 West Houghton Lake Drive, P.O. Box 405A, Prudenville, MI 48651). Vietze, P. Abernathy, S., Ashe, M., and Faulstich, G. Contingent in teraction between mothers and their developmentally delayed infants. In G. Sackett and C. Haywood (Eds.), Application of observational/ ethological methods to the study of mental retardation. Baltimore: University Park Press, 1978, 115-132. Waters, E. Reliability and stability of individual differences in infant- mother attachment. Child Development, 1978, 49: 483-494. Weinraub, M., Brooks, J., and Lewis, M. The social network: a recon sideration of the concept of attachment. Human Development, 1977, 20: 31-47. White, R. Motivation reconsidered: the concept of competence. Psychological Review, 1959, 66: 297-333.