- Email: [email protected]
Infant affect and affect-regulation during still-face with mothers and fathers: The role of infant characteristics and parental sensitivity
231
INFANT AFFECT AND AFFECT-REGULATION DURING STILL-FACE WITH MOTHERS AND FATHERS: THE ROLE OF INFANT CHARACTERISTICS AND PARENTAL SENSITIVITY Julia Braungart-Rieker, Molly M. Garwood, Bruce P. Powers, and Paul C. Notaro Department of Psychology, University of Notre Dame, Notre Dame, IN 46635 During the still-face (SF) paradigm (Tronick et al., 1978), in which mothers withdraw from interacting with their infants, infants tend to exhibit less positive and more negative affect as well as increased displays of regulatory behaviors such as gaze aversion and self-comforting (e.g., Weinberg & Tronick, 1996). Individual differences in SF responses have also been observed. For example, research on infants of depressed mothers suggests that maternal interactive behavior may mediate infants’ expectations and SF responses (e.g., Cohn & Tronick, 1978). There is little research, however, on the role of infant characteristics such as temperament on affective and regulatory responses during SF. In addition, the father-infant dyad has been ignored all too often. Examining father-infant as well as mother-infant interactions permits us to examine the same infant with two different adults who may differ in sensitivity and history of interaction. Thus, infant expectations about paternal behavior may differ from expectations about maternal behavior, perhaps resulting in differential SF responses. Two major questions were addressed in the present study: (1) To what extent do infants differ in their response to mothers versus fathers during SF, and (2) Do exogenous factors, such as parental sensitivity and infant factors such as gender and temperament explain individual differences in infant’s affect and affect-regulation during SF? This laboratory based study included 94 healthy 4-month olds and their mothers and fathers who were primarily white and middle-class. Infants and parents participated in two 90-second structured episodes-normal interaction, followed by SF. Parent-order was counterbalanced. Parents’ rated their infant’s temperament using Rothbart’s (198 1) Infant Behavior Questionnuire and an observer rated temperament using Bayley’s (1969) Infant Behavior Record. Mothers and fathers were separately rated on their mutual engagement with and sensitivity toward their infant during the normal interaction episode. Finally, the proportion of time the infant displayed positive and negative affect as well as self-comforting behaviors (e.g., thumb-sucking), object orientation (focused gaze away from parent), and parent orientation (focused gaze toward parent) was assessed during the SF episode with each parent. ANOVAs indicate that mothers and fathers as a group were not significantly different in their sensitivity or mutual engagement. However, infants displayed more object orientation with mothers and more parent orientation with fathers (F( 1,93) = 17.22, 13.63, ps C .OOl, respectively). To determine the extent to which infant gender, temperament, parent sensitivity and mutual engagement (controlling for parent order) predicted affect and regulation behaviors during each parent-infant SF, 10 multiple regressions were conducted-seven of which were significant. See table below. The beta coefficients indicate that whether exogenous factors such as parental sensitivity or endogenous factors such as infant gender and temperament predicted individual differences in infant SF responses depended on which affect or regulatory variable was being examined and with which parent the infant was experiencing the SF. Dep. Order of Gender: Parent IBQ Neg IBR Neg. Parent Var. Adj. R’ 1=M 2=F Temp. parent Sensitiv. Mut.Eng. Temp. F(6,78) PosAff NegAff Comf. Obj. Dr. Par. Dr.
2.2 1* 3.91** 3.25** 2.33* 2.01
.08 .I7 .14 .09 .07
.02 .I4 -.I9 .02 -.06
-.23* -.12 .I4 ,221 -.02
-.06 .06 -.21* .03 .OS
-.I5 .07 -.02 -.28* -.02
.02 -.28* .I6 .01 .33*
.31** -.20 .21 .09 .06
PosAff NegAff Comf. Obj. Or. Par. or.
3.04** 1.99 0.44 1.27 3.07+*
.I3 .07 .07 .02 .I3
.14 -.26* .04 .I2 -.02
-.I6 -.05 .14 .I5 -.07
.17 -.03 -.06 -.02 -.08
-.31*+ .13 .OO -.I7 .02
.05 -.08 .09 -.I3 .I9
.01 -.09 .Ol
.oo .29*
INFANT AFFECT AND AFFECT-REGULATION DURING STILL-FACE WITH MOTHERS AND FATHERS: THE ROLE OF INFANT CHARACTERISTICS AND PARENTAL SENSITIVITY Julia Braungart-Rieker, Molly M. Garwood, Bruce P. Powers, and Paul C. Notaro Department of Psychology, University of Notre Dame, Notre Dame, IN 46635 During the still-face (SF) paradigm (Tronick et al., 1978), in which mothers withdraw from interacting with their infants, infants tend to exhibit less positive and more negative affect as well as increased displays of regulatory behaviors such as gaze aversion and self-comforting (e.g., Weinberg & Tronick, 1996). Individual differences in SF responses have also been observed. For example, research on infants of depressed mothers suggests that maternal interactive behavior may mediate infants’ expectations and SF responses (e.g., Cohn & Tronick, 1978). There is little research, however, on the role of infant characteristics such as temperament on affective and regulatory responses during SF. In addition, the father-infant dyad has been ignored all too often. Examining father-infant as well as mother-infant interactions permits us to examine the same infant with two different adults who may differ in sensitivity and history of interaction. Thus, infant expectations about paternal behavior may differ from expectations about maternal behavior, perhaps resulting in differential SF responses. Two major questions were addressed in the present study: (1) To what extent do infants differ in their response to mothers versus fathers during SF, and (2) Do exogenous factors, such as parental sensitivity and infant factors such as gender and temperament explain individual differences in infant’s affect and affect-regulation during SF? This laboratory based study included 94 healthy 4-month olds and their mothers and fathers who were primarily white and middle-class. Infants and parents participated in two 90-second structured episodes-normal interaction, followed by SF. Parent-order was counterbalanced. Parents’ rated their infant’s temperament using Rothbart’s (198 1) Infant Behavior Questionnuire and an observer rated temperament using Bayley’s (1969) Infant Behavior Record. Mothers and fathers were separately rated on their mutual engagement with and sensitivity toward their infant during the normal interaction episode. Finally, the proportion of time the infant displayed positive and negative affect as well as self-comforting behaviors (e.g., thumb-sucking), object orientation (focused gaze away from parent), and parent orientation (focused gaze toward parent) was assessed during the SF episode with each parent. ANOVAs indicate that mothers and fathers as a group were not significantly different in their sensitivity or mutual engagement. However, infants displayed more object orientation with mothers and more parent orientation with fathers (F( 1,93) = 17.22, 13.63, ps C .OOl, respectively). To determine the extent to which infant gender, temperament, parent sensitivity and mutual engagement (controlling for parent order) predicted affect and regulation behaviors during each parent-infant SF, 10 multiple regressions were conducted-seven of which were significant. See table below. The beta coefficients indicate that whether exogenous factors such as parental sensitivity or endogenous factors such as infant gender and temperament predicted individual differences in infant SF responses depended on which affect or regulatory variable was being examined and with which parent the infant was experiencing the SF. Dep. Order of Gender: Parent IBQ Neg IBR Neg. Parent Var. Adj. R’ 1=M 2=F Temp. parent Sensitiv. Mut.Eng. Temp. F(6,78) PosAff NegAff Comf. Obj. Dr. Par. Dr.
2.2 1* 3.91** 3.25** 2.33* 2.01
.08 .I7 .14 .09 .07
.02 .I4 -.I9 .02 -.06
-.23* -.12 .I4 ,221 -.02
-.06 .06 -.21* .03 .OS
-.I5 .07 -.02 -.28* -.02
.02 -.28* .I6 .01 .33*
.31** -.20 .21 .09 .06
PosAff NegAff Comf. Obj. Or. Par. or.
3.04** 1.99 0.44 1.27 3.07+*
.I3 .07 .07 .02 .I3
.14 -.26* .04 .I2 -.02
-.I6 -.05 .14 .I5 -.07
.17 -.03 -.06 -.02 -.08
-.31*+ .13 .OO -.I7 .02
.05 -.08 .09 -.I3 .I9
.01 -.09 .Ol
.oo .29*