Infant behaviors influence mothers’ provision of responsive and directive behaviors

Infant Behavior & Development 37 (2014) 276–285

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Infant Behavior and Development

Infant behaviors influence mothers’ provision of responsive and directive behaviors夽 Carrie A. Lloyd ∗ , Elise Frank Masur Psychology Department, Northern Illinois University, United States

a r t i c l e

i n f o

Article history: Received 15 May 2013 Received in revised form 23 January 2014 Accepted 8 April 2014

Keywords: Infant development Infant initiatives Mother–infant interactions Maternal responsiveness Maternal directives Dyadic play

a b s t r a c t Mother–infant interactions are important to infant development because they are predictive of infants’ social, cognitive, and language development (Lamb, Bornstein, & Teti, 2002; Tamis-LeMonda, Bornstein, & Baumwell, 2001). Because maternal responsive and directive behaviors are associated with differential infant outcomes, it is important to investigate influences on mothers’ provision of responsive and directive behaviors. Yet, the dyadic interaction literature is predominantly unidirectional from maternal behavior to infant outcomes. Therefore, the current study examined infant initiating behaviors and consequent maternal responses in a sample of 26 13-month-old infants and their mothers, videotaped during 5 min of free-play. Findings revealed that infants produced a variety of initiatives, and that these different infant initiatives prompted differential patterns of maternal responsive versus directive behaviors. Further, results of analyses of divergent types of maternal directive behaviors – Responsive Directives, ReDirectives, and Intrusive Directives – also may help clarify major discrepancies in the current literature regarding the positive and negative effects of maternal directiveness. © 2014 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.

Mother–infant interactions are important to infant development because they are predictive of infants’ social, cognitive, and language development (Carpenter, Nagell, & Tomasello, 1998; Lamb et al., 2002; Masur, Flynn, & Eichorst, 2005; Murray & Hornbaker, 1997; Tamis-LeMonda et al., 2001). During interactions mothers and infants attend to each other as social partners and often share focus on the same objects. Their interactions also provide a rich setting for communication. In particular, mothers’ use of responsive and directive behaviors and utterances has been associated not only with infants’ immediate behaviors but also with their long-term development (Carpenter et al., 1998; Hughes, Dote-Kwan, & Dolendo, 1999; Masur et al., 2005; Schneider & Haney, 1992; Tamis-LeMonda et al., 2001). Because mothers’ provision of responsive and directive behaviors and utterances is related to infant development, it is important to discover factors that may influence their production. The current study contributes to the dyadic interaction literature, now predominantly unidirectional motherto-infant, by considering infants’ initiations, influences on mothers’ behaviors, and whether mothers adjust the type of response in relation to their child’s initiation. The present authors investigated whether three different kinds of infant initiatives differentially stimulated maternal responsive and directive behaviors. Mothers’ responsive behaviors and utterances are widely associated with positive infant social and cognitive developmental outcomes. A plethora of studies report a relationship between maternal responsiveness and positive infant social outcomes, including: attachment security and play engagement (e.g., Booth, Rose-Krasnor, McKinnon, & Rubin, 1994;

夽 This manuscript is based on the doctoral dissertation work of the first author under the direction of the second author. Presented at the Midwestern Psychological Association Conference, April 2010, in Chicago, IL. ∗ Corresponding author at: Department of Psychology, Northern Illinois University, DeKalb, IL 60115, United States. Tel.: +1 2603558837. E-mail addresses: [email protected], [email protected] (C.A. Lloyd). http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.infbeh.2014.04.004 0163-6383/© 2014 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.

C.A. Lloyd, E.F. Masur / Infant Behavior & Development 37 (2014) 276–285

277

Rose-Krasnor, Rubin, Booth, & Coplan, 1996). Positive cognitive associations include intelligence (Mahoney, Boyce, Fewell, Spiker, & Wheeden, 1998) and multiple measures of language, such as verbal imitation, lexical acquisition, language comprehension, and syntax development (e.g., Baumwell, Tamis-LeMonda, & Bornstein, 1997; Carpenter et al., 1998; Masur et al., 2005; Newland, Roggman, & Boyce, 2001; Rollins, 2003; Tamis-LeMonda et al., 2001). Four main criteria typically define “Responsiveness” (sometimes used interchangeably and confused with “sensitivity”), including: (1) the mother responds promptly (Bornstein, Tamis-LeMonda, Hahn, & Haynes, 2008; Kochanska & Aksan, 2004; Pomerleau, Scuccimarri, & Malcuit, 2003); (2) the mother’s response is contingent on infant behavior (Bornstein et al., 2008; Masur et al., 2005); (3) the mother’s response is appropriate (Bornstein et al., 2008; Mahoney, 1992); and (4) the mother’s response is sensitive, demonstrating awareness and understanding of the infant’s behavior (Kochanska & Aksan, 2004; Murray & Hornbaker, 1997). Because these criteria characteristically define responsiveness, they are also included in the coding procedures utilized in this study. Maternal directiveness has also been correlated with global outcomes of development; yet this relationship is less consistent and contradictory. Even though directiveness is typically defined as the mother’s requests and/or commands intended to direct the infant’s behavior or attention (e.g., Mahoney, 1992), there is considerable discrepancy in the literature. Directiveness has most often been negatively related to child developmental outcomes, including social engagement and dyadic mutuality, cognitive performance, and language acquisition (Akhtar, Dunham, & Dunham, 1991; Hampson & Nelson, 1993; Hughes et al., 1999; Jones et al., 1997; Masur et al., 2005). Yet, a few studies have found maternal directiveness unrelated (Baumwell et al., 1997; Carpenter et al., 1998; Hoff & Naigles, 2002; Tomasello & Todd, 1983) or even positively related to various developmental outcomes (Akhtar et al., 1991; Pine, 1992; Schaffer & Crook, 1980). Differences in operational definitions may account for the discrepant findings with directiveness. For example, Pine (1992) separated “attentional” from “behavioral” directives, and Akhtar and colleagues (1991) found negative infant correlations only for directives that “lead” infants’ focus of attention rather than following it. Hughes et al. (1999) found that maternal use of “appropriate” directives was positively correlated with infant use of pragmatic language. These findings support the value of distinguishing between directives that share a controlling quality and those that do not. Because of this, the current study distinguished between directives that have a more positive nature from those that were more negative and controlling, while also including a third category – behaviors and utterances that redirect children’s focus but do so only to engage children’s attention in appropriate activities when they are unengaged or engaged in disruptive or non-play activities. The present study is the first to separate these appropriate “ReDirectives” from Intrusive Directives. Because mothers’ responsiveness and directiveness predict children’s development and behavior, it would be valuable to identify influences on mothers’ production of these behaviors. A common assumption in literature (e.g., Pine, 1992) is that they arise from mothers’ personal styles or dispositions. In keeping with such a possibility are reports of stability over time intervals ranging from a few days to several months in mothers’ rates of responsive and directive utterances (e.g., Baumwell et al., 1997; Masur & Turner, 2001). In the longest intervals reported, Pan, Imbens-Bailey, Winner, and Snow (1996) found stability in the ratios of maternal utterances following children’s focus of attention to those leading children’s attention or behavior from ages 14 to 20 and even 32 months. Before concluding that these findings of stability and consistency in responsive and directive speech point exclusively to origins in mothers’ personal styles, however, it would be important to consider whether children’s behaviors might also be influential in eliciting these utterances. Bell (1988) and Bell and Chapman (1986) argued against a unidirectional approach assuming social influence only from mothers to infants. Bell’s control system model would lead to predictions that negative child behaviors would be most likely to evoke parental directives while positive and competent child behaviors would elicit nondirective parental speech. Bell and Chapman reviewed 14 experimental studies; the majority employing child confederates trained or induced to act in particular ways, whose findings provide support for their model. Bell advised that to ignore factors that affect maternal behavior within the seemingly complex mother–infant interaction would be a disservice to understanding the entire mother–infant relationship and the subsequent consequences on infants; yet, all factors other than simply mother’s behavior affecting their children’s behavior have been ignored. Some evidence of this influence, from infant to mother, can be found within correlational studies. Evidence from correlational studies reporting concurrent relations between mothers’ responsiveness and infants’ social initiative or responsivity (Masur & Turner, 2001) and between maternal directiveness and children’s lack of interest in toys (Schneider & Haney, 1992) can plausibly provide support for the view that infant behavior may be affecting maternal behavior; because, although correlational studies reporting concurrent relations give the impression that the sole direction of influence is from mother to child, the opposite direction of effect is equally probable. Although these researchers (e.g., Kochanska & Aksan, 2004; Pine, 1992) presumably recognize that their study is correlational, the impression that being a responsive mother produces a responsive infant is typically concluded with parent-driven models. That is, many correlational researchers discuss results as mothers being the influencing agents. But because most research data in this area is correlational, it is equally plausible that infant behavior may be affecting maternal behavior. Even if infants do not have a direct influence on maternal responses and response types, infants may, at least indirectly or partially, influence maternal behavior. It seems plausible that maternal behavior is not solely the result of maternal innate style, but that they respond differentially to different types of infant initiations. Further, mothers may react differentially to infants that exhibit different rates of initiation. Recently, researchers have begun to look more systematically at whether infants’ behaviors might be influencing certain maternal behaviors. Bornstein et al. (2008) examined maternal responsive utterances that followed four kinds of infant

278

C.A. Lloyd, E.F. Masur / Infant Behavior & Development 37 (2014) 276–285

initiating behaviors involving positive initiations toward their mothers or objects. They found that object-related initiatives constituted a higher percentage of infant initiative activity than social initiatives. In addition, although mothers responded to between 50% and 80% of all these infant behaviors, the type of infant initiative influenced maternal response. For example, mothers responded more often to social bids than to object-related initiatives. Masur, Flynn, and Lloyd (2013) took a different approach by starting with maternal responsive and directive utterances to infants and then examining discrete positive/engaged and negative/disengaged infant behaviors preceding them. Their analyses showed that the contexts of infants’ behaviors differentiated mothers’ responsive from directive utterances. Maternal responsive utterances were more likely than Intrusive Directive utterances to be preceded by infants’ social overtures, while Intrusive Directive utterances were more likely than responsive utterances to be preceded by infants’ lack of interest in the toys. The present study observed infants at the beginning of the second year, when early communicative abilities are just emerging, and began observational scoring with the infants’ initiating behaviors. This permitted analyses of base rates of both positive (or ‘engaged’) and negative (or ‘disengaged’) infant social and object-directed behaviors, including those without maternal responses. Maternal response behaviors were then coded directly after the infant initiations. In addition to mothers’ responsive behaviors, maternal consequent categories, which encompassed utterances and behaviors, included: Responsive Directives, Intrusive Directives, and ReDirectives as well as no response. In keeping with Bell and Chapman’s (1986) theory, as well as implications from correlational findings, it is possible that infants’ lack of interest in the play materials or locomotion away from the toys elicit mothers’ attempts to redirect their children’s attention and thereby restore play. The hypotheses were: (1) infants provide a variety of social and object initiation behaviors during interactions; (2) mothers give infants different types of directives, and some of these types of directives are more positive than others; and (3) differential maternal responses, responsiveness and directives, will be evoked by differential infant initiatives and different rates of initiatives. Thus, the present study affords a test of the idea that mothers’ different maternal responsive and directive behaviors, which are associated with such consequential outcomes, are evoked by different kinds of infant behaviors and that different types of directives, not directives in and of themselves, cause negative infant behavior. 1. Method 1.1. Participants Twenty-six dyads, 13 boys and 13 girls and their mothers, were recruited from a Midwest town through letters sent to families based on publicly available birth records and fliers hung at local businesses and schools. The infants were 13 months old (M = 12.68, SD = .44) and were reported by their mothers to be developing typically. All mothers reported their children as using gestures, and all but two were reported to be producing single words. Mothers’ ages ranged from 19 to 40 years (M = 30.74, SD = 5.70). Mothers were generally well educated with 24 having at least some college and 10 having graduate degrees. Twenty-one mothers worked outside of the home, and all but one were married and lived with the child’s father. All mothers spoke English as their native language; 24 of the families were Caucasian, one was Hispanic American and one was African American. Mothers were paid $20 for participating. 1.2. Videotaping procedure The mother–infant free-play interaction occurred in a laboratory playroom. Before the mother–infant interaction began, the experimenter had the mother read and sign the informed consent form, gave the mother a background information questionnaire to complete, and explained the procedures to come. The experimenter’s instructions for the free-play interaction asked the mothers to “simply play with [name of child] as you normally would.” Then the experimenter left the mother and child alone in a laboratory room with a toy set available in the middle of the carpeted floor on a white blanket. The toy set included: a ball, stacking blocks, a stuffed animal, plastic ducks and bears, a car, a feeding/cooking set, and a shape sorter. The experimenters observed the free-play session through a one-way mirror in the adjoining room and videotaped the interaction from cameras located in three corners of the playroom. 1.3. Coding infants’ behaviors From the videotaped interactions, infant initiatives and mothers’ responses were coded for infant and mother variables of interest using event sampling. Starting at the beginning of the third minute (to allow the mother and child to get settled), 5 min of the free-play session were observed. Infant behaviors were coded using a system adapted from the Mother–Child Rating Scales, a set of global behavioral rating categories developed by Crawley and Spiker (1983) and from the mother–infant interaction behavior rating categories employed by Masur et al. (2013). Initiative behavior included all infant behavior which was clearly and reliably deemed: (1) spontaneous, (2) not prompted or elicited by the mother, and (3) not a response to the mother’s behavior. If there was any indication whatsoever that the behavior was not spontaneous an infant initiative not coded. Further, the mother could not have given any verbal or behavioral cues within at least 5 s before the infant behavior, or an infant initiative would not have been coded. Further, following Bornstein et al. (2008) who began coding “when the child exhibits change in his or her ongoing behavior” (p. 868), the current study coded infant behavior when there was a change in the kind of behavior, object, or in the person to whom

C.A. Lloyd, E.F. Masur / Infant Behavior & Development 37 (2014) 276–285

279

or object to which it was directed (playing with a doll, stopping, and then going back to playing with the doll would not be a new behavior because there was not a change in the kind of play behavior or object). For example, if the child gestured at the ball and then rolled the ball, both gesturing and rolling would be coded as separate object-directed initiatives. Because each type of infant initiative was coded independently of all other types of initiatives, two different kinds of initiatives could be coded at the same time (e.g., a social initiative and an object initiative if the child picked up a ball and threw it to the mother, or a social initiative and locomotion if the child vocalized to the mother while moving away from the toys). Once the initiative was observed and coded, the child’s level of interest in the toys at the time of the infant initiative was also coded. Infant coding categories included:

(1) Social initiatives were coded as infant initiative behaviors that were social in nature, directed at the mother, and most likely designed to capture the mother’s attention for interactive purposes. Social initiatives included: gestures (G), vocalizations and verbalizations (V), and any other behavior (B) directed to the mother. Because of camera angles, looks to the mother could not be coded reliably and were not included in the current study. (2) Object initiatives included all object-related behaviors that the infant initiated independent of maternal prompting that could be regarded as instigating a new activity. Continuous play with the same toy that did not include any new actions on the object was not counted. (3) Locomotion involved infant movement from the vicinity of the toys to another area. To be considered locomotion, the infant must have been judged to be more than the infant’s arm length away from the toys and the mother. Locomotion included crawling, scooting, walking, and rolling. Locomotion was coded as non-play when the movement was unrelated to play activity with the toys or with the mother. (4) Infant interest in the toys was coded directly after the onset of each initiative, and as close to the initiative as possible, not exceeding 3 s after the initiative occurred. This score measured the infants’ level of interest in and engagement with the toys. The following codes could be given: (1) No interest and/or active noninterest (N, e.g., the infant was uninterested in playing with the toys, including: throwing, pushing, or turning away from the toys, and/or staring into space); (2) Low to moderate interest (L/M, e.g., the infant was passively holding a toy and looking and/or touching it, and/or was only somewhat interested in the object, or interested with a brief lapse in interest); and (3) High interest (H, e.g., the infant was actively playing with a toy, his/her attention was mostly voluntary with no or little maternal prompting, and he/she was actively engrossed in the toys). Situations where there was no toy present or the child was playing with something other than a toy, such as the edge of the blanket, were noted but were not analyzed.

1.4. Coding maternal response behaviors After each infant initiative was identified, observers coded whether or not the mother provided a response. Responses were maternal behaviors that occurred after and in direct response to the coded infant initiative behavior, including vocalizations and verbalizations, gestures, and other physical behaviors. To be coded, the maternal behavior must have commenced no more than 5 s after the conclusion of the infant initiative. This response time frame is in line with previous researchers’ determination that the vast majority of maternal responses to infants occurred within 5 s of an initiative (e.g., Bornstein et al., 2008). Responses also followed Masur’s (1982) attention and contingency criteria for whether the behavior was a response rather than coincidental. Thus, coders judged a maternal behavior as a response by following two main guidelines: (1) the mother showed evidence of seeing and/or hearing the infant initiative and (2) the mother showed evidence that her response was elicited by the infant initiative. Once a maternal response was identified, the response was assessed for the presence or absence of the following characteristics:

(1) Sensitive was coded if the mother seemed to be aware of and to understand the infant’s current activity or play interest, as evidenced by the mother’s engaging into the infant’s current activity and/or providing vocalizations or verbalizations in reference to the infant’s current activity or interest. Based on previous researcher’s operational definition of sensitive, if the mother’s response is sensitive it demonstrates awareness and understanding of the infant’s behavior (Kochanska & Aksan, 2004; Murray & Hornbaker, 1997) (2) Appropriate was coded if the mother’s response to the infant’s behavior fit within the realm of what the coders’ both independently judged as suitable under the circumstances as a response to the infant initiative (e.g., If the infant cried and gestured toward a toy out of reach and the mother gave the infant the toy, that response would have been judged appropriate. However, if the mother was aware the infant wanted a certain toy, but only smiled or laughed, that response behavior would have been coded not appropriate.). If a response is coded as appropriate, it is typically sensitive as well. But, an inappropriate response could be sensitive (i.e., aware of infant behavior) or not. (3) Directive was coded if the mother’s behavior, including utterances, in response to an infant initiative involved a request, command, hint, or attempt in any other manner to direct and/or control her infant’s immediate behavior, including the infant’s attention (Mahoney, 1992).

280

C.A. Lloyd, E.F. Masur / Infant Behavior & Development 37 (2014) 276–285

Table 1 Mean frequencies (and standard deviations) of infant social and/or object initiatives and proportions containing different characteristics.

Overall frequencies Characteristics Vocalizations/verbalizations Gestures Other behaviors

SI only M (SD)

SIOI M (SD)

OI only M (SD)

2.96 (2.49)

4.42 (3.05)

7.65 (3.95)

.72 (.20) .36 (.16) .32 (.06)

.66 (.22) .46 (.18) .13 (.00)

– – –

Note. Infant initiatives: SI only = social initiatives not accompanied by object initiatives; OI only = object initiatives not accompanied by social initiatives; SIOI = social initiatives accompanied by object initiatives. Proportions of different characteristics sum to more than 100% because each initiative may contain more than one kind of characteristic.

After coding maternal behavior following each infant initiative for the presence or absence of a response and each response with respect to sensitivity, appropriateness, and directiveness, all maternal behaviors were classified into one of the following five categories: (1) Responsiveness (R) A responsive reply was a maternal response that was coded as sensitive and appropriate but not a directive. (2) A Responsive Directive (RD) was a maternal response that was coded as sensitive and appropriate and was a directive. (3) A ReDirective (ReD) was a maternal response that was not coded as sensitive, but was coded as appropriate to the situation and was a directive. (4) Intrusive Directives (ID) were maternal responses that were coded as directives that were neither sensitive nor appropriate. (5) NonResponsiveness/No Response (NR) was recorded when the mother did not respond. Therefore, each maternal response was deemed either R, RD, ReD, or ID and the absence of a response was immediately labeled as NR. Only these five variables were used in analyses. 1.5. Coding reliability Before coding the entire sample, two observers achieved overall reliability (k = .85) in coding the behaviors of two boys and two girls and their mothers chosen at random. Every individual variable also met kappa criterion (k > .70). Coding then continued on the remainder of the videotapes, viewed in random order. 2. Results Characteristics of infants’ initiative behaviors, characteristics of mothers’ responding behaviors, and relations between infants’ initiating behaviors and maternal responses are examined in the following three sections. In the first section, preliminary analyses assessed infant behaviors including social and object initiatives, infants’ levels of interest in the toys, and play-related and nonplay-related locomotion. The second section describes maternal reactions to the infant behaviors, including mothers’ rates of Responsiveness, Responsive Directives, ReDirectives, Intrusive Directives, and NonResponsiveness. Mother’s responses were also examined for their provision of object-directed and/or social behaviors and for the nature of those social behaviors. In the third section, primary analyses assessed the kinds of maternal responses elicited by different infant behaviors. 2.1. Infant initiative behaviors 2.1.1. Social and object initiatives The first preliminary analysis examined infants’ social initiatives to their mothers and initiatives to their mothers with objects. On average, infants produced approximately 15 initiatives during the 5-min play sessions, or about one every 20 s. A 2 (gender) × 3 (initiating behavior) repeated measures analysis of variance (ANOVA) on the frequencies of three kinds of initiating behaviors: Social initiatives alone (SI only), initiatives that included both social initiatives and object initiatives (SIOI), and object initiatives alone (OI only) revealed differences in the rates of occurrence of infants’ initiatory behavior, F(2, 48) = 12.91, p < .001, 2p = .35. Infants produced object initiatives alone significantly more often than social initiatives alone and social initiatives plus object initiatives (Bonferroni ps ≤ .05; see Table 1 for means and standard deviations). An additional repeated measures ANOVA was conducted on the characteristics of infants’ social initiatives. A 2 (gender) × 2 (social initiative type: SI only, SIOI) × 3 (subtype: V, G, B) assessed the proportions of vocalization/verbalizations (V), gestures (G), and other behavior (B) that accompanied social initiatives alone and SIOI’s. In addition to a main effect of social initiative category, F(1, 24, G–G adjusted) = 6.20, p < .05, 2p = .21, there was a significant variation in social initiative subtype, F(1.34, 32.06, G–G adjusted) = 83.26, p < .001, 2p = .78. Infants’ social initiatives included vocalizations or verbalizations 69% of the time, more often than they employed gestures (41% of the time) or other behaviors (22% of the time); all differences were significant, Bonferroni ps < .001. There was also an interaction between social initiative category and characteristics, F(1.49, 35.82, G–G adjusted) = 11.28, p < .001, 2p = .32. To investigate this interaction, follow-up one-way analyses were conducted within each infant initiative characteristic. Although the percentages of vocalizations and verbalizations did not significantly differ across social initiative type, gestures accompanied SIOI more often than SI only, F(1, 25, G–G adjusted) = 5.16, p < .05, 2p = .17. In contrast, other behaviors accompanied social initiatives alone more often than SIOI, F(1, 25, G–G adjusted) = 234.79, p < .001, 2p = .90 (see Table 1 for means and standard deviations of each characteristic). 2.1.2. Interest in the toys Infants’ levels of interest in the toys during all initiating behaviors combined were investigated with a 2 (gender) × 3 (toy interest level: no, low/moderate, high) repeated measures analysis of variance. This ANOVA revealed overall differences in interest levels, F(1.18, 28.40, G–G adjusted) = 29.03, p < .001,

C.A. Lloyd, E.F. Masur / Infant Behavior & Development 37 (2014) 276–285

281

Table 2 Mean proportions (and standard deviations) of maternal response behaviors and maternal behavior types.

Responsiveness Responsive Directives ReDirectives Intrusive Directives NonResponsiveness

Overall M (SD)

SR only M (SD)

SROR M (SD)

OR only M (SD)

.54 (.23) .08 (.09) .12 (.20) .13 (.17) .12 (.10)

.75 (.26) .46 (.34) .70 (.26) .47 (.37) –

.23 (.25) .49 (.34) .30 (.26) .52 (.36) –

.02 (.05) .06 (.19) .00 (.00) .01 (.04) –

Note. Maternal response behaviors: SR only = social responses not accompanied by object responses; OR only = object responses not accompanied by social responses; SROR = social responses accompanied by object responses.

2p = .55. Infants were rarely uninterested in the toys (M = 4.81%, SD = 8.52), while the proportions of low/moderate and high interest were each substantial (M = 46.85%, SD = 20.43, and M = 48.38%, SD = 23.84, respectively; Bonferroni ps ≤ .001). 2.1.3. Locomotion On average, infants moved away from the toys a total of 3.08 (SD = 4.23) times during the 5-min play session. A 2 (gender) × 2 (locomotion type: play related, nonplay related) repeated measures ANOVA was conducted on the proportions of play-related and nonplay-related locomotion. This analysis revealed marked differences in these kinds of locomotion, F(1, 24) = 30.36, p < .001, 2p = .56. When infants did move away from the toys, the locomotion was unrelated to toy play (M = 77%) more than three times more often than it was related to toy play (M = 23%). 2.2. Maternal response behavior The second set of analyses examined the characteristics of mothers’ behavior with a 2 (gender) × 5 (maternal response category) repeated measures analysis of variance on the proportions of the five kinds of maternal response behaviors they produced – Responsiveness (R), Responsive Directives (RD), Redirectives (ReD), Intrusive Directives (ID), and NonResponsiveness (NR). The analysis yielded a significant main effect for response category, F(2.37, 56.78, G–G adjusted) = 29.06, p < .001, 2p = .55. As Table 2 shows, mothers produced responsive replies the majority of the time and significantly more often than any of the other categories of response, which did not significantly differ or exceed 13% (Bonferroni ps < .001). To assess the kinds of behaviors mothers provided in their responses to infants’ initiatives, a 2 (gender) × 4 (maternal response category: R, RD, ReD, and ID) × 3 (maternal behavior type: social responses only, social plus object responses, and object responses only) repeated measures ANOVA on proportions of responses including each behavior type was conducted. Besides overall differences in mothers’ production of these behaviors, F(1.11, 26.64, G–G adjusted) = 44.33, p < .001, 2p = .65, the analysis revealed a significant interaction between maternal response categories and maternal behavior types, F(3.36, 80.52, G–G adjusted) = 8.33, p < .001, 2p = .25. As Table 2 shows, within all maternal response categories object responses alone (OR only) were rare. Within Responsive and ReDirective responses, social responses alone (SR only) strongly surpassed social plus object responses (SROR), while SR only and SROR were roughly equally likely to occur in mothers’ Responsive Directives and Intrusive Directives. One further repeated measures analysis of variance was conducted on the specific social behaviors mothers provided as part of their social responses alone (SR only) and social plus object responses (SROR). A 2 (gender) × 2 (social response type: SR only, SROR) × 3 (behavior subtype; V, G, B) assessed the proportions of maternal social responses that included vocalization/verbalizations, gestures, and other behavior. There was significant variation in the specific behaviors employed, F(1.46, 35.12, G–G adjusted) = 406.67, p < .001, 2p = .94. Overall, maternal social responses included vocalizations or verbalizations (M = .94, SD = .16) much more often than they used gestures (M = .25, SD = .22) or other behaviors (M = .04, SD = .80); all differences were significant, Bonferroni ps < .001. There was also an interaction of social response type and behavior subtype, F(2, 48) = 4.80, p < .01, 2p = .17. Although vocalizations or verbalizations accompanied 94% of both SR only and SROR responses, gestures were nearly twice as likely to be employed with SROR (M = .33, SD = .29) as with SR alone (M = .18, SD = .16), while other behaviors were slightly more common when mothers gave only SR (M = .06, SD = .11) than when mothers gave a SROR simultaneously (M = .02, SD = .05). 2.3. Relations between infant behaviors and maternal responsiveness and directiveness The final and primary set of analyses examined the proportions of each category of maternal response – Responsiveness, Responsive Directives, ReDirectives, Intrusive Directives, and NonResponsiveness – that followed different infant behaviors. Because gender was not significant in any of the previous analyses, gender was omitted in these analyses. 2.3.1. Infant initiatives A repeated measures 3 (infant initiative type: SI only, SIOI, OI only) × 5 (maternal response category: R, RD, ReD, ID, NR) ANOVA examined the maternal behaviors elicited by each type of infant initiative. The analysis found a significant main effect for maternal response category, F(2.18, 54.44, G–G adjusted) = 78.40, p < .001, 2p = .76. As Table 3 shows, on average, mothers responded in some way to 91% of all infant initiatives, and responsive replies significantly exceeded all other categories (Bonferroni ps < .001). The predicted interaction between infant initiative types and maternal response categories was also found, F(4.67, 116.76, G–G adjusted) = 6.25, p < .001, 2p = .20. To examine this interaction, follow-up analyses were conducted within each maternal response category. Three of the follow-up analyses yielded significant findings: Responsiveness, F(2, 50) = 9.61, p < .001, 2p = .28; Intrusive Directives, F(2, 50) = 3.52, p < .04, 2p = .12; and NonResponsiveness, F(1.32, 33.07, G–G adjusted) = 13.07, p < .001, 2p = .34. As the means in Table 3 illustrate, mothers’ responsive replies were significantly more likely to follow infants’ social initiatives alone and social initiatives plus object initiatives than they were to follow object initiatives alone, Bonferroni ps < .01. In contrast, mothers’ Intrusive Directives were most likely to follow infants’ object initiatives alone. Object initiatives alone elicited significantly more Intrusive Directives than did social initiatives alone, Bonferroni p < .04. Finally, mothers were nonresponsive to one-fifth of all object initiatives alone, while they rarely failed to respond to infants’ social initiatives or social plus object initiatives, Bonferroni ps < .01. 2.3.2. Infant interest in the toys Relations between infants’ level of interest in the toys and their mothers’ responses were investigated with a repeated measures analysis of variance, 3 (toy interest level: no, low/moderate, high) × 5 (maternal response category: R, RD, ReD, ID, NR). Besides the previously reported differences in overall maternal response categories, F(1.89, 47.24) = 47.74, p < .001, 2p = .66, there was an interaction between toy interest level and maternal response category, F(3.99, 99.72) = 6.56, p < .001, 2p = .21. To interpret this interaction, follow-up one-way analyses were conducted within each maternal response type (see Table 3).

282

C.A. Lloyd, E.F. Masur / Infant Behavior & Development 37 (2014) 276–285

Table 3 Mean proportions (and standard deviations) of maternal response categories following different kinds of infant behaviors. Infant behaviors Infant initiatives SI only SIOI OI only Overall M Interest in the toys No interest Low/moderate High Overall M Locomotion Play-related Nonplay-related Overall M

Responsiveness M (SD)

Responsive Directives M (SD)

ReDirectives M (SD)

Intrusive Directives M (SD)

NonResponsiveness M (SD)

.74 (.29) .73 (.27) .50 (.24) .66

.08 (.20) .07 (.11) .10 (.14) .08

.09 (.21) .08 (.21) .05 (.10) .07

.05 (.11) .09 (.18) .15 (.15) .10

.04 (.10) .03 (.06) .20 (.20) .09

.48 (.28) .61 (.24) .55 (.30) .55

.00 (.00) .09 (.11) .06 (.11) .05

.37 (.29) .10 (.18) .09 (.20) .19

.00 (.00) .09 (.10) .16 (.21) .08

.15 (.20) .11 (.13) .15 (.21) .14

.53 (.20) .24 (.22) .38

.11 (.08) .07 (.10) .09

.00 (.00) .68 (.22) .34

.23 (.17) .00 (.00) .12

.14 (.07) .01 (.01) .08

Note. Infant initiatives: SI only = social initiatives not accompanied by object initiatives; OI only = object initiatives not accompanied by social initiatives; SIOI = social initiatives accompanied by object initiatives. Table 4 Mean frequencies (and standard deviations) of maternal overall responding and response categories following differential rates of infant initiatives. Rate of infant initiatives

Total overall response M (SD)

6 7 9 10 11 13 14 15 18 19 20 21 22 23 26

6.00 (.00)*** 7.00 (.00)*** 8.00 (.00)*** 8.50 (.71)*** 11.00 (.00)*** 12.00 (1.41)*** 10.00 (.00)*** 10.00 (4.24)*** 14.25 (2.06)*** 16.00 (1.41)*** 20.00 (.00)*** 18.50 (.71)*** 19.50 (.71)*** 18.00 (.00)*** 23.00 (.00)***

***

Responsiveness

Re-Directives

M (SD)

Responsive Directives M (SD)

1.00 (.00) 7.00 (.00) 6.00 (.00) 7.50 (2.12) 5.00 (.00) 5.00 (5.66) 8.00 (.00) 7.50 (2.12) 12.75 (2.22) 9.75 (3.20) 7.00 (.00) 10.00 (7.07) 11.50 (3.54) 6.00 (.00) 14.00 (.00)

.00 (.00) .00 (.00) 1.00 (.00) 1.00 (1.41) 3.00 (.00) .50 (.71) .00 (.00) .50 (.71) 1.00 (1.41) 1.75 (1.71) 6.00 (.00) 2.00 (.00) 1.00 (.00) 3.00 (.00) 3.00 (.00)

NonResponsiveness

M (SD)

Intrusive Directives M (SD)

.00 (.00) .00 (.00) .00 (.00) .00 (.00) 2.00 (.00) 6.00 (5.66) 1.00 (.00) 1.00 (1.41) .25 (.50) .75 (.96) 3.00 (.00) 5.50 (7.78) 5.50 (7.78) 8.00 (.00) 2.00 (.00)

5.00 (.00) .00 (.00) 1.00 (.00) 1.00 (1.41) 1.00 (.00) .50 (.71) 2.00 (.00) 2.00 (2.83) 1.50 (1.00) 4.25 (1.50) 2.00 (.00) .50 (.71) 1.00 (1.41) 1.00 (.00) 2.00 (.00)

.00 (.00) .00 (.00) 1.00 (.00) .50 (.71) .00 (.00) 1.00 (1.41) 3.00 (.00) 4.00 (1.41) 2.50 (2.38) 2.50 (1.92) 2.00 (.00) 3.00 (.00) 3.00 (2.83) 5.00 (.00) 5.00 (.00)

M (SD)

p < .001.

The follow-up ANOVAs yielded significant differences for three of the maternal response categories: Responsive Directives, F(1.54, 38.42, G–G adjusted) = 7.05, p < .01, 2p = .22; ReDirectives, F(1.39, 34.65, G–G adjusted) = 18.89, p < .001, 2p = .43; and Intrusive Directives, F(1.30, 32.58, G–G adjusted) = 9.30, p < .01, 2p = .27. As the means in Table 3 show, although mothers’ Responsive Directives were infrequent, they sometimes followed infants’ low/moderate and high toy interest but never no interest, Bonferroni ps < .05. In contrast, mothers produced ReDirectives more than three times as often following infants’ no toy interest as following their low/moderate or high toy interest, Bonferroni ps < .01. Lastly, mothers produced more Intrusive Directives following infants’ low/moderate and high toy interest than following no toy interest, Bonferroni ps < .01. In fact, mothers never gave Intrusive Directives when infants’ were not interested in the toys. 2.3.3. Locomotion A 2 (locomotion type: play related, nonplay related) × 5 (maternal response category) repeated measures ANOVA examined the proportions of maternal responses of each category elicited by infants’ play related versus nonplay related locomotion. The previously noted main effect for maternal responses, F(2.25, 56.27, G–G adjusted) = 58.17, p < .001, 2p = .70, was qualified by an interaction between locomotion type and maternal response category, F(1.89, 47.29) = 71.97, p < .001, 2p = .74; see Table 3 for means and standard deviations. To interpret this interaction, separate one-way analyses of variance were conducted within each category of maternal response. The follow-up ANOVAs yielded significant differences for four maternal response categories. As the means in Table 3 show, infants’ appropriate, play-related locomotion exceeded their nonplay locomotion in eliciting maternal Responsiveness, F(1.00, 25.00, G–G adjusted) = 18.33, p < .001, 2p = .42; maternal Intrusive Directives, F(1.00, 25.00, G–G adjusted) = 44.82, p < .001, 2p = .64; and NonResponsiveness, F(1.00, 25.00, G–G adjusted) = 69.95, p < .001, 2p = .74. Notably, mothers produced Intrusive Directives only following children’s appropriate, play-related locomotion. In contrast, infants’ nonplay locomotion elicited considerably more ReDirectives than did their play related locomotion, F(1.00, 25.00, G–G adjusted) = 243.50, p < .001, 2p = .91. In fact, when children were moving as part of their play with the toys, mothers did not produce any ReDirectives. 2.3.4. Maternal reaction by rate of infant initiations The variability in rate of infant initiation was vast (range = 6–26); some infants gave relatively few initiations, while others gave many. The last analysis, a one-way multivariate analysis of variance (MANOVA), was conducted to determine the effect of infants’ different rates of initiation on the dependent variables, mothers responding and mothers’ style of interaction (i.e., overall ratings of responsiveness and each type of directiveness). Significant differences were found among infants’ different rates of initiations on the dependent measures, Wilks’s  = .00, F(70, 37.41) = 2.14, p < .01. The multivariate 2 based on

C.A. Lloyd, E.F. Masur / Infant Behavior & Development 37 (2014) 276–285

283

Wilks’s  was quite strong, 2 = .78 indicates 78% of multivariate variance of the dependent variable is associated with the infant initiatives factor (Table 4 contains the means and standard deviations on the dependent variables). Analyses of variances (ANOVA) on the dependent variables were conducted as follow-up tests to the MANOVA. Using the Bonferroni method, each ANOVA was tested at the .05 level. The ANOVA on mothers overall responding to infant initiations was significant, F(14, 11) = 10.24, p < .001, 2 = .93, while the ANOVA’s for each of the styles of responding (Responsiveness, Responsive Directives, ReDirectives, Intrusive Directives, NonResponsiveness) was nonsignificant.

3. Discussion Mother–infant interactions, and particularly mothers’ responsive and directive behaviors during those interactions, are predictive of infants’ social, cognitive, and language development (Lamb et al., 2002; Mahoney et al., 1998; Masur et al., 2005; Murray & Hornbaker, 1997; Tamis-LeMonda et al., 2001). Maternal responsiveness has been consistently correlated with positive developmental outcomes (e.g., Booth et al., 1994; Mahoney et al., 1998; Masur et al., 2005; Tamis-LeMonda et al., 2001). Although maternal directiveness has most often been related to negative developmental outcomes (e.g., Hughes et al., 1999), some studies that have differentiated among types of maternal directives have reported links from mothers’ supportive or Responsive Directive behaviors (but in these few studies the directives assessed were not the typical ‘intrusive’ directives) to infants’ positive developmental outcomes (e.g., Akhtar et al., 1991; Hughes et al., 1999; Masur et al., 2005; Pine, 1992). Thus, differentiating among types of maternal directives is important, as the present study has done. Given the significance of maternal responsive and directive behaviors, investigating factors that may influence their production is important. Although such behaviors have frequently been attributed to maternal style characteristics, the present study, supporting the bidirectionality perspective of Bell (1988), examined infant contributions to maternal response behaviors. The current researchers have described the nature of infants’ initiating behaviors and the characteristics of maternal responses. Most important, we have found evidence that infants’ social versus object-directed initiatives and their positive play-engaged versus unengaged behaviors differentially elicit maternal responsive and directive behaviors. Infants produced numerous initiatives to their mothers, on average, about one every 20 s. Infants produced object initiatives most often, while social initiatives by themselves and social initiatives that accompanied object initiatives together roughly equaled object initiatives. These results support Bornstein et al.’s (2008) findings that infant initiatives involving objects constituted a higher percentage of initiative activity than did social initiatives alone, not surprising during a toy-play situation. Two-thirds or more of all social initiatives were vocalizations, with more than a third also containing gestures; and gestures accompanied social-plus-object initiatives more often than social initiatives by themselves. In contrast, other behaviors accompanied social initiatives alone more often than social-plus-object initiatives. Most of these infant behaviors were accompanied by high or at least moderate levels of interest in the toys. Further, this study was one of the few to examine infants’ less positive behaviors, including locomotion away from the toys. When the infants moved away from the toy set, they did so mostly for non-play reasons. Infants were three times more likely to be moving around the room while not involved in play or with their mothers. These behaviors presented opportunities for eliciting differential responses from their mothers. As expected, mothers were highly responsive to infants’ overtures. Rarely did mothers ignore or miss initiatives offered by the infants. Combining all maternal responses together, the overall response rate was 88%. Furthermore, mothers responded in a responsive manner the majority (54%) of the time. In contrast, the three kinds of directives coded here – Responsive Directives, Redirectives, and Intrusive Directives – were produced in roughly equal proportions 13 or less percent of the time. The differences among maternal response behaviors were reflected not only in their patterns of relations to infants’ initiating behaviors, but also in their component characteristics as well. Responsive replies and ReDirectives consisted of social responses 70% or more of the time, with the overwhelming majority of such social responses being vocal or verbal behaviors. In contrast, Responsive Directives and Intrusive Directives included social responses by themselves and social responses that were accompanied by object responses about 50% each. Thus, both in expanding on and in diverting children’s attentional focus, mothers often enlisted objects. More important than the general characteristics of infants’ initiating or mothers’ responding behaviors, however, were our findings demonstrating the pattern of relations between them. The current study is the first to show that infant behaviors evidencing play engagement versus those indicating nonengagement differentially elicit maternal responsive and directive behaviors. These results support Bell’s (1988) bidirectionality viewpoint, that infants’ as well as mothers’ actions can influence and elicit their partners’ behaviors. They also extend and clarify the prior findings of Masur and colleagues (2013) that were based on starting with maternal utterances and examining the infant behaviors that preceded them. For instance, Masur and colleagues reported that infants’ social and object initiatives were significantly more likely to precede responsive than all types of directive utterances. The current study furthered this research by showing somewhat different consequences following infants’ social versus object-directive initiatives. Infants’ initiations that were social in nature consistently elicited high percentages of maternal responsiveness, 74% for social initiatives alone and 71% for social-plus-object initiatives – considerably higher than their very low rates of directive responses to these initiatives. Infants’ object initiatives also elicited more responsive behaviors more than any directive reply, although they evoked responsive replies only 50% of the time. Our findings of higher rates of infant object-directed than social initiatives but higher rates of maternal responsiveness to social than object initiations also replicate findings of Bornstein and colleagues (2008). However, our findings extend theirs by

284

C.A. Lloyd, E.F. Masur / Infant Behavior & Development 37 (2014) 276–285

examining maternal directive as well as responsive behaviors. Object-directed initiatives were found not only to receive no response on 20% of all occasions, but they also elicited Intrusive Directives 15% of the time, more often than social initiatives did. Our inclusion of infants’ less engaged as well as more engaged behaviors also permitted us to assess when mothers are most likely to provide different kinds of directives. In particular, although overall mothers are most likely to provide responsive behaviors, situations when infants are not well engaged in play are highly likely to elicit appropriate maternal directives, ReDirectives. For example, demonstrating their monitoring of their children’s behaviors, mothers produced ReDirectives more often than any other category of response, 68% of the time, following infants’ nonplay locomotion away from the toys. When infants are off-task mothers need to redirect their behavior. In other studies, this maternal behavior might very well have been coded as “intrusive”, although it differs from true intrusive behavior. Redirections by mothers are not “sensitive” because they do not follow the children’s lead, but they are not ‘controlling’ or ‘intrusive’ in a negative way; they can be appropriate responses to lack of interest in the toys or nonplay locomotion. Although previous literature (e.g., Masur et al., 2013) found that ‘off-task’ behavior, such as nonplay locomotion, preceded Intrusive Directives, this was not the case here. This is because in the current study, directives that were not judged sensitive were subdivided into “true” Intrusive Directives that were not appropriate and appropriate directives labeled ReDirectives. This distinction may provide a possible explanation for inconsistencies in the literature on the effects of maternal directiveness. When infants’ behaviors necessitate it, a nonsensitive but nonetheless appropriate response by the mother may not cause negative child behaviors or long-term negative developmental outcomes. Results on infants’ levels of interest in the toys also illustrate differential maternal directive responding. Although behaviors following all levels of infants’ interest were most likely to be responsive replies, mothers evidenced their awareness of infants’ attentional engagement by producing ReDirectives more than three times more often when infants were uninterested in the toys than when they showed even low/moderate levels of interest. In contrast, mothers never followed noninterest in the toys with Responsive Directives or Intrusive Directives. This latter finding, however, is due to the definition (and coding) of “true” Intrusive Directives as not sensitive or appropriate. Redirecting attention when infants are unengaged would not be deemed inappropriate. As in the case of nonplay locomotion, it would be coded as redirection. By distinguishing among types of directives, the current study showed that not all directives are inherently negative. Some directive responses are sensitive and/or appropriate to infants’ behaviors and the contextual circumstances and are thus more positive. It is also the case that while some researchers have considered directiveness and responsiveness opposite behaviors (e.g., Schneider & Haney, 1992), the current analyses show that these two variables are not invariably dichotomous. In fact, Responsive Directives are sensitive and appropriate responses that are simultaneously directive, calling on infants to attend to an object and/or perform a behavior in keeping with their ongoing play focus. All too often, researchers’ sole operational definition of directives is that they are intrusive or controlling, when in natural, daily interactions between parent and child-directives are obviously appropriate in certain contexts. The current study showed that not only are mothers giving different types of directives, but they give different types of directives in direct response to the context of what their infant is doing. In summary, this study yielded findings examining a variety of infant behaviors, demonstrating the diversity of maternal responses, especially their directive behaviors, and confirming the influential role of infants during mother–infant interactions. We have distinguished several kinds of maternal directives. By considering sensitivity and appropriateness individually, and thus separating ReDirectives and Intrusive Directives, this study provides a clearer and more nuanced picture of mothers’ responses to infants’ positive and engaged or negative and disengaged behaviors. Our findings also contribute to disentangling the contradictory research on the consequences of maternal directiveness. We encourage other researchers to also widen their parameters in measuring maternal directive behavior. This study demonstrated that different infant initiative behaviors elicit different maternal responses. Although overall these mothers did respond most often in a responsive manner to their infants during free-play, their proportions of different responsive behaviors varied according to their infants’ initiatives and according to their infants’ rate of initiative behavior. These results indicate that mothers’ responsiveness or directiveness is not solely the result of maternal style. Infant behaviors also play a role, and they are likely influential in infants’ subsequent developmental outcomes. This in no way takes responsibility away from mothers in regards to how they respond to their infants. Just the opposite – this study has implications for mothers having more responsibility in tailoring how they respond to their infants according to context and regardless of innate style that may or may not be stable over time. Because mother–infant interactions have consequences for infants, it would be valuable to expand on these analyses of overall patterns by analyzing individual differences between mothers and infants and longer sequences of behaviors within mother–infant interactions. Future research should also seek a larger sample and a more diverse sample – ethnically, racially, and economically – than the current fairly small, homogeneous one. In short, our study lends support to Bell’s (1988) bidirectional perspective on maternal and child behavior. Research on any aspect of child development needs to keep this bidirectionality in mind.

References Akhtar, N., Dunham, F., & Dunham, P. J. (1991). Directive interactions and early vocabulary development. The role of joint attentional focus. Journal of Child Language: 18., 41–49. http://dx.doi.org/10.1017/S0305000900013283

C.A. Lloyd, E.F. Masur / Infant Behavior & Development 37 (2014) 276–285

285

Baumwell, L., Tamis-LeMonda, C. S., & Bornstein, M. H. (1997). Maternal verbal sensitivity and child language comprehension. Infant Behavior and Development: 20., (2), 247–258. Bell, R. Q. (1988). Contributions of human infants to caregiving and social interaction. In Handel (Ed.), Childhood socialization (pp. 103–122). New York: Aldine De Gruyter. Bell, R. Q., & Chapman, M. (1986). Child effects in studies using experimental or brief longitudinal approaches to socialization. Developmental Psychology: 22., 595–603. http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/0012-1649.22.5.595 Booth, C., Rose-Krasnor, L., McKinnon, J., & Rubin, K. (1994). Predicting social adjustment in middle childhood: The role of preschool attachment security and maternal style. Social Development: 3., (3), 189–204. Bornstein, M. H., Tamis-LeMonda, C. S., Hahn, C., & Haynes, O. M. (2008). Maternal responsiveness to young children at three ages: Longitudinal analysis of a multidimensional, modular, and specific parenting construct. Developmental Psychology: 44., (3), 867–874. http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/0012-1649.44.3.867 Carpenter, M., Nagell, K., & Tomasello, M. (1998). Social cognition, joint attention, and communicative competence from 9 to 15 months of age. Monographs of the Society for Research in Child Development: 63., (255) http://dx.doi.org/10.2307/1166214 Crawley, S. B., & Spiker, D. (1983). Mother–child interactions involving two-year-olds with Down Syndrome: A look at individual differences. Child Development: 58., 1523–1531. http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/1467-8624.ep12432704 Hampson, J., & Nelson, K. (1993). The relation of maternal language to variation in rate and style of language acquisition. Journal of Child Language: 20., 313–342. http://dx.doi.org/10.1017/S0305000900008308 Hoff, E., & Naigles, L. (2002). How children use input to acquire a lexicon. Child Development: 73., 418–433. Hughes, M., Dote-Kwan, J., & Dolendo, J. (1999). Characteristics of maternal directiveness and responsiveness with young children with visual impairments. Child: Care, Health and Development: 25., (4), 285–298. Jones, N., Field, T., Fox, N., Davalos, M., Malphurs, J., Carraway, K., et al. (1997). Infants of intrusive and withdrawn mothers. Infant Behavior and Development: 20., (2), 175–186. Kochanska, G., & Aksan, N. (2004). Development of mutual responsiveness between parents and their young children. Child Development: 75., (6), 1657–1676. http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-8624.2004.00808.x Lamb, M., Bornstein, M., & Teti, D. (2002). Development in infancy: An introduction (4th ed.). NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Inc. Mahoney, G. (1992). Maternal behavior rating scale (MBRS) (Rev. ed.). Tallmadge, OH: Family Child Learning Center. Mahoney, G., Boyce, G., Fewell, R., Spiker, D., & Wheeden, C. (1998). The relationship of parent–child interaction to the effectiveness of early intervention services for at-risk children and children with disabilities. Topics in Early Childhood Special Education: 18., (1), 5–17. Masur, E. (1982). Mothers’ responses to infants’ object-related gestures: Influences on lexical development. Journal of Child Language: 9., (1), 23–30. Masur, E. F., Flynn, V., & Eichorst, D. L. (2005). Maternal responsive and directive behaviors and utterances as predictors of children’s lexical development. Journal of Child Language: 32., 63–91. http://dx.doi.org/10.1017/S0305000904006634 Masur, E. F., Flynn, V., & Lloyd, C. A. (2013). Infants’ behaviors as antecedents and consequents of mothers’ responsive and directive utterances. First Language: 33., (4), 354–371. Masur, E., & Turner, M. (2001). Stability and consistency in mothers’ and infants’ interactive styles. Merrill-Palmer Quarterly: 47., (1), 100–120. Murray, A., & Hornbaker, A. (1997). Maternal directive and facilitative interaction styles. Associations with language and cognitive development of low risk and high risk toddlers. Development and Psychopathology: 9., 507–516. Newland, L., Roggman, L., & Boyce, L. (2001). The development of social toy play and language in infancy. Infant Behavior & Development: 24., 1–25. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/S0163-6383(01)00067-4 Pan, B. A., Imbens-Bailey, A., Winner, K., & Snow, C. (1996). Communicative intents expressed by parents in interaction with young children. Merrill-Palmer Quarterly: 42., 248–266. Pine, J. (1992). Maternal style at the early one-word stage: Re-evaluating the stereotype of the directive mother. First Language: 12., 169–186. Pomerleau, A., Scuccimarri, C., & Malcuit, G. (2003). Mother–infant behavioral interactions in teenage and adult mothers during the first six months postpartum: Relations with infant development. Infant Mental Health Journal: 24., (5), 495–509. Rollins, P. R. (2003). Caregivers’ contingent comments to 9-month-old infants: Relationships with later language. Applied Psycholinguistics: 24., 221–234. Rose-Krasnor, L., Rubin, K., Booth, C., & Coplan, R. (1996). The relation of maternal directiveness and child attachment security to social competence in preschoolers. International Journal of Behavioral Development: 19., (2), 309–325. Schaffer, H. R., & Crook, C. K. (1980). Child compliance and maternal control techniques. Developmental Psychology: 16., (1), 54–61. Schneider, P., & Haney, M. (1992). Relation of child behavior and activity type to maternal directiveness and sensitivity in interactions involving preschoolers who are developmentally delayed. Developmental Disabilities: 20., (2), 13–23. Tamis-LeMonda, C. S., Bornstein, M. H., & Baumwell, L. (2001). Maternal responsiveness and children’s achievement of language milestones. Child Development: 72., 748–767. Tomasello, M., & Todd, J. (1983). Joint attention and lexical acquisition style. First Language: 4., 197–212. http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/014272378300401202