. A 3111.... I1 , '\ ’ 'IIJH' I,,.‘.'.\' .u m ,n- L‘m 11‘. u: n- . K . .:1.».1i§i1.? 11': i' '; u .. y ..,.‘ ‘. ”at...“ :v .: ‘ v n . nun-m... or. m -,..« -,-:;~ ,. “m, .. ...,-... my a "v.3 , . “mm... ”MA I ”“Im'. 'I" ,3;3... , If": ovum?“ 'u. .2 "3721.”? (“I "1.". u'IK'u'N-Aly .,. \. .. _ . .., H. a]...::......;,. Y“ ‘N '1'" .. . . ,. 11:: ".9 ,m.‘ 'K" v ~ . 4 ‘ V'nrhh-n -g~:-1v v” A ‘,’.:.:' I ”my“. . in!“ :3.2.'K'.3A3.z;‘l K! . 'n'im-n 'l . l ". '.' . . :1}. ' m! ‘ 1 1 .. ' .,. ’ "l ... m... .. m . '7 ' ‘ 1 , .1, .2 ...- ... ~ , u ‘C‘KM I '"“'¥“.';I'y".."1la l mJ‘S'a‘" f ”J‘s"? r311 . ”:4; .~. ‘1 .1“!!! «nun. ..4 bate August 11, 1973 This is to certify that the : thesis-entitled" I ' ‘1a_'-.;;: , PACIFICATION IN INFANTS AS A FUNCTION OF . THE AGENT AND PREFERENCE FORITACTILETSTIMULATION presented by Nancy Lee Davidson has been accepted towards fulfillment . lug of the requirements for 1 7 a" Doctor of Philosophy degree in Psychology Major profes r 0-7639 LIBRARY Michigan Sig/(‘3 University ABSTRACT PACIFICATION IN INFANTS AS A FUNCTION OF THE AGENT AND PREFERENCE FOR TACTILE STIMULATION BY Nancy Lee Davidson 'This study investigated the effects of preference for close physical contact on social and nonsocial methods of pacification. Sixteen mothers and their nine— to twelve— week—old infants were rated according to the frequency of close physical contact that occurred between mother and infant. Infants in the High Contact Group spent most of the preliminary session in close contact with the mother; this corresponded with the mothers' reports of the children's positive response to contact in everyday situations. Low Contact infants were shown by both the contact session and the maternal report to be only minimally involved in close contact. The resulting two contact groups were observed under two nonsocial pacification conditions (Swaddled and Unswad— dled) and two social pacification conditions (Stranger and Mother). Results indicated that, compared to High Contact infants, the Low Contact infants responded with greater activity to three of the four pacification conditions. Differences in responsiveness between male and female infants as well as differences in the stranger's handling compared to the mother's handling were also noted. Differences 1 the two contact groups are discussed in terms of . earlier transition to distal communication forms by H~ '5 Contact infants and the Low Contact infants' greater need for overall stimulation. PACIFICATION IN INFANTS AS A FUNCTION OF THE AGENT AND PREFERENCE FOR TACTILE STIMULATION BY Nancy Lee Davidson A DISSERTATION Submitted to Michigan State University in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of DOCTOR OF PHILOSOPHY Department of Psychology 1973 To Jim and Lissa ACKNOWLEDGMENTS As student and as teacher, I have come to realize that there can never be a relationship to compare with that between a good teacher and her student. In no other rela— tionship does one weigh every thought and action so delib- erately, so anxiously, nor for so long a time, to determine whether the other person will accept his work or think it is good. Good teachers and good students inform, define, refine, demand, support and inspire. They pull from each other increasingly better products when each thought she could not do better nor work longer. For their abilities in all of these functions, I wish to thank the many good teachers in my life, especially the members of the dissertation committee, Ellen Strommen, Mary Leichty, and Gordon Wood. They are largely responsible for the best parts of me as student and as teacher. A very special thanks is given to my advisor, friend, and chairman of the committee, Hiram Fitzgerald, whose importance in my life cannot easily be expressed. His scholarship, communication skills, and integrity in research have continuously provided a standard of excellence by which to direct and evaluate my work. More than anyone else, he has helped me to know how good a psychologist can be and what a developmental psychologist should be. I admire him greatly as a person with tremendous energy, intellect, and concern for others. I must also thank the good students in my life-— especially Ken Hallwhich and Margaret Parsons whose compe- tence as experimenters in the study was impressive and invaluable. Additional gratitude is to be expressed to Sally Ledesma, Eileen Rickard, and Jim Davidson for their crucial technical skills and patient advice. Finally, a great appreciation is to be conveyed to the families who generously participated as subjects for this research. Their expressed trust and interest in the research made the study all the more worthwhile. iv TABLE OF CONTENTS Dedication Acknowledgments Table of Contents List of Tables List of Figures Introduction Pacification by Social Agents Pacification and Characteristics of the Infant Nonsocial Pacification Handler Behavior and Characteristics of the Infant Purposes of the Present Study Method Subjects Procedure Results Infant Measures Handler Measures Relations between Infant and Handler Variables Discussion Differences between High and Low Contact Infants Differences between Male and Female Infants Differences between Stranger and Mother Summary and Conclusions References Page ii vii \000 OD 'Qm 4:1») [\3 l-' {>4 [.1 0\ NH (fifl :4: 0)“) ’+8 55 57 59 61 Appendix A: Contacts with Parents Appendix B: Mother Questionnaire on Contact Preference Appendix C: A Scale for Rating State Appendix D: Definitions of Observational Categories Appendix E: Analyses of Variance for Infant Variables Appendix F: Analyses of Variance for Handler Variables Appendix G: Correlations among Infant and Handler Measures Appendix H: Summaries of Means for Infant and Handler Variables vi 6% 68 73 75 77 81 93 96 LIST OF TABLES Time until Sleep under Swaddling for High and Low Contact Infants Close Contact during Crying and Noncrying Active Contact during Crying and Noncrying Analysis Analysis Analysis Analysis Analysis Analysis Analysis Analysis Table 1 Experimental Design 2 3 4 Appendix E El Summary of the E2 Summary of the Crying E3 Summary of the Smiling E4 Summary of the Vocalization Appendix F Fl Summary of the IM—Looking F2 Summary of the M-Looking F3 Summary of the I-Looking F4 Summary of the Close Contact F5 Summary of the Analysis Shoulder Contact of of of of of of of of of Variance Variance Variance Variance Variance Variance Variance Variance Variance on State on on Page 12 21 LA H6 77 78 79 80 81 82 83 84 85 F6 Summary of the Analysis of Variance on Shoulder Contact F7 Summary of the Analysis of Variance on Active Contact F8 Summary of the Analysis of Variance on Touching F9 Summary of the Analysis of Variance on Moving Limb FlO Summary of the Analysis of Variance on Adjust Position FTl Summary of the Analysis of Variance on Direct to Object F12 Summary of the Analysis of Variance on Facial Change Appendix G Gl Intercorrelations between Measures of Infants' Behavior G2 Intercorrelations among the Measures of Handlers' Behavior G3 Correlation Coefficients between Handler and Infant Measures Appendix H Hl Summary of Means on State H2 Summary of Means on Crying H3 Summary of Means on Smiling H4 Summary of Means on Vocalization H5 Summary of Means on IM—Looking H6 Summary of Means on M-Looking H7 Summary of Means on Close Contact H8 Summary of Means on Facial Change viii 86 87 88 89 9o 91 92 93 9H 95 96 98 99 100 102 103 104 105 H9 H10 H11 H13 H14 Summary Summary Summary Summary Summary Summary of Means of Means of Means of Means of Means of Means on on on on 01’]. on Moving Close Contact Active Contact Touching Moving Limb Adjust Position Facial Change ix 106 107 108 109 110 LIST OF FIGURES Figure V Page 1 State during Swaddled Condition as a Function of Time 19 2 Mean Differences in State from Unswaddled to Swaddled Condition 20 3 Crying during Swaddled Condition as a Function of Time 23 4 Smiling to Stranger as a Function of Time 25 5 IMeLooking as a Function of Time 32 6 M—Looking as a Function of Sex and Contact Preference 33 INTRODUCTION Activity levels differ almost momentarily within the same infant and differ across infants as a function of such factors as whether the infants were breast or bottle fed, whether the infants were in corresponding states at the time of measurement, and whether they just differ in terms of an underlying general responsivity dimension. Despite these wide individual differences in activity level, research on methods for reducing level of arousal in infants has clearly suggested that for most infants continuous stimulation along any sensory modality has a pacifying effect. Brackbill and Fitzgerald (1969) have defined "arousal level" as "the organism's overall level of functioning at any given period of time on a continuum ranging from deep sleep to awake, alert, and active (p. 174)." Therefore, "pacification" refers to the events that make the infant less alert and less active. The pacification literature suggests that an infant can be pacified by continuous stimulation that is visual (Irwin, 1941; Irwin & Weiss, 1934), auditory (Birns, Blank, Bridger & Escalona, 1965; Brackbill, Adams, Cromwell & Gray, 1966), tactile-proprioceptive (Lipton, Steinschneider & Richmond, 1965; Giacoman, 1969), kinesthetic—vestibular 1 2 (Korner & Thoman, 1972; Pedersen, Champagne, & Pedersen, 1969) or some combination of the above (Brackbill, 1961). Only the work on kinesthetic pacification specifically investigated the effects of human contact since humans have been involved as experimenters but not as pacification agents. The brief review above indicates that there is con— siderable information about the effects of nonsocial forms of pacification on infants. On the other hand, in the natural environment, parents are the pacification agents for their infants yet their role in pacification has not been investigated. The present study attempted to identify the critical dimensions of pacification when it involves a social agent. The study also considered the effects of infant characteristics on both social and nonsocial pacifi— cation. Each of these purposes will be briefly detailed in the sections that follow and then summarized in terms of the specific questions of the research. Pacification by Social Aggnps Although many studies have used an experimenter who was, in fact, a stranger to the infant, there has been no attempt to compare the soothing effectiveness of a stranger with that of the child‘s own mother. There is evidence that during the first quarter of the first year of life infants begin to react differently to the stranger than to the mother (Banks & Wolfson, 1967). Furthermore, Schaffer and Emerson (1964a) speculate that three-month—old infants 3 may show more smiling, visual following, vocalization, and quieting in response to the mother than to strangers. One can only wonder how a stranger compares as-a pacifying agent with the child's own mother. Pacifigation and Characteristics of the Infant Given the accumulating evidence that characteristics of the infant do moderate the effects of treatments on him (Harper, 1971), it is important to continue to identify these infant characteristics and ultimately to understand their effects. Preference for tactual stimulation is one of these infant characteristics. An infant's preference or aversion for contact—-or his mother's preference or dislike of it——could dramatically affect the type and amount of stimulation he receives. The relationship between the infant's preference for contact and the handler's behavior seems especially significant since contact with the caregiver is thought to have special impor- tance for social and emotional development (Bowlby, 1969; Ribble, 1944). To trace the early implications for these individual differences in preference for tactile stimulation it would be important to consider them at an early time in the child's development. Schaffer and Emerson (1964a, 1964b) and Ball (1968) have identified infants who at ten to twelve months of age were "Cuddlers" (babies who always enjoyed and actively sought all forms of physical contact) and — l... "Non-Cuddlers" (those who always responded negatively to close contact). If preference for contact is a truly stable dimen- sion, it should be possible to trace this preference in the first three months of life. The two— to three—month-old infant is far less able to initiate close contact or to be very active in terminating it than is the one-year-old child. Therefore, one might think of a preference for contact as applying to the mother—infant pair rather than to the infant alone, since it would be difficult and rather arbitrary to decide whether an infant or his mOther or both had initiated or preferred the contact. The present study, therefore, attempted to define preference for close contact in the second to third month of the infant's life, and then to relate preference for contact to the infant's response to social and nonsocial forms of pacification. The two social conditions, Stranger and Mother, have already been mentioned. The questions involv- ing the two nonsocial conditions——Swaddled and Unswaddled—- will now be discussed. Nonsocial Pacification A comparison between an infant's reaction to close social contact and his response to swaddling (a nonsocial form of motor restraint) would be an appropriate one in view of Schaffer and Emerson's contention that it is the motor restraint rather than the social element of the cuddling process that is aversive to the Non—Cuddler. A 5 swaddling procedure would simulate cuddling in terms of the motor restraint imposed, but would not have the same social Component. Therefore, an interesting question would be: Do babies who do not participate positively or frequently in close contact also show minimal pacification effects due to swaddling? Handler Behavior and Characteristics of the Infant Another question of interest is whether the care- giving behaviors of the handler (mother or stranger) differ according to the contact preference of the mother—infant pair. On the assumption that there is some relationship between the mother-infant preference for contact (perceived either by the mother or by the experimenter or both) and the mother's subsequent handling of the infant, one expecta- tion was that various caregiving behaviors of the mothers from a group who preferred contact would differ from those of the mothers who do not like close contact (or whose infants do not). Obviously, one would expect that a second group--a Low Contact group——would across observations con- tinue to administer less close contact, but Low Contact mothers may also make different use of other caregiving behaviors as they search for what Schaffer and Emerson see as necessary "alternative ways of relating". In addition, a stranger's handling of a High Contact infant (the infant from a mother-infant pair who seems to like close contact) might differ from her handling of a Low Contact infant. This would demonstrate that the infant's preference for or reaction to close contact had an effect in itself, was perceived by the stranger, and influenced her handling of the child. Although the effects of sex of the infant on handler behavior were not the primary focus for the present study, the analysis for those effects was justified. Ball (1968) provided evidence that sex interacts with the Cuddler- Non-Cuddler dimension to affect maternal caretaking. According to Ball, mothers talked to, patted, and held their female Cuddler infants most, and their female Non- Cuddlers least; they interacted with their male Cuddlers and Non-Cuddlers with equally low frequencies along these dimensions. The present study did, therefore, consider the effects of sex as a second subject characteristic that might in part determine an infant's response to pacifi— cation treatments. Before summarizing the experimental questions of this study, it is important to indicate a major difference between the present study and other research on preference for tactile stimulation. Whereas previous studies have assessed preference for contact on the basis of maternal reports, a contribution of the present study is that it used an objective time measure of the observed close contact between mother and infant, and compared the results of contact grouping based on these observations with those results based on maternal report. CorreSponding with the study's attempt to objectify the preference for contact 7 dimension, the terms "High Contact mother-infant pair" and "Low Contact pair" replace the "Cuddler" and "Non-Cuddler" terms, respectively. The cuddling notion sometimes connotes the value that it is good to have a cuddly baby and that the mother-infant relationship is somehow better because of it. This assumption has yet to be verified. Frequency of close contact, on the other hand, is the basis of the replacement terms and gets one back to an observable behavior rather than an inferred process. Purposes of the Present Study The present study was guided by several questions regarding the infants' behavior under all four pacification conditions, as well as other questions about the handlers' behaviors during the two social conditions. The main ques— tion is, of course, whether the High and Low Contact infants differed in soothability across all pacification conditions. Within that question are more specific questions concerning whether the two contact preference groups differed in response to (a) being swaddled, (b) being held by the mother, (c) being held by a female stranger, and (d) being held by the stranger as compared to the mother. The same questions applied to the possible differential responsive— ness by male and female infants. Finally, questions involv- ing the handlers' behaviors concerned whether sex and/or contact preference of the infant were related to handling by (a) the mother, (b) the stranger, and (c) the mother as compared with the stranger. 8 Method Subjects The mother-infant pairs were selected so that (l) the infant had a birth weight greater than 2500 grams, (2) the infant had been breast fed for at least the first four weeks of life, (3) the infant was living in an intact family with its own biological primiparous mother, (4) the mother-infant pair obtained a contact score of either less than three minutes or more than six minutes during the initial observation session, and (5) the mother's assessment of the infant's preference for con- tact as determined by her interview was not very discrep— ant with the experimental assignment of her infant to a contact group. Sixteen mother—infant pairs equally divided between males and females became the subjects of the study. At the time of experimentation the infants ranged from 9 to 12 weeks of age, with a mean age of 10.8 weeks. Twelve mother—infant pairs were discarded after the initial session because they received intermediate contact scores. Subjects were obtained through expectant parent courses and county birth records and were reimbursed ten dollars for participation in the entire study. The families in the study were all Caucasian. The high educational levels of both the fathers and mothers (14.8 years) made this sample rather select. Procedure Contact of subjects. Mothers of potential subjects were contacted by telephone and an explanation of the study was given (see Appendix A). If a mother indicated willing- ness to be included, she was given an appointment time after being questioned about the infant's daily schedule, in an attempt to maximize the likelihood that the baby would not be hungry or sleepy when a session began. The parents were told that they would receive a summary of group results for the research (Appendix A). Initial session. The observation room contained a comfortable chair, a fan (for the purpose of cooling as well as masking extraneous noise); a changing table out- fitted with disposable crib pads, diaper change materials, disinfectant, and swaddling flannel; and for later sessions a transparent plastic crib with foam mattress. A hanging microphone was suspended three feet above the handler's chair. Closed circuit television equipment which the mother and infant did not see was located in an adjoining room, but two cameras mounted far above eye level were visible to the handler (either mother or stranger) and infant. A video mixer allowed split screen monitoring of both infant and handler actions from any angle. At the initial session, a mother—child pair was brought into the room and seated midway between the two cameras. Care was taken to try to make the mother feel at ease during the session. The mother was told that she was 10 to try to feel as comfortable as she could since the study was concerned with the infant's most natural behavior. She was also told that although it might be difficult for her she was to refrain from speaking or making noises to her baby. The mother was aware that an observer was watching by way of a television screen in the adjoining room. An observer who was only involved in the initial session recorded the amount of time the mother-infant pair spent in close physical contact during a 15—minute session. The first five minutes were used as an adaptation period so that data for analysis of the initial session came from the last ten minutes. Close contact was scored when the lateral or ventral surface of the infant’s body was pressed against the thoracic region of the mother's body while at least one of the mother's arms encircled the infant's upper body. A mother-infant pair was assigned to the High Contact Group if they spent at least six of the last ten minutes in close physical contact. The Low Contact Group was comprised of those pairs that Spent less than three out of the last ten minutes in close physical contact. Mother—infant pairs who spent an intermediate amount of time (3—6 minutes) in close contact were not asked to return for the last four sessions. After the fifteen-minute observation, the observer administered the "Mother Questionnaire on Contact Preference" (Appendix B) as an Open—ended interview, to obtain a measure of the mother's perception of her child's preference for close contact. 11 The questionnaire was a slight modification of Ball's (1969) schedule for measuring maternal perception of her infant's preference for tactile stimulation. It included five of Ball's eight items and, following Ball's procedure, ranked the responses to each of the forced—choice items from one to five, with five being the highest preference for Close contact. Responses to three additional open—ended items indicated in Appendix B were similarly ranked and added to the sum for the other five items. Therefore, the possible range of "Close Contact scores" was eight to forty. [Scores on the Maternal Questionnaire for the High Contact infants and for the Low Contact infants are given in Appendix B.] Close Contact scores from the Maternal Questionnaire were primarily used for final assignment of infants to contact groups. Infants in the High Contact group received a score of 25 or more on the Maternal Questionnaire (range 25—35) and Low Contact infants received scores less than 25 (rangepl7—25). Pacification sessions. The basic design for the remaining four days of the study was a 2 x 2 x 4 x 5 factorial consisting of Contact Preference of the mother— infant pair, Sex of the infant, Pacification Condition, and Time (3-minute intervals within a 15-minute session), Table 1 shows that all subjects (n=4/cell) received the four pacification conditions, so that each subject served as his own control. The pacification conditions were: 12 Table 1 Experimental Design Day 2* Day 3 Day 4 Day 5 l Swaddled Unswaddled Stranger Mother Boys 2 Us St M SW . 3 St M Sw Us H1 sh 4 M Sw Us St Contact 5 Sw Us St M 6 Us St M Sw Girls 7 St M Sw Us 8 M Sw Us St 1 Sw Us St M Boys 2 Us St M Sw 3 St M Sw Us Low 4 M Sw Us St Contact 1 SW Us St M 2 Us St M Sw Girls 3 St M Sw Us 4 M Sw Us St *On Day 1, mother-infant pairs are assigned to the High or Low Contact groups on the basis of total time spent in close contact. Dependent Variables For Swaddled. Unswaddled, Stranger &4Mother Conditions. State of the infant Crying in the infant Smiling in the infant Vocalizations by the infant Additional Variables for Stranger & Mpther Only. Infant looking at mother (or adult) but unreciprocated Infant and mother looking mutually Mother looking at infant (unreciprocated) Close contact (stationary) Close contact moving Close contact at adult's shoulder Active contact Adjusting infant's position Touching Moving infant's limbs by adult Directing infant's attention to external objects Facial change in adult 13 Swaddled, Unswaddled, Stranger, and Mother. The order of presentation for the conditions is given in Table l. Swaddled condition. The swaddling procedure involved wrapping the infant tightly from feet to neck in a single long, 4—inch—wide strip of flannel that weighed 3 ounces (Brackbill & Fitzgerald, 1969). Previous to swaddling, all infant clothing, including the diaper, was removed. The experimenter began by wrapping one leg up to the knee, then crossed over to wrap the two legs together. The wrapping continued up the trunk of the body, the infant's hands and arms being tucked closely to his sides before the flannel was wound around the chest and waist. Subsequently, the experimenter laid the infant in the research crib near the middle of the room and then sat down far outside the infant's line of vision. The experimenter remained seated and silent unless the infant engaged in intense, uninterrupted crying for more than eight minutes. In this case, the session was terminated and the infant comforted. Unswaddled condition. The infant was clothed in 3 ounces of clothing that did not restrict his movement in any Way but which served as a control for the increased body temperature that occurred as a result of swaddling (Brackbill & Fitzgerald, 1969). As in the Swaddled condi- tion, the infant remained in the crib for observation far away from the silent experimenter. Stranger condition. This condition involved the infant's being held by a registered pediatric nurse whom the 14 infant had never seen before. The nurse was employed in an infant day care center, was a mother of three children, and was quite experienced with infants. Furthermore, she was naive as to the baby's contact group and to his responses under other conditions in the study and had no knowledge about the purposes of the study. Dressed in a white uniform and seated in a chair midway between the two opposing cameras, the nurse was instructed to try to feel as comfortable as she could and to do anything she wished for the fifteen minutes except to vocalize to the infant or to stand up. In theory, the special restrictions of white clothing and no vocalizations attempted to minimize the nonsocial stimulation and make this condition more similar to the Swaddled and Unswaddled conditions to which it was compared. Mother condition. This was the only one of the four pacification conditions for which the mother remained in the room with the infant. The mother was dressed in a white laboratory coat, and like the stranger asked to remain silent during the session. Like the stranger, the mother was allowed to interact with the baby as she wanted and without any structure imposed on her except the request that she remain seated and silent. Pilot work had shown that the initial session helped to accustom the mother to the unusual restriction of making no sounds to her infant. Infant measures. Twenty—second sampling of infant and handler measures was performed for four infant behaviors during each of the four pacification conditions. State of 15 the infant was rated on a scale developed by Brackbill and Fitzgerald (1969). Appendix C describes the 6-point scale. Brackbill and Fitzgerald report a median interjudge agree- ment coefficient of .98. Infant crying, smiling, and vocalization were additional dependent measures. [The definitions for these measures are provided in Appendix DJ Each twenty-second interval denoted a fifteen- second observation period followed by five seconds of recording on a checklist of all dependent measures. This data was recorded from direct observation. The observation recorded whether a given behavior occurred during the inter— val and not the frequency of the behavior within the inter- val. The observer was naive as to the infant's contact group and as to the specific purposes of the study. Each session was rated twice by each of two independent observers. The videotapes of the sessions were used for the second viewings by each observer and to establish the inter- observer agreement. The interobserver reliability coeffi- cients for the infant measures ranged from .93 to .98 (see Appendix D) Handler measures. The recording of twelve handler variables applied to the Stranger and Mother conditions only. The handler variables included touching, adjusting the infant's position, moving the infant's limb, directing the infant's attention to external objects, close contact (recording close stationary contact, close contact at shoulder, and close contact with movement separately within 16 this category), active contact, and facial change. Three additional measures involved looking behavior by handler and infant. Infant-Mother looking (TM-looking) was scored when both handler and infant were looking in each other's face. Unreciprocated Mother looking (M—looking) involved just the handler looking at the infant. Correspondingly, Infant looking (I—looking) was recorded when the infant looked at the handler without the latter returning the gaze. [The behavioral descriptions of all these scoring categories are given in Appendix C, together with the interjudge reliability coefficients for each.] Results Separate analyses were performed for each of the sixteen dependent variables. The analyses of state, crying, smiling, and vocalization will be presented first since these four infant variables were scored for all treatment conditions (Swaddled, Unswaddled, Stranger, and Mother). The analyses for the twelve handler variables that apply only to the Mother and Stranger are presented in a second subsection. A final section presents relationships between infant variables and handler variables. This section con- siders the infant behavior as a condition which created an opportunity for various handler behaviors to follow; e.g., given that the infant is crying, what is the frequency of close contact between him and the handler? All results for a given dependent variable will be presented together. The analysis of variance is summarized 17 to indicate overall effects, followed by individual com— parisons which are of major concern in the present study. The reader should bear in mind that the analyses are based on whether a given behavior appeared during the 20-second interval. The data do not reflect the number of times within that interval that the behavior occurred. Infant Measures Statg. The analysis of variance of state, summarized in Table E1 (in Appendix E), yielded a significant Condition effect. Interactions for Contact X Time, Condition X Time, and Contact X Condition X Time were also significant. The effect of Contact was not significant (p=.058). Therefore, there is no evidence for a state difference between the High and Low Contact infants when all conditions are taken together. The difference between the groups is, however, in the predicted direction since the High Contact group has the lower mean state score. A Newman-Keuls comparison of High Contact infants with Low Contact infants within the Swaddled condition was significant [q(2,36):2.86, p <.05]. When swaddled, High Contact infants had lower state scores than Low Contact infants. Furthermore, since no difference between the groups was found for the Unswaddled condition, the data indicate that the lower state for the High Contact infants was attributable to the swaddling and not to the other stimulus characteristics common to the two conditions. 18 What appears to be clear and concise support for the hypothesis that High Contact babies react more calmly to motor restraint must, however, be qualified. A complete description of the contact effect must include some refer- ence to the effects of time. Figure 1 shows the means over time for the two contact groups. As indicated in the figure, the differences between High and Low Contact infants during swaddling can be traced to the fourth and fifth time periods (minutes 10-15). The groups did not differ in the time previous to these last six minutes. Figure 2 shows the mean differences in state from the Unswaddled (U) to the Swaddled (S) condition for High Contact boys, High Contact girls, Low Contact boys and Low Contact girls. All but the Low Contact girls showed significantly lower states over time when swaddled than when not swaddled. The Low Contact girls were not more pacified by the Swaddled condition than the Unswaddled condition as was the case for the other three contact groups. Table 2 provides another way of considering the effects of swaddling on state. It compares the High and Low Contact infants according to the time until the infant first fell asleep while swaddled. Time until sleep was defined as the first full minute the infant spent in quiet sleep (state 1). Infants for whom there is no number given did not enter state 1 during the fifteen—minute period. Six of the eight High Contact babies, compared with two of the eight Low Contact babies, were in state 1 during the Moon State 19 6 -F A low contact 0 hioh contact 0 5 -l'- \‘ ‘\ A ‘ -— \A 0 3 ~- 0 2 g; . \1‘ 1. af 1 l l l n_ l I , I 1 TV I 2 3 4 5 Tim. (3-minute intervals) Figure I State During Swaddled Condition as a Function of "mo 20 b / 0 Moon Dufloronco III Sioio (S-U) O l I / D l l l l l l l 2 3 Timo (3-minute iniorvols) Figure 2 Moon Difioronco in Stoto from Unswaddled to Swaddled Condition A low contact bays A low conioci girls 0 high conioci boys 0 high concoct girls <\ saw-O >0 21 Swaddled condition. Thus, both mean state scores and data on time until sleep support the hypothesis that High Contact infants are more soothed by swaddling than Low Contact infants. Another interpretation is that High Contact infants are soothed more quickly. It is reasonable to consider that the Low Contact infants might respond well to swaddling if given more time. The two Low Contact babies who entered state 1 did so just a few minutes before the swaddling treatment ended. Table 2 Time until Sleep under Swaddling for High and Low Contact Infants (total time includes first full minute of sleep) High Contact Low Contact Subjects 1 12 __ 2 __ __ 3 13 ll 4 9 l3 5 __ __ 6 9 -— 7 8 —— 8 ll —- Newman—Keuls comparisons showed that state did not differentiate the contact preference groups in the Mother condition [q(2,36)=0.36, p2NS] nor in the Stranger condition [q(2,36)=l.69, p=NS]. To summarize, the results on state demonstrate that High and Low Contact infants differed from each other in their response to swaddling, but not in rcsponue to being held by a stranger or by the mother. 22 ‘ Crying. The analysis of variance for crying reflects very nearly the same pattern as that for state. As shown in Table E2, the Condition effect was again significant. The Contact X Time, Condition X Time, and Contact X Condition X Time interactions support the earlier discussion of the importance of time in differentiating the High and Low Contact infants. A Newman-Keuls comparison of the two contact groups showed that the groups did not differ in the amount of crying during the Swaddled condition [q(2,36)=2.51, p=NS]. A comparison within the Contact X Time interaction, however, demonstrated that the Low Contact babies cried significantly more as time progressed. By periods H and 5 the differences between the groups were significant (Figure 3). In analyzing for swaddling effects, it Was deemed necessary to determine whether the groups differed in their response to the Unswaddled condition, since this condition provided the same rather homogeneous and nonsocial kind of stimulation as the Swaddled condition but did not impose motor restraint. Interestingly, the contact preference groups did not differ in the amount of crying during the free condition. Therefore, the crying differences under swaddling seem to be well explained in terms of the effects -of swaddling itself. Two final comparisons dealt with the contact group differences in reacting to the mother and to the stranger. High and Low Contact babies did not differ in their crying Intensity of Crying A low contact 0 high contact 0 / A\A>.05 <.lO]. Boys were not treated differently because of their preference for contact. Comparisons of the Stranger condition did not yield significant differences based on contact preference [q(2,i2)=o.54]. The stranger did not differ in the shoulder contact given to boys and girls [q(2,l2)=0.87]. In contrasting the contact behavior under the Mother condition with that for the Stranger condition, the data revealed no difference in the close shoulder contact given High Contact infants by mother as compared with stranger [q(2,l2)=2.33, p=NS]. Similarly, the mother and stranger did not differ in their handling of Low Contact infants [q(2,12)=0.29, p=NS]. Compared with each other, mother and stranger did not respond differently to boys and girls. In View of the Contact X Time interaction, it is appropriate to finally note the different time patterns that differentiated the shoulder contact of High versus Low Contact infants. The shoulder contact for High Contact infants increased over the time periods of the sessions. A complimentary but less consistent pattern for the Low Contact infants involved decreasing contact over time, the most frequent contact being in the initial three minutes. Similarly, the pattern of close contact for boys decreased over time, whereas that for girls increased. 38 _gl9§e contact mgying. Table F6 summarizes the analysis for close contact with movement. Only Time yielded a significant main effect. This effect is attributable to the fact that, with the exception of the first three minutes, the amount of close moving contact increased steadily with time. Moving close contact with the mother did not differ as a function of contact preference [q(2,12)=l.H7, p=NS]. In addition, the Mother condition did not reveal differences in contact for boys and girls [q(2,l2)=0.65, p=NS]. Comparisons within the Stranger condition likewise did not yield differences due to contact preference or due to sex [qcontactzo'53a QSele-35J- Finally, the stranger and mother did not differ from each other in their reSponses to the infants along the dimensions of the sex or contact preference of the infant. At this point it is appropriate to summarize the analyses for the three kinds of close contact. Although results were cited that tended to confirm the expectation that High Contact infants would receive more close contact, the data were in no way conclusive, since none of the 1 effects due to contact preference reached significance. Active contact. The analysis performed on active contact yielded a significant Contact effect (Table F7) attributable to the Stranger condition. The stranger provided significantly more active contact for Low Contact infants than for the High Contact 39 group [q(2,12)=3.76, p.<.05]. The sex of the infant did not, h6wever, affect the stranger's behavior [q=O.7H]. On the other hand, mothers did not perform more active contact with the Low Contact infants [q(2,l2)=l.30, p=NS]. As a parallel to the Stranger condition, the mothers' active contact did not vary as a function of the infants' sex [q(2,l2)=0.78]. Both Mother and Stranger conditions reflected a strong tendency to administer less active contact to High Contact girls than to Low Contact girls. This interaction effect was, however, significant for the Stranger condition only [q=3.#2, p <.05]. Touching. As Table F8 indicates, the Condition X Time interaction was the only significant effect. Under- lying this finding were the differences in touching by the stranger and the mother during the first time period. The mother did significantly more touching during this initial period than the stranger [q(2,48)=4.05, p¢-.Ol]. Although the comparison was not significant, touch— ing by the mother tended to occur more often with boys than with girls [q(2,l2)=2.97, p >.OS <.lO]. Goldberg and Lewis (1969) reported for sixnmonth—old infants, the mothers of girls touched their infants more than mothers of boys. The touching by the stranger did not differ signifi— cantly on the basis of either sex [q=0.00] or contact prefer— ence [q:O.lH]. Similar comparisons did not yield differ- ences between the Mother and Stranger conditions. 1,0 Moving infant's limb. The analysis of variance (Table F9) yielded significant Contact X Sex and Condition X Time interactions. The Contact X Sex interaction reflected the fact that High Contact girls were given more limb move— ment than the High Contact boys. This difference was significant for the Stranger condition [q(2,12)=3.09, p.:.05] but not for the Mother condition [q(2,l2)=l.42, p=NS]. Furthermore, the High Contact boys, the Low Contact boys, and the Low Contact girls received the same amount of limb movement. Adjust position. The only significant effect was a Contact X Time interaction (see Table FlO). During the first three minutes of contact, the position of Low Contact infants was adjusted more frequently than that of High Contact infants [q(2,48):3.52, p.:.05]. Comparisons within the Mother condition, within the Stranger condition, and between the Mother and Stranger conditions failed to yield any differences due to sex of the infant or contact prefer- ence. Direct to object. Table Fll summarizes the analysis of variance for the handler's directing the infant's attention to objects. There were no significant effects in the analysis of variance or for the planned comparisons for the Stranger and Mother conditions. Facial change. In contrast to the absence of significant effects for the preceding variable, the analysis of variance for facial change yielded several main effects and interactions. The main effects for Condition and Time Lrl are indicated in Table F12, as well as the interactions for Contact X Time, Sex X Time, Condition X Time, and Contact X Condition X Time. When compared with the mother, the stranger changed her facial expression much more frequently for both High and Low Contact infants and for both boys and girls. The greater amount of facial change by the stranger was true for all but the first three minutes of the sessions. Another difference between stranger and mother was that the stranger tended to show more facial change with girls than with boys [q(2,l2)=2.78, p> .05< .10], whereas the mother did not respond differentially to the two sexes [q=0.7#]. Neither mother or stranger differed in their facial change with Low versus High Contact infants. Correlations among handler variables. The results for each individual handler variable having been presented, this section will consider the relationships among the handler measures. Table G2 shows the intercorrelations (Pearson product-moment method) among the measures of handler behavior. IM—looking was significantly related to facial change (.84, p< .001) and to unreciprocated handler looking (—.74, <.Ol). The correlation between facial change and unreciprocated handler looking (-.60, p <.OS) further substantiates the conclusion that the adult's change of facial expression nearly always happened when the handler and infant were looking at each other. Furthermore, it is probable that facial change led to more looking on the part 1+2 of the infant--especially in the case of the stranger. , A final correlation not given in the table is that between close contact with the mother in the initial session (Day 1) and the close contact in the experimental Mother condition. The Pearson correlation (+.62, p <.Ol) was based on the sum of stationary, moving, and shoulder contact and reflects the stability of the close contact between infant and mother and the reliability of the measure by which infant-mother pairs were assigned to a contact preference at the beginning of the study. Relations betwegn Infant and Handler Variables Close contact and crying in the infant. Table 3 summarizes the amount of close contact of any kind that was given by stranger and by mother to the two contact groups. Two separate conditions-~the crying infant and the noncrying infant-—were considered. Crying contact was scored when the infant was crying during the 20—second interval during which the contact was initiated; noncrying contact was scored when the infant was not crying within twenty seconds before the contact. The data, therefore, express the number of 20—second observation periods during which close contact (stationary, shoulder, or moving) occurred when the baby was crying or not crying. The data were summed across all subjects within a contact group and separate contact scores were calculated for each handler condition. The table indicates the total number of intervals spent in crying, the number of crying intervals during which close contact was L+3 given, and the percent of crying intervals for which close contact occurred. As indicated in Table 3, the amount of close contact during periods of infant crying did not differ for High and Low Contact infants. Furthermore, the stranger and mother did not differ in the amount of close contact given to the infant during crying. On the other hand, a Wilcoxon two- tailed test did reveal differences between the stranger and mother in their noncrying handling. Specifically, data on the number of intervals of close contact indicate that the mother provided more close contact to High Contact infants during the noncrying intervals than the stranger [T=3, p <.O5]. The same tendency, though not significant [T=5, p >.O5 <.lO], was indicated for the Low Contact group. As a final comparison of the Mother condition, a Mann-Whitney U—test was performed for the close contact during crying versus that during noncrying-—ignoring contact preference. The test showed that mothers spent more inter— vals in close contact when the infant was not fussing than when he was [U=26, p< .05]. This is especially interesting in light of the contact behavior by the stranger. The stranger was much more likely to give close contact during crying than noncrying periods (55% and 70% for crying com- pared with 8% and 9% for noncrying). Although the number of intervals the mother spent in close contact was greater during noncrying, percent data indicate that the proportion of time she spent in close QOflpflccoo nonpoz n 02 SOHpHUQOo Hewqmnpm N am aim mm mm mm mam oom esm eon m: m: mm oe 30a am: am ema mm mam mom Ree emm mm om m: mm seem 02 am 02 am 02 am 02 am 02 am 02 am omoao omoao emoao emoao EH unomm CH pzogm EH unmam SH pammm mam>nmpqfl mam>ampqfl mam>nmpqfl mam>nopcfl mam>ampdfl mam>ampsfi mGHhHoQoq R mqfimnomo: % wqflhnquq % manage R mnflmno % wnfihao % wzHNmOZOZ UZHNmo mqfihnoqoz can mqfihno mcHHSU pompcoo emoao m manna 45 contact was slightly greater for crying intervals. Percent data compensate for the greater number of noncrying inter— vals. Active contact and crying in the infant. Table 4 summarizes the relationship between infant crying and active contact provided by the handler. Taking just those intervals during which an infant was crying, the results of a Mann-Whitney U-test demonstrated that the mother with a Low Contact infant was more likely to give active contact than the mother with a High Contact infant [Utll.5, p <.O5]. This suggests that the mother is more apt to use active contact to sooth the Low Contact infant than the High Contact infant. Although the stranger did not respond differently to the two contact groups during crying, she did vary in the handling of the two groups during the noncrying periods. A Wilcoxon test on the number of intervals of noncrying contact indicated that the stranger gave more active contact to the Low Contact Group than to the High Contact Group [T=2, p <.O5]. Therefore, the results for both mother and stranger tends to suggest that the High Contact infants have different responsivities to the various kinds of contact and that the responsiveness is often perceived and acted on by the infant's handlers. Moving close contact and infant crying. Table G3 lists the correlations between handler and infant measures. The table indicates a significant correlation (+.56, p< .05) nonpfieqoo aenpoz n 04 coapfiedoo Hmwumnpm u an eo.:m awn em sma new oom emm ema w: w mm oe zen eo.mm em.:m ms ms mam mom Rea am: m mm m: mm meHm 02 am 02 am 02 em 02 am 02 am 0: Hm e>Hpom e>flpom m>fipom m>apom cH enema GH quAm ma pummm QH pcmgm mam>aopnfl mam>aepcfl mam>pepnfl mam>poecfl mae>nepnfl mam>aepqfl mnflhnoqofi R mqflmnoqoq % wqflmnocoq % mqflmao R mqflzao % wmflmso % wzHMmonz wszmo mqflhnomoz new mqfihho mcHHSU nomencv ebfipo< : edema L+7 between moving close contact and crying. When considered Ialong with the relationship between active contact and crying described in the previous section, this finding suggests that evidence is accumulating for the important relation between the use of moving contact (either close or at a distance) following periods of increased state of the infant. figlative effectivgpess of contact types. Patterns of crying were analyzed as to the number of times that crying was followed not more than one interval later by one of the forms of close or active contact. Contact was regarded as successful if crying ceased within an interval during which contact was in effect and did not resume for at least two intervals. Mean latency of success refers to the mean number of successive or single—skipped intervals until the contact coincided with a change in state that lasted more than one interval. Only data on mother handling (and not that for stranger) was used for this analysis. Active contact was successful in stopping crying in thirteen out of eighteen cases. Active contact lasted anywhere from 1 to 8 intervals and demonstrated a mean success latency of 1.23 intervals. (Recall that 1 interval was 20 seconds in length.) In short, in many cases the effects on active contact were almost immediate. Moving contact was successful in fifteen out of twenty-five cases and lasted from 1 to 10 intervals. The mean success latency was 2.5 intervals. 1+8 Finally, stationary close contact stopped crying in only five out of twelve cases. It was applied from 1 to 15 intervals. The mean success latency in the five cases in which close contact was effective was 3.2 intervals. The moving forms of contact are, thus, more effective than the nonmoving close contact. This coincides with the finding by Korner and Thoman (1972) that vestibular—pro- prioceptive stimulation is more important in soothing than contact itself without such motion. Discussion Preference for contact appears to be an important dimension of infant behavior as early as two to three months of age and is predictive of an infant's response to social and nonsocial forms of pacification. The present study has demonstrated that pacification methods have differential effects on babies depending on (1) the contact preference of the mother-infant pair, (2) the sex of the infant, and (3) the behavior of the handler. The results for each of these factors will be discussed in the sections that follow. Differgnces between High and Low Contact Infants A number of behaviors differentiated the infants in the two contact preference groups. One of the most impres— sive findings was that state in the High Contact infants was more quickly reduced during nonsocial motor restraint than was the case for state in Low Contact infants. Although both groups protested the swaddling with the same 49 intensity during the first half of the session, the groups responded very differently from each other during the last half. Whereas the Low Contact Group continued to cry hard as time progressed, most of the infants in the High Contact Group moved into the state of quiet sleep. This finding indicated that the Low Contact infant (analogous to the Non-Cuddler in other studies) protested motor restraint longer than the High Contact infant (analogous to the Cuddler). This result could be viewed as support for Schaffer and Emerson's contention that the Non—Cuddler's avoidance of close contact is simply due to his dislike of the restriction of movement that contact involves. The High and Low Contact infants also differed in their response to the stranger. When compared to the High Contact Group, Low Contact infants did much more smiling, vocalizing, and mutual looking in the presence of the stranger. At this time it is helpful to generate a number of interpretations of these results. These interpretations will provide a background against which the remaining results of the study can be evaluated and organized. The explana— tions include the distal—communication interpretation and the need—for—stimulation interpretation. Distal—communication interpretation. Underlying this explanation is the notion of developmental changes in the infant—caregiver interactions (Lusk & Lewis, 1972; Lewis & Ban, 1971; Moss, 1965). The work by Lewis indicates that 50 with the infant’s increasing age, the infant and his care- giver change from the prominence of proximal behaviors to increased distal behaviors. Infants shift from the passive- reflexive behaviors of crying and looking to the more active responses of vocalizing, smiling and touching. Correspondingly, the caregivers' behaviors, like touching, decrease and are replaced by increased vocalizing and smiling. In the present study the greater smiling and vocal- izing to the stranger by the Low Contact Group might suggest that these infants have progressed further in terms of the development of distal communication. Interestingly, several mothers of the Low Contact Group reported that their infants had very much liked close contact in the first month even though they later showed dislike for it. If this fact were observed directly, it would support the distal communi— cation interpretation. Another possibility, of course, is that at the earlier age an infant could not as effectively indicate his protest. The distal—communication interpretation suggests that distal behaviors developed out of the earlier use of proximal behaviors. One might conclude that the prominence of distal behaviors in the interaction of the Low Contact infants is due to their precocity in social development, having advanced to that form of behavior more quickly than the High Contact infants. An alternative explanation is that from the beginning, Low Contact mother—infant pairs 51 used looking and vocalization as alternatives to close con- tact. Perhaps close contact was never satisfactory for either the mother or baby or both. Since the present study did not involve direct observation of the infant's first two months of life, it cannot resolve this issue. Nevertheless, the study did consider the mother—infant interaction during the third month, at which time Low Contact infants did not show the greater looking or vocalization to the mother that might be expected. The verification of the proximal—distal interpretation would necessitate a longitudinal study during the infant's first three months that would consider the development of proximal and distal attachment behaviors in High and Low Contact infants. Need—for—stimulation interpretation. Schaffer and Emerson have suggested that Cuddler infants require greater amounts of tactile stimulation than do Non-Cuddlers but do not provide a firm explanation of the Non—Cuddler's behavior. Schaffer and Emerson have suggested a loose concept of the greater restlessness or higher activity levels of the Non- Cuddler. The results of the present study, on the other hand, suggest an interesting and somewhat more explicit interpretation of the behavior of the Non—Cuddler or Low Contact infant. The Low Contact infant may need or be able to toler— ate greater magnitudes of stimulation than the High Contact infant. FUrthermore, there may be threshold differences 52 . between the two groups such that it takes a larger magnitude stimulus to get the Low Contact baby to the quiet awake state than to get the High Contact baby to that state. The close contact with a handler, however, often decreases the infant's opportunities for a variety of additional stimulation and may irritate the Low Contact infant because it prevents him from attaining a sufficient amount of stimulation. From these theoretical considerations one would expect the Low Contact infant rather than the High Contact infant to behave more frequently in ways that would increase stimulation. For example, in the present study, the continued crying under swaddling could be seen as the infant's attempt to increase the amount of overall stimulation he would experience in an already minimally stimulating setting. Clearly, the Low Contact infant persisted longer in his crying. Similarly, the Low Contact infant vocalized more during the Unswaddled condition--perhaps to provide more overall stimulation for himself. The greater vocalization, smiling, and mutual looking in response to the stranger reflect the need for the greater overall stimulation to pacify Low Contact infants. In the case of mutual looking, both groups attended to the stranger, yet the Low Contact Group extended that interest. After the same amount of mutual looking by the two groups during the first two periods, looking in the third period decreased for the High Contact Group while it stayed the same for the Low. 53 Thus, several infant behaviors that are, to a large extent, under the infant's control reflect differences that suggest greater activity by the Low Contact infant. These behaviors—-looking, vocalizing and smiling-—may be ways by which the infant actively seeks more intense stimulation. One explanation of pacification (Brackbill, 1971) is that it is a passive process that involves a primitive subcortical structure. Continuous exogeneous stimulation of a low to moderate intensity brings about the quieting of the infant without the infant's partiCipation. Data in the present study indicate that, although this may be part of the case, individual differences (especially in the infant who is beyond the neonatal period) play an important part in pacification. The infant may remain passive as long as the amount of exogeneous stimulation he is receiving is sufficiently intense to distract him from the self—produced stimulation. An infant becomes more active, however, when the amount of exogeneous stimulation provided is not ade— quate to counterbalance the endogeneous stimulation. This appears to be especially true for the Low Contact infant. The evidence for the Low Contact Group's greater need for overall stimulation is even more compelling in the case of handler measures. Several of these measures indicated that the different responsivities of the two infant groups are often perceived by the adult—-even a stranger-—and that these responsivities significantly influence the adult’s handling. Specifically, Low Contact 54 infants were more frequently handled with active contact (like bouncing, jostling, and fast rocking). The stranger gave much more active contact to the Low Contact Group when they were not crying than to the High Contact Group. It would seem that the stranger had very quickly learned only from each infant's cues that the Low Contact infant would respond well to increased activity. During periods of the infant's fussing, the Low Contact infant also received more active contact from the mother than the High Contact infant. This finding indicated that the mothers may have acted on the awareness that increased activity would soothe or quiet the Low Contact infant more than it would the High Contact infant. It therefore, seems paradoxical that the mother was equally likely to give close contact as active contact to her crying Low Contact infant, especially in the light of evidence that active contact was more successful in stopping crying. The mother was equally indiscriminant in the type of handling she provided during periods of quiet, since she gave the Low Contact infant either active or close contact. The stranger, on the other hand, was more likely to give active contact to the quiet Low Contact infant. The stranger's handling in her first encounter with the infants, therefore, seems more congruent with the Low Contact infant's preference for contact than the mother‘s handling. 55 Differences between Male and Female Infants Although sex differences were not the main concern of this investigation, the analysis for possible effects due to sex of the infant was both necessary and informative. Many of the findings are opposite those cited for older infants. First, both mutual looking and unreciprocated handler looking indicated that boys did less looking at the stranger than girls did. Furthermore, girls looked at the stranger more than they looked at the mother, whereas boys did not differ in the amount of looking at the stranger versus the mother. The results of the present study, therefore, did not reveal the greater looking at the mother by girls than boys that has been reported for 6-month—olds (Goldberg & Lewis, 1969) nor the boys’ greater responsiveness to the stranger found with 8— to 11-month old infants (Beckwith, 1972). The greater stranger looking by the girls does, however, reaffirm the importance of visual stimulation in females. In addition, the data does coincide with Beck— with's report that the increased responsiveness to the stranger was more likely to be associated with girls than with boys. The results may be, in part, related to the greater facial change that the stranger manifested with girls than with boys. An entire chaining unfolds with greater facial change in stranger eliciting more looking in girls, which in turn evokes more facial change. 56 Another possible interpretation is that the girls' greater looking at the stranger is related to the earlier age of onset of "wariness" of strangers for female infants which has been reported by Robson et a1 (1969) and discussed by Beckwith (1972). The infants in the present study were, however, considerably younger than the age of onset of stranger fear (6.7 months in females and 9.1 months in males). Another intriguing finding was that boys were more frequently touched by the mother than were girls. This is contradictory to Ball's finding that mothers did less touching and patting with their male infants. It is inter— esting to speculate as to what extent the younger age of the infants in this study may account for this difference. Mothers of nine» to twelve—week—old infants may not yet be influenced by the concept of appropriateness of touching and intimacy with one's male child. It is also possible that the mothers view touching as a way of soothing the more variable and irritable male infant (Moss, 1967). An interesting interaction between sex and contact preference indicated that both stranger and mother gave less active contact to High Contact girls than Low Contact girls. This may be explained by what Ball has described as the mothers responding with greater contingency to their female infants' needs than to their male infants'. In the case of active contact, the stereotypic expectation that a female child be gentle, calm, and quiet is contradicted by the need 57 for increased activity if she is a Low Contact infant. The mother acknowledges the need for activity in her Low Con- tact girl rather than avoid activity because the infant is a girl. In this sense, Ball refers to the mother as re— sponding contingently to the individual needs of the child. Differences betwegp Stranger and Mother The most impressive differences in the two handling conditions were those that demonstrated that the mother and stranger responded differently to the noncrying infant. Their handling behaviors were not different in terms of what might be called "obligatory contact"--i.e., contact that meets the necessity for action created by the infant‘s cry— ing. The stranger and mother did differ, however, in the "nonobligatory contact" (contact performed without any sense of urgency being indicated by the infant). The stranger seemed to reserve close contact for those times when she was compelled by the baby's crying to bring the infant close. Close contact made up a very small part of her total handling of the noncrying infant. In contrast, active contact was much more frequent, especially for the Low Contact infant. The mothers, on the other hand, were more likely than the stranger to provide close contact during periods of noncrying, but were equally likely to use active as close contact. The mothers provided more "nonob- ligatory close contact" to the High group than the stranger. One speculation about the stranger's handling is that it indicated a respect for a familiarization period whereby 58 the stranger and infant could become acquainted at a dis- tance before close interaction was initiated. One would expect that as this pair became more familiar the stranger might use more proximal and perhaps less active contact with the infant. Another possibility is that active contact, more than close contact, allows one to do more novel and enter- taining things with an infant. A pilot study uncovered a problem related to this issue of the novelty of the situa- tion for the stranger. At that time, a decision was made to change strangers. The first nurse, being rather inex- perienced with infants, was having so much fun trying new things with the babies that she grossly overstimulated them, hardly letting them reSpond to one event before she moved on to another. Of course, handling babies was not novel to the stranger who was finally used in the study. The novelty aspect of her interaction with the babies was, therefore, considerably deemphasized. A final interpretation is that active contact was a part of the general configuration that the stranger pre— sented as more active, more animated, and more arousing. The stranger responded more actively than most of the mothers along many of the measures. It may be that this particular stranger prefers to use active contact with all infants with whom she interacts. [She is used to handling male children since all three of her children are boys.] In any case, it would be interesting to know whether 59 this difference in handling by the stranger and mother would prove reliable across strangers and across time. A confirmation of this difference would have implications for the care of infants by professional caregivers and would necessitate careful consideration of the relative importance of various kinds of contact for a given infant. Finally, the present study is also related to the literature on the development of differential responsiveness to stranger and mother. Other researchers (Ainsworth, 1963; Schaffer and Emerson, 1964a; Fitzgerald, 1968) have demon- strated successful discrimination by four- to six-month—old infants. In the present study, the greater looking at the stranger than at the mother by nine- to twelve-week-old infants was an important indication of the ability of rather young infants to discriminate the mother from stranger and to manifest the discrimination in a somewhat gross behav— ioral measure——looking. Summary,and Conclusions The most significant finding seems to be that the Low Contact infants responded to three of the four pacification conditions with some measure of greater activi— ty, and hence greater arousal than the High Contact infants. Evidence for the greater activity of the Low Contact infants includes the higher mean state and prolonged crying in the Swaddled condition, greater vocalization in the Unswaddled condition, and greater mutual looking, vocalization, smiling, and active contact in the Stranger condition. Many r—'_I—f. 60 of these measures indicate that the infants were striving for increased, or at least more varied, stimulation. Handling by the stranger differed from that by the mothers such that the stranger provided more facial change and more active contact, and the mother provided more nonobligatory close contact. Differences in looking behavior were found when comparing male to female infants. Although the findings are discussed in terms of both the earlier transition to distal communication forms by Low Contact infants and the Low Contact infants' greater need for overall stimulation, data from the present study provide more evidence for the latter interpretation. REFERENCES REFERENCES Ainsworth, M. D. The develOpment of infant—mother inter- action among the Ganda. In B. M. Foss (Ed.), Deter— manints of infant behavior II. London: Methuen, 1963. Ball, B. C. Some relationships among infant preference for tactile stimulation, infant develOpmental level, and maternal behaviors. (Doctoral dissertation, University of North Carolina) Ann Arbor, Mich.: University Microfilms, 1968, No. 69—10, 13%. Banks, J. H. Jr., & Wolfson, J. H. Differential cardiac response of infants to mother and stranger. Paper read at the annual meeting of the Eastern Psycho- logical Association, Philadelphia, Pa., 1967. Beckwith, L. Relationships between infants' social be— havior and their mothers' behavior. Child Develop— ment, l972,_53, 397-411. Birns, B., Blank, M., Bridger, W. H., & Escalona, S. K. Behavioral inhibition in neonates produced by auditory stimuli. Child DevelOpment, 1965, 36, 639—645. Bowlby, J. Attachment: Attachment and loss. New York: Basic Books, 1969. Brackbill, Y. The cumulative effects of continuous stimu— lation on arousal level in infants. Child Develop— ment, 1971, fig, 17—26. Brackbill, Y., Adams, G., Crowell, D. H., & Gray, L. Arousal level in neonates and preschool children under continuous auditory stimulation. Journal of Experimental Child Psychology, 1966, 3, 1784188. Brackbill, Y., & Fitzgerald, H. E. The development of sensory analyzers in infancy. In L. P. Lipsitt & H. Reese (Eds.), Advances in child development and behavior, v. 4. New York: Academic Press, 1969. 61 62 Bridger,‘W. H., & Brins, B. Neonates' behavioral and auto- nomic responses to stress during soothing. Recent Advances in Biological Psychiatry, 1963,.5, 1-6. Fitzgerald, H. Autonomic pupillary reflex activity during early infancy and its relation to social and non- social visual stimuli. Journal of E erimental Child Psychology, 1968, §,'E70-582. Giacoman, S. L. Hunger and motor restraint on arousal and visual attention in the infant. Child Development, 1971’ 31-2, 605-6140 Goldberg, S., & Lewis, N. Play behavior in the year—old child: Early sex differences. ChilgTDevelopment, 1969, in. 21—31. Harper, L. V. The young as a source of stimuli controlling caretaker behavior. Developmental Psychology, 1971, F, 73-88. Irwin, O. C. Effect of strong light on the body activity of newborns. Journal of Com arative Ps cholo , 1941. .12. 233-236. Irwin, O. C., & Weiss, L. A. Differential variations in the activity and crying of the newborn infant under different intensities of light: A comparison of observations with polygraph findings. University of Iowa Studies in Child Welfare, 193%,‘9, 139-147. Korner, A. F., & Thoman, E. B. Visual alertness in neo- nates as evoked by maternal care. Journal of Experimental Child Psychology, 1970, 19, 67-78. Korner, A. F., & Thoman, E. B. The relative efficacy of contact and vestibular—prOprioceptive stimulation in soothing neonates. Child Development, 1972, 4 , 443—453. Lewis, M., & Ban, P. Stability of attachment behavior: A transformational analysis. Paper presented at the meeting of the Society for Research in Child DevelOp— ment, Minneapolis, 1971. Lusk, D., & Lewis, M. Mother-infant interaction and infant development among the Wolof of Senegal. Human Development, 1972,_l5, 58—69. Moss, H. A. Methodological issues in studying mother- infant interaction. American Journal of Ortho— psychiatpy, 1965, 35, H82-486. 63 Moss, H. A. Sex, age, and state as determinants of mother- infant interaction. Mgrrill-Palmpr Quarterly, 1967, 13: 19-36. Pedersen, D. R., Champagne, L., & Pedersen, L. Relative soothing effects of vertical and horizontal rocking. Paper presented at the Society of Research in Child Development, Santa Monica, California, March 1969. Ribble, M. A. Infantile experiences in relation to per- sonality development. In Personality and the behavior disorders. New York: Ronald Press, 1944. Robson, K. S., Pedersen, F. A., & Moss, H. A. Develop— mental observations of diadic gazing in relation to the fear of strangers and social approach behavior. Child Development, 1969, 59, 619—627. Schaffer, H. R., & Emerson, P. E. The development of social attachments in infancy. Lpnograph for the Society for Research in Child Develo ment, 1964,,29, Serial No. 3) (a). Schaffer, H. R., & Emerson, P. E. Patterns of response to physical contact in early human development. Journal of Child Ps cholo and Ps chiatr , 1964, 5, 1—13 (b). APPENDICES APPENDIX A CONTACTS WITH PARENTS APPENDIX A CONTACTS WITH PARENTS Initial Explanation of Study by Phone "This is Mrs. Nancy Davidson, a. graduate student in the Psychology Department at Michigan State. I received your name from (the expectant parent organization or county birth records) and am wondering if you might be willing to help in a study of infant develOpment. We are looking at how babies develop in the first three months of life. We would appreciate your letting your child be in the study. I would be glad to tell you more about it if you are interested. First, let me say that all the babies that will be involved in the study will have been the first child in the family and breast—fed for at least the first month. Are these true of your child? Participating in the study would mean that you and your baby would come in to our infant observation room at Michigan State some day within the next two weeks. We would like to observe your child for just 15 minutes—~as you are holding him—~and then to have you answer a few questions about what his development has been like up to this point. Most of the babies we will want to see again for another four times; that is, for 15 minutes a day for four consecutive days. I cannot say whether we would need to see your child again until that first time. Nevertheless, before agreeing to be in the study it is important that you are fairly sure you will have some time within the next two weeks to come back for those four days if we need you, and to come at about the same time on each one of those days. Would you be able to manage this? To make up for some of the inconvenience of making the four visits to the infant center, we would like to reimburse you with $10 for your participation in the entire study. New I would like to tell you a little more about what will be involved in the four separate sessions that we may ask you to attend. In one of the sessions, we would want 64 65 to observe the baby as you are holding him, exactly as we do ~the first time you come. During two of the other sessions we will want to observe the baby while he is lying in a crib for the fifteen minutes just as he would at home. You will be waiting in a nearby room. During a fourth session, the baby will be held by a registered nurse who has a great deal of experience with infants. Would you be interested in being in the study?" Parents' Summary of the Study Dear parents, One year ago your family participated in a study of infant development carried out by members of the Psychology Department at Michigan State University. The lengthy analysis and interpretation has now been completed and we would like to pass on to you the findings of that study. The study investigated the effectiveness of various methods that are frequently used to sooth or pacify infants. You may have already noticed that a fussing infant is often put to sleep by soft music, the low hum of a vacuum, or rhythmic patting. In fact, the present study has verified this observation in that it has shown that moderately intense stimulation of a monotonous and repetitious type quiets an infant. Close physical contact is often used to sooth; nonetheless, this study has shown that the constant movement (rocking, jostling, bouncing, etc.) that usually accompanies close contact is more important in soothing than the contact itself without such movement. You may recall that on the first day of the study, nine- to twelve—week—old infants were rated according to the frequency of close physical contact that occurred between mother and infant. Infants in the "High Contact Group" spent most of the preliminary session in close contact with the mother (that is, pressed rather securely against her chest or shoulder), this corresponded with the mothers' reports of the children's positive response to contact in everyday situations. "Low Contact infants" were shown by both the contact session and the maternal report to be only minimally involved in close contact. Those infants who behaved inconsistently to close contact (that is, some— times liked it and sometimes did not) were not asked to return for the remainder of the study. The resulting two contact groups (High Contact infants and Low Contact infants) were then observed in four situations: 66 1) swaddled and laid in a crib, Nonsocial 2) unswaddled but loosely clothed Pacification and laid in a crib, 3) held by the mother, and Social 4) held by a stranger. Pacification The first two are pacification techniques that do not involve human contact and are, therefore, nonsocial. The second two are social forms of pacification. Thus, the study investigated the extent to which Low Contact infants differed from High Contact infants in their response to social and nonsocial methods of pacification. The Low Contact infants' responses differed from the High Contact infants in many respects. One of the most impressive findings was that Low Contact infants were not as easily soothed by swaddling. Nearly all of the High Contact infants fell asleep while swaddled, whereas few of the Low Contact fell asleep and expressed more dislike for the swaddling's restriction of their movements. The Low Contact infant showed other differences when compared with the High Contact infant. 1) He cried more when swaddled. 2) He vocalized more when in the free, unswaddled condition. 3) He vocalized more to the stranger. 4) He smiled more to the stranger. 5) He looked more frequently at the stranger. Thus, several infant behaviors suggest that the Low Contact infant is the more active. We have speculated that the Low Contact infant may need more stimulation or at least a larger magnitude stimulus to be soothed and content. When others around him do not provide enough stimulation to distract him, the infant actively seeks more stimulation for himself. The very young infant may do this by crying, looking, smiling, vocalizing, and touching. Another purpose of our study was to compare the handling behaviors of a stranger with those of the mother. One unexpected outcome was that the stranger seemed to reserve close contact for times when the baby cried. The mother, on the other hand, was more likely than the stranger to provide close contact during periods when the baby was not crying. We have called this a difference in "non— obligatory close contact". We think it will be important to know whether this difference would continue after the stranger and infant were better acquainted and whether it would be true for strangers other than the nurse in our study. We feel that this might have implications for the care of infants in day care and would necessitate care— ful consideration of the contact needs or preference for a given infant. 67 The present study is also relevant to the question of the time at which a child first begins to respond differently to the mother than to a stranger. Previous research has demonstrated that for four to six months of age the infant does differentiate between mother and stranger. The present study indicated that infants mani— fest discrimination of mother from stranger at least as early as nine to twelve weeks of age. Although some mothers have attested to this early discrimination, this has been the first study to substantiate the anecdotal reports. We hope that the results described above give you a sense of our excitement with the outcomes of the study. We are currently planning to extend this work to earlier ages in an attempt to trace the development of these early social and emotional behaviors. Ultimately, we might be able to begin our search with the very first interaction between mother and child and between father and child and to follow the later experiences that develop from that. Finally, we wish to express a great appreciation to your family for your generous participation as subjects for this research. Your expressed trust and interest in the research made the study all the more worthwhile. Very truly yours, Nancy Davidson APPENDIX B MOTHER QUESTIONNAIRE ON CONTACT PREFERENCE APPENDIX B MOTHER QUESTIONNAIRE ON CONTACT PREFERENCE (Adapted from Ball, 1968) Please complete the following questions as honestly as you can. Each item has been used to ask about a specific aspect of your child's development. All information will be strictly confidential and no child's name will ever appear with the data. Name of the child Sex Birthdate Weight at birth Reaction to the observation session Your age Occupation Husband's occupation Are you presently employed? How many hours/week do you work at the above job? The year in school you last completed H I! hqu 811d ll Number of caregivers in your home or outside (people who care for child at least i of time) self husband others In thinking back to the time of your pregnancy for this child, what did you think he would be like as a person? In what ways is your child different from your expectations? How did you feel during your pregnancy? Did you have any problems? How long were you in labor? How difficult was it? 68 69 What medication and anesthetics did yOu receive during labor and delivery? (If you don't know this, would you authorize your delivering physician to provide it for this study? yes no Delivering physician Did your child have any special problems at birth? What were they? Did you have any concerns about his health or development? Have you ever breast-fed your child? For how many weeks? What led you to decide on the method of feeding you use now? Describe a typical feeding period (include what happens immediately before and after the eating). Did your child have any special problems during the first three months? If so, what did you do about these problems? How many hours during the 24—hour day is your baby awake? (mothers were asked to record this for the week of the study) *When your child is alert and well, where would he be happiest? *(this item added to the Ball's scoring) +How often did your baby like to be held during the first three months? Almost all much of some of the a little of almost the time the time time the time not at all +(A Ball scoring item) +How much does your child like to be held when unhappy? almost not a little some of much of almost all at all of the the time the time the time time +(A Ball scoring item) 70 +What are your child's reactions when you hold him very close to you? likes it likes it accepts it dislikes dislikes it very much some it some very much +(A Ball scoring item) +How does your child act when someone other than you holds him close? dislikes it dislikes accepts it likes it likes it very much it some some very much +(A Ball scoring item) All babies cry. How much does your child cry? almost all much of some of a little almost not the time the time the time of the time at all What seems to bring on your child's crying? *What do you generally do about your child's crying? *(An added scoring item) Does your child show any preferences for particular objects? What things does he play with? When did you first notice your baby's smile? Since his birth, how much has your child been away from home (for shopping, visits to friends and on trips)? How does your child react to people he doesn't know or doesn't see often? How active is your child? active active much some of a little active almost all of the time the time of the time almost the time not at all 71 +What are your child's reactions when you bounce him on your knee? likes it likes it accepts it dislikes dislikes it very much somewhat it some very much +(A Ball scoring item) *What seems to work best to sooth your baby? *(An added scoring item) Is your child able to roll over? Since what age? Are there any ways in which you wish your relationship with your child was different? Consider the following statements. Indicate your agreement or disagreement with each of them. wish my child would stay awake more. wish my child would play more by himself. wish my child would be more snuggly. wish I were more patient with his crying. wish he would sleep more. wish he was more active. wish he was better at eating. wish he was less afraid of other people. wish I was more affectionate with my child. wish I was more successful at soothing him. wish he was less active. wish he was older. HHHHHl—IHHHHHH How many times has your baby had stomach upset lasting longer than five hours? Further comments about your child: Have you used a pacifier? How often? When did you find it effective for your child, if at all? 72 Scores on Maternal Questionnaire High Contact Low Contact Group Group SS 1 33 25 2 31 18 3 32 21 4 33 2o 5 35 25 6 35 2O 7 30 25 8 3O 24 APPENDIX C A SCALE FOR RATING STATE .oeqenwogmm hmmmaw e o>m£ "oHnfimH> megs nmeme was one ”Heppsam meflaeme mam .oxmse mason haneeesm comp “mooame maamm haamdeeam on me egos one egos mexnaen on mmnflwnp hmznsm wdflefle mamomm hmeefim mo wean exfla nods dopmo ma H0H>m£on Hepoa m_pqemqfi esp ewmpm mflgp mqfiadm mmochSOaQ m A.©om0Ho hHHMSmS one meflaeme one “a epwpm ca moa spewsmqoe mom mesflpeaom one one “Qofipfieee QH .opo ”mannedm “quHHSm Amoowsflam “menopfisp we Show map on ooem esp mo meaemss map ca one moflpflsonpxo 63p QH doom kHHeOHmmp once one pop moon omens onp e>Ho>qH has mpneao>oa omega .eerHHSeoo newswomm mao>fipmaen mooam Mo apnoae>oa emfiymfie one emepm wasp mo oapwflnoeenmeno e>flpo¢ m .eomoao haamdmd the memo niecemcfl one .oespmq mSoecmpdomm hapnenmmmm on no weapaepm wofinn an B.3525: «mHHNOHUOHHem eepmdahopqfl ma mHQH .QOHpmNeHeH amazemsa meeflm Hehenom mo eocmnmegmw one me>flm moon eaons m_pqewqfl one poHSo a coapgflnomem mama mensuz oompm weepm “moma .eaonomnnhm e Hennaoonm none eonoeeev 0 fingers. mamem oZHH annoy bandage one no omonp one deflnog wasp manage mnflandoeo moonpmNHHmeo> Mo adapeeam esp manpfiz .menpfimz on semen hes on hamwnc: menoeeo pqewqw on me “mamamxo Hem .mpfl>flpee genes mmoew oxmsm mo unnoae manmneefique m an dozens ma epmpm mane o>apo¢ m .hpofine> :amgequz on no pom one oomph mflnp mqflese moHAHSOOO oceapemflaeeos 6gp «mamcaeaoeo< .opmpm wmwmmmwm.m mfl wasp pmgp ma mopwpm wcflxms 03p nonpo can one opepm heap coespon oecenemmfie Memes ona .Qomo one meme m_%nmn ona .eeem ego moanefiegpxe one we mucoso>oa eaom on awe onesp Qwfiospam aboon oaons one wmfl>ao>cfl momeao>oa oxnzm n.o.H “hpfi>wuom Hones mmonw mapefia ma onege pofisa i coaugflnemon esmz Hmnadz epmpm epwpm APPENDIX D DEFINITIONS OF OBSERVATIONAL CATEGORIES APPENDIX D DEFINITIONS OF OBSERVATIONAL CATEGORIES Infant Measures State -- the momentary level of arousal characterizing the infant, using the six-point scale by Brackbill and Fitzgerald (1969) detailed in Appendix A . (.98 interjudge reliability coef) Crying —— the crying sounds the infant makes (ranging from whimpering to sustained intense crying). Score 1 for soft crying or whimpering that has not become persistent, full—blown crying Score 2 for moderate to loud short cries. Score 3 for sustained, intense crying. .9 interjudge reliability coefficient) Smiling —- a spreading of the lips on one side or both (reflex or voluntary). (.93 interjudge rel.) Vocalization -— includes any utterances, babblings by the infant; any oral sounds other than crying, burping, hiccoughing, etc. (.95 reliability) Handler Measures Close physical contact —— handler pressing the lateral or ventral portion of infant's body against the thoracic region of her body, with at least one of the handler's arms encircling the upper part of the baby's body. This is to be distinguished from her just using her body as support for the infant. (.96) Score S for handler's holding infant tightly or rather firmly over the shoulder. Score C for holding close in the cradled or half-sit position, without movement of a regular or sustained nature. Score M for holding close with rather gentle or moderate movement (as in rocking gently while holding close to the body). 75 76 Active contact —- handler's obvious movement of most the infant's body without close physical contact (e.g., bouncing, jostling, rocking at a distance from the mother's chest). (.96) Touching —- excluding the use of hands only to hold or support the infant, this includes any touching of the baby's body with the hands and face of the handler (e.g., patting, stroking, tickling, kissing, resting head on infant). Touching is not scored when ppving infant's limb is more appropriate. (.95) Adjusting infant's position -- handler changes the position of the infant's body so that the plane in which the trunk of the body was held has been rotated at least 900. (.98) Ex: a move from shoulder to cradled position or from cradled to sitting on handler's knee. Direct to object —— handler directs infant's attention to anything other than her face. This would include her hands, clothing, parts of the room, etc. (.99) Mpving infant's limb —— handler's moving the arms or legs of the infant (or any part of the limbs) in a kind of arousing action. (.99) Looking —— with eyes open, the infant and/or handler's face is directed toward the facial plane of the opposite member. Score I for infant looking at the handler without her looking at the infant (unreciprocated infant gazing). (.99) Score M for handler looking at the infant's face without the infant looking back (unreciprocated handler gazing). (.94) Score IM for both handler and infant looking at each other at the same time (recipro- cated gazing or mutual gazing). (.95) Facial animation —— handler uses a facial expression other than bland while the infant is looking at her. This includes smiling, making exag— gerated faces, yawning, etc. 95) APPENDIX E ANALYSES OF VARIANCE FOR INFANT VARIABLES APPENDIX E ANALYSES OF VARIANCE FOR INFANT VARIABLES Table El Summary of the Analysis of Variance on State Source SS df MS F Between-SS 80.98 15 Contact (A) 18.77 1 18.77 4.30 Sex (B) 0.66 l 0.66 0.15 A.X B 9.15 1 9.05 2.09 Error 52.40 12 4.37 Within-SS 414.74 304 Condition (C) 28.15 3 9.38 3.12* A X C 10 01 3 3.34 1.11 B X C O 28 3 0.10 0.03 A X B X C 82 3 3.27 1.09 Error 108 10 36 3.00 Time (D) .05 4 1.76 2.11 D 11.12 4 2.78 3.33* B X D 6.21 4 1.55 1.86 A X B X D 6.80 4 1.70 2.04 Error 40.08 48 0 84 C X D 57-25 12 4-77 7-04*** A X C X D 19.10 12 1.60 2.35** B X C X D 8.66 12 0.72 1.07 A X B X C X D 4.58 12 0.38 0.56 Error 97.52 144 0.68 Total 495.71 319 ***p <.001 **p <.01 *p < ~05 77 78 Table E2 Summary of the Analysis of Variance 0n Crying Source SS df MS F Between—SS 43.00 15 Contact (A) 3.78 1 3.78 1.26 Sex (B) 0.14 1 0.14 0.0 A.X B 3.12 1 3.12 1.0 Error 35.95 12 3.00 Within-SS 343.76 304 Condition (C) 84.74 3 8.25 4.28*** A.X C 4.41 3 1.47 0.74 B X C 1.78 3 0.59 0.30 A X B X C 2.78 3 0.92 0.47 Error 71.23 36 1.98 Time (D) 4.17 4 1.04 1.90 A X D 10.68 4 2.67 4.85** B X'D 1.45 4 0.36 0.66 A X B X D 4.79 4 1.20 2.18 Error 26.42 48 0.55 C X D 44.71 12 3.73 8.76*** A X C X D 11.43 12 0.95 2.24** B X C X D 8.77 12 0.73 1.72 A X B X C X D 5.20 12 0.43 1.02 Error 61.22 144 0.42 Total 386.76 319 ***p<:.001 **p< .01 Summary of the Analysis of Variance on Smiling 79 Table E3 Source SS df MS F Between—SS 43.37 15 Contact (A) 8.78 1 8.78 3.10 Sex (B) 0.53 1 0.53 0.19 A X B 0.03 1 0.03 0.01 Error 34.04 12 2.84 Within—SS 341.85 304 Condition (C) 29.01 3 9.67 3.75* A X C 19.06 3 6.35 2.47 B X C 2.96 3 0.99 0.38 AXBX c 3.71 3 1.24 0.48 Error 92.71 36 2.57 Time (D) 10.08 4 2.52 5.59*** A.X D 4.02 4 1.00 2.22 B X D 3.02 4 0.75 1.67 A X B X D 4.33 4 1.08 2.40 Error 21.65 48 0.45 C X D 23.69 12 1.97 2.81** A X C X D 16.21 12 1.35 1.92* B X C X D 4.56 12 0.38 0.54 A.X B X C X D 5.49 12 0.46 0.65 Error 101.35 144 0.70 Total 385 22 319 ***p (.001 **p <.01 *p < .05 80 Table E4 Summary of the Analysis of Variance on Vocalization Source SS df MS F Between-SS 95.85 15 Contact (A) 26,45 1 26.45 5.28* Sex (B) 0.11 1 0.11 0.02 A X B 9.11 1 9.11 1.82 Error 60.18 12 5.02 Within—SS 978.90 304 Condition (C) 50.30 3 16.77 2.97* A X C 68.10 3 22.70 4.02** B X C 41.64 3 13.88 2.46 A X B X C 13.04 3 4.3 0.77 Error 203.02 36 5.6 Time (D) 16.97 4 4.24 1.81 A X D 5.33 4 1.33 0.57 B D 6.11 4 1.53 0.65 A X B X D 18.67 4 4.67 1.99 Error 112.32 48 2.34 C X D 32.11 12 2.68 1.27 A X C X D 33.49 12 2.79 1.33 B X C X D 25.52 12 2.13 1.01 A X B X C X D 49.31 12 4.11 1.95* Error 302.98 144 2.10 Total 1074.75 319 **p < 01 APPENDIX F ANALYSES OF VARIANCE FOR HANDLER VARIABLES APPENDIX F ANALYSES 0F VARIANCE FOR HANDLER VARIABLES Table F1 Summary of the Analysis of Variance on IMELooking Source SS df MS F Between-SS 266.18 15 Contact (A) 16.90 1 16.90 1.08 Sex (B) 50.62 1 50.62 3.22 A X B 10.00 1 10.00 0.64 Error 188.65 12 15.72 Within—SS 1193.20 144 Condition (C) 90.00 1 90.00 9.45** A.X C 2.02 l 2.02 0.21 B X C 16.90 1 16.90 1.78 A X B X C 15.62 1 15 62 1.64 Error 114.25 12 9.52 Time (D) 265.19 4 66.30 13.68*** A X D 40.66 4 10.17 2.10 B X D 14.31 4 3.59 0.74 A X B X D 7.44 4 1.86 0.38 Error 232.60 48 4.85 C X D 68.44 4 17.11 3.25* A X C X D 29.66 4 7.42 1.41 B X C X D 6.41 4 1.60 0.30 A X B X C X D 3 .69 4 9.17 1.74 Error 253.00 48 5.27 Total 1459.38 159 ***p < .001 **P < -01 *p<:~05 81 82 Table F2 Summary of the Analysis of Variance on M-Looking Source SS df MS F Between-SS 318.78 15 Contact (A) 0.40 1 0.40 0.03 Sex (B) 136.90 1 136.90 9.05** A X B 0.02 1 0.02 0.00 Error 181.45 12 15.12 Within-SS 1098.60 144 Condition (C) 62.50 1 62.50 7 31* A X C 0.62 1 0.62 0 07 B x C 1.22 1 1.22 0.14 A X B X C 0.10 1 0.10 0.01 Error 102.55 12 8.55 Time (D) 35.12 4 13.78 2.79* A X D .35 4 11.09 2.24 B X D 52.85 4 13.21 2 67* A X B X D 16.98 4 4.24 0 86 Error 237.30 48 4.94 C X D 79.62 4 19.91 2.91* A X C X D 13.50 4 3.38 0.49 B X C X D 34.15 4 8.54 1.2 A X B X C X D 69.52 4 17.38 2.5 Error 328.20 48 6.84 Total 1417.38 159 **p < .01 *p <-O5 83 Table F3 Summary of the Analysis of Variance on I-Looking Source SS df MS F Between-SS 6.00 15 Contact (A) 0.40 l 0.40 1.00 Sex (B) 0.40 1 0.40 1.00 A.X B 0.40 1 0.40 1.00 Error 4.80 12 0.40 Within-SS 57.60 144 Condition (C) 0.40 1 0.40 1.00 A X C 0.40 1 0.40 1.00 B X C 0.40 1 0.40 1.00 A X B X C 0.40 1 0.40 1.00 Error 4.80 12 0.40 Time (D) 1.60 4 0.40 1.00 A.X D 1.60 4 0.40 1.00 B X D 1.60 4 0.40 1.00 A X B X D 1.60 4 0.40 1.00 Error 19.20 48 0.40 C X D 1.60 4 0.40 1.00 A X C X D 1.60 4 0.40 1.00 B X C X D 1.60 4 0.40 1.00 AX BX CX D 1.60 4 0.40 1.00 Error 19.20 48 0.40 Total 63.60 159 84 Table F4 Summary of the Analysis of Variance on Close Contact Source SS df MS F Between—SS 80.17 15 Contact (A) 0.02 1 0.02 0.00 Sex (B) 1.60 1 1.60 0.27 A X B 6.40 1 6.40 1.06 Error 72.15 12 6.01 Within-SS 464.80 144 Condition (C) 11.02 1 1.02 2.18 A X C 4.22 1 4.22 0.84 B X C 0.10 1 0.10 0.02 A X B X C 0.10 1 0.10 0.02 Error 60.55 12 5.05 Time (D) 16.04 4 4.01 1.70 A X D 7.29 4 1.82 0.77 B X D 11.09 4 2.77 1.17 A X B X D 5.04 4 1.26 0.53 Error 113.35 48 2.36 C X D 26.41 4 6.60 2.19 A X C X D 13.71 4 3.43 1.14 B X C X D 13.21 4 3.30 1.10 A X B X C X D 37.71 4 9.43 3.12* Error 144.95 48 3.02 Total 544.98 159 85 Table F5 Summary of the Analysis of Variance on Shoulder Contact Source SS df MS F Between—SS 92.58 15 Contact (A) 7.22 l 7.22 1.05 Sex (B) 0.90 1 0.90 0.13 A.X B 1.60 1 1.60 0.23 Error 82.85 12 6.90 Within-SS 622.20 144 Condition (C) 11.02 1 11.02 1.04 A X C 18.22 1 18.22 1.72 B X C 2.50 1 2.50 0.24 A.X B X C 12.10 1 12.10 1.15 Error 126.75 12 10.56 Time (D) 14.96 4 3.74 1.19 A X D 37.34 4 9.33 2.96* B X D 29 04 4 7.26 2.30 A X B X D 6.71 4 1.68 0.53 Error 151.15 48 3.15 C X D 7.79 4 1.95 0.62 A.X C X D 24.46 4 6.12 1.93 B X C X D 23.31 4 5.83 1.84 A.X B X C X D 5.09 4 1.27 0.40 Error 151.75 48 3.16 Total 714.78 159 86 Table F6 Summary of the Analysis of Variance on Moving Contact Source SS df MS F Between-SS 111.18 15 Contact (A) 1.60 1 1.60 0.19 Sex (B) 7.22 1 7.22 0.86 A X B 0.90 1. 0.90 0.11 Error 101.45 12 8.45 Within-SS 421.20 144 Condition (C) 2.50 1 2.50 0.42 A.X C 7.22 1 7.22 1.20 B X C 0.90 1 0.90 0.15 A.X B X C 0.62 1 0.62 0.10 Error 72.35 12 6.03 Time (D) 25.19 L 6.30 3.28* A X D 0.84 4 0.21 0.11 B X D 5.34 4 1.33 0.69 A X B X D 6.54 4 1.63 0.85 Error 92.30 L8 1.92 C X D /.06 4 1.77 0.51 A X C X D 11.21 4 2.80 0.81 B X C X D 7 16 4 1.79 0.52 A.X B X C X D 16.06 4 4.02 1.16 Error 165.90 48 3.46 Total 532.38 159 87 Table F7 Summary of the Analysis of Variance on Active Contact Source SS df MS F Between-SS 342.54 15 Contact (A) 85.56 1 85.56 4.68* Sex (B) 7.66 l 7.66 0.42 A.X B 29.76 1 29.76 1.63 Error 219.58 12 18.30 Within-SS 1071.70 144 Condition (C) 1.06 l 1.06 0.12 A.X C 20.31 1 20.31 2.40 B X C 0.01 1 0.01 0.00 A X B X C 2.26 1 2.26 0.27 Error 101.68 48 8.47 Time 28.90 4 7.22 0.97 A X D 44.85 4 11.21 1.51 B X D 39.00 4 9.75 1.31 A.X B X D 14.65 4 3.66 0.49 Error 356.80 48 7.43 C X D 25.48 4 6.37 _0.87 A X C X D 8.22 4 2.06 0.28 B X C X D 59.78 4 14.94 2.04 A X B X C X D 16.52 4 4.13 0.56 Error 352 20 48 7.34 Total 1414.24 159 ‘88 Table F8 Summary of the Analysis of Variance on Touching Source SS df MS F Between—SS 158.79 15 Contact (A) 3.91 1 3.91 0.42 Sex (B) 23.26 1 28.26 2.48 A.X B 18.91 1 1 .91 2.01 Error 112.72 12 9.39 Within-SS 912.90 44 Condition (C) 10.51 1 10.51 0.76 A.X C 2.26 1 2.26 0.16 B X C 28.06 1 28.06 2.04 A.X B X C 28.06 1 28.06 2.04 Error 164.82 12 13.74 Time (D) 25.54 4 6.38 1.40 A.X D 29.94 4 7.48 1.64 B X D 33.96 4 8.49 1.86 A.X B X D 5.31 4 1.33 0.29 Error 219.65 48 4.58 C X D 60.34 4 15.08 2.62* A X C X D 17.09 4 4.27 0.74 B X C X D 6.91 4 1.73 0.30 A X B X C X D 4.41 4 1.10 0.19 Error 276.05 48 5.75 Total 1071.69 159 *p < .05 89 Table F9 Summary of the Analysis of Variance on Moving Limb Source SS df MS F Between-SS 48.18 15 Contact (A) 3.02 l 3.02 1.36 Sex (B) 6.40 l .40 2.88 A X B 12.10 1 12.10 5.44* Error 26.65 12 Within-SS 218.60 144 Condition (C) 0.40 1 0.40 0.08 A X C 0.10 1 0.10 0.02 B X C 0.02 l 0.02 0.00 A X B X C 4.22 l 4.22 0.87 Error 58.25 12 4.85 Time (D) 3.59 4 0.90 0 64 X D .29 4 1.07 0 76 B X D 6.79 4 1.70 1 21 A X B X D 5.59 4 1.40 1 00 Error 67.35 48 1.40 C X D 14.66 4 3.67 4.16** A X C X D 1.21 4 0.30 0.34 B X C X D 5.91 4 1.48 1.68 A X B X C X D 3.96 4 1.00 1.12 Error 42.25 48 0.88 Total 159 **p < .01 90 Table FiO Summary Of the Analysis of Variance on Adjust Position -' Source SS ,df MS F Between-SS 75.40 15 Contact (A) 1.22 1 1.22 0.21 Sex (B) 2.02 1 2.02 0.35 A X B 3.60 l 3.60 0.63 Error ‘ 68.55 12 5.71 /Within-Ss 306.20 144 Condition (C) 1.22 l 1.22 0.36 A X C 0.00 1 0.00 1.00 B X C 0.40 1 0.40 0.12 A X B X C 0.62 1 0.62 0.18 Error 40.75 12 3.40 Time (D) 2.35 4 0.59 0.36 A X D 19.52 4.88 3.04* B X D 4.22 1.06 0.66 A X B X D 12.90 3.22 2.01 Error 77.20 48 1.61 C x D 17.78 4 4.44 2.02 A X C X D 3.00 4 0.75 0.34 B X C X D 13.85 4 3.46 1.58 A X B X C X D 6.88 4 1.72 0.78 Error 105.50 48 2.20 Total 381.60 159 91 Table F11 Summary of the Analysis of Variance on Direct to Object Source SS df MS F Between—SS 14.90 15 Contact (A) 0.10 1 0.10 0.09 Sex (B) 1.60 l 1.60 1.46 A X B 0.00 1 0.00 0.00 Error 13.20 12 1.10 Within-SS 127.00 144 Condition (C) 1.22 l 1.22 0.84 A X C 0.02 1 0.02 0.02 B X C 0.62 1 0.62 0.43 A X B X C 0.02 1 0.02 0.02 Error 17.50 12 1.46 Time (D) 1.59 4 0.40 0.45 A X D 7.71 4 1.93 2.20 B x D 3.09 4 0.77 0.88 A X B X D 3.56 4 0.89 1.02 Error 42.05 48 0.88 C X D 3 96 4 0.99 1 33 A X C X D 5 54 4 1.38 1.86 B X C X D 1 81 4 0 45 0.61 A X B X C X D 2.54 4 0 63 0.85 Error 35 75 48 0 74 H O C, s» H '_l .4: H \O O 1...] \n \O 92 Table F12 Summary of the Analysis of Variance on Facial Change Source SS df MS F Between—SS 245.30 15 Contact (A) 18.22 1 18.22 1.15 Sex (B) 36.10 1 36.10 2.27 A X B 0.22 1 0.22 0.01 Error 190.75 12 15.90 Within—SS 1178.60 144 Condition (C) 240.10 1 240 10 32 32*** A X C 0.22 l 0.22 0.03 B X C 12.10 1 12.10 1.63 A X B X C 4.22 1 4.22 0.57 Error 89.15 12 7.43 Time (D) 183.28 4 45.82 11.90*** A X D 4.90 4 13.72 3.57** B X D 5.28 4 11.32 2.94 A X B X D 16.40 4 4.10 1.06 Error 184.75 48 3.85 C X D 136.65 4 34.16 10.62*** A X C X D 43.79 4 10.94 3.40 B X C X D 4.40 4 1.10 0.34 A X B X C X D 9.02 4 2.26 0.70 Error 154.35 48 3.22 Total 1423.90 159 ***p <.001 **p <,01 *p <.05 APPENDIX C CORRELATIONS AMONG INFANT AND HANDLER MEASURES APPENDIX G CORRELATIONS AMONG INFANT AND HANDLER MEASURES Intercorrelations between Measures of Infants' (Pearson Product—Moment Method) Table G1 Behavior Measure Measure 1 2 3 4 1. State ... . . . 2. Crying .73** ... . 3. Smiling -.06 -.21 ... 4. Vocalization —.03 —.35 .39 **p < .0]. 93 Hoo.v o*** 94 Ho.v m** .**oo.- mo.- so.- Ho.- Ho. :m.- we. :o.- am.**ra.- oo. mnnxooa 2 .ma . ... no. mo.-.mo. wo.- mm. om.- mm.- mm.-*:w. mo.- omoooo fiancee .HH . ... ... no.- mo. No.1 ma. mo.- HH.- oo.- :o. **mm. ooohoo oo Soothe .oa . ... ... ... oa.- we. on. co. Hm. mo.- mo. ao.- noaoamoo omoaoa .m . ... ... ... ... wool ®O.| Bool HN.| MH. 00. BO. QEflH wQH>OE .w . ... ... ... ... ... OH.I ON. HN. wH.I wH.I OH.I MGHQOSOB .m . ... ... ... ... ... ... ON.I iN-I BN.I Hi. Cool POGPQOO ®>HPO< .0 . ... ... ... ... ... ... ... NO. MO.I wN.I HO.lpompflOo mQH>OB mmOHO .m . ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... oa.- Am.- 30.- ooooooo nooasonm .: . ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... Hm.l moel mkHdQOHPwpmv mmOHD .M . ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... JO.I wQHMOOH EH .N o coo on. so. ... ... ... ... ... ... ... ... WQHMOOHH ...m nominees Aooflpez pdoaoznpodeoam comamomv Hoa>m£em _mmeaeqmm mo monomeoz exp moose mGOHpmHoeaoenoch mm 6.3.3“ 95 Table G3 Correlation Coefficients between Handler and Infant Measures (Pearson Product-Moment Method) Infant Measures Vocali— Handler Measures State Crying Smiling zation l. I looking .00 —.04 -.03 —.07 2. IM looking .18 -.19 .41 .40 3. Close contact (stat)—.50* —.09 —.15 -.23 4. Shoulder contact .16 .12 —.15 .14 5. Moving close contact .22 .56* —.17 -.23 6. Active contact .27 .02 .03 .07 7. Touching .25 .41 -.07 .15 8. Moving limb -.07 —.21 —.04 .02 9. Adjust position .41 .36 - 1 —.06 10. Direct to object .06 —.06 -.0 —.02 11. Facial change .13 -.23 .43 .41 12. M looking —.26 .02 -.28 —.36 *p<-O5 APPENDIX H SUMMARIES OF MEANS FOR INFANT AND HANDLER VARIABLES APPENDIX H SUMMARIES OF MEANS FOR INFANT AND HANDLER VARIABLES Table H1 Summary of Means on State Condition Swaddled Unswaddled Stranger Mother 4.3 4.7 4.0 3.9 Contact X Time High Contact Low Contact Time 1 4.4 4.5 Time 2 4.3 4.4 Time 3 4.0 4.5 Time 4 3.6 4.5 Time 5 3.6 4.5 Condition X Time Swaddled Unswaddled Stranger Mother Time 1 5. 4.3 3.9 4.1 Time 2 3.0 4.5 3.9 3.9 Time 3 .5 4.8 3.9 3.8 Time 4 3.5 4.7 4.2 3.9 Time 5 3.1 5.0 4.1 3.8 96 97 Table H1 (cont'd) Contact X Condition X Time Swaddled Unswaddled Stranger Mot T High Contact 5.5 4.3 3.8 4 1 Low Contact 5.2 4.3 4.0 4 T High Contact 5.1 4.6 3.7 3. 2 Low Contact 5.0 4.5 4.0 4. T High Contact 3.9 4.8 3.5 3. 3 Low Contact 5.0 4.8 4.3 3. T High Contact 2.3 4.4 4.0 3. 4 Low Contact 4.8 5.0 4.5 3. High Contact 2.1 4. 3.8 4. T5 Low Contact 4.2 5.2 4.5 3. no \000 oo\‘1 O\‘1 0205‘ CD *‘3 98 Table H2 Summary of Means on Crying Condition Swaddled Unswaddled Stranger Mother 1.4 1.2 0.3 0.2 Contact X Time High Contact Low Contact Time 1 0.7 0.6 Time 2 0.8 0.6 Time 3 0.7 0.9 Time 4 0.6 1.2 Time 5 0.6 1.3 Condition X Time Swaddled Unswaddled Stranger Mother Time 1 2.0 0.4 0.1 0.2 Time 2 1.8 0.8 0.1 0.1 Time 3 1.4 1.2 0.3 0.2 Time 4 1.0 1.6 0.6 0.3 Time 5 0.8 2.1 0.5 0.5 Contact X Condition X Time Swaddled Unswaddled Stranger Mother T High Contact 2.3 0.4 0.1 0.1 1 Low Contact 1.7 0.3 0.0 0.3 T High Contact 2.1 0.9 0.2 0.1 2 Low Contact 1.5 0.7 0.0 0.1 T High Contact 1.1 1.3 0.3 0.1 3 Low Contact 1.8 1.2 0. 0.3 T High Contact 0.1 1.6 0.5 0.2 4 Low Contact 1.9 1.6 0.8 0.4 T High Contact 0.0 1.9 0.3 0.2 5 Low Contact 1.6 2.1 0.7 0.7 99 Table H3 Summary of Means on Smiling Condition Swaddled Unswaddled Stranger Mother 0.8 0.2 0.2 0.0 Time Time 1 Time 2 Time 3 Time 4 Time 5 0.5 0.5 0.3 0.2 0.1 Condition X Time Swaddled Unswaddled Stranger Mother Time 1 0.2 0.1 1.6 0.1 Time 2 0.0 0.2 1.g 0.5 Time 3 0.0 0.4 0. 0.2 Time 4 0.0 0.3 0.1 0.2 Time 5 0.0 0.1 0.2 0.1 Contact X Condition X Time Swaddled Unswaddled Stranger Mother T High Contact 0.0 0.1 0.1 0.2 1 Low Contact 0.4 0.1 3.0 0.0 T High Contact 0.0 0.1 0.9 0.5 2 Low Contact 0.0 0.2 2.1 0.5 T High Contact 0.0 0.1 0.4 0.4 3 Low Contact 0.0 0.7 1.2_ 0.0 T High Contact 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.4 4 Low Contact 0.0 0.6 0.2 0.1 T High Contact 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.1 5 Low Contact 0.0 0.1 0.4 0.1 100 Table H4 Summary of Means on Vocalization Contact High Contact 0 Low Contact Condition Swaddled Unswaddled Stranger Mother 0.6 1.1 1.6 1.5 Contact X Condition Swaddled Unswaddled Stranger Mother 0 5 0.9 . High Contact 0.2 . l 9 Low Contact 0.9 1.8 2.2 1.0 Contact X Sex X Condition X Time ***Swaddled*** Time 1 Time 2 Time 3 Time 4 T High Boys 0.7 0.2 0.2 0.0 Contact Girls 0.2 0.2 0.0 0.2 Low Boys 0.7 0.0 0.0 0.0 Contact Girls 2.2 3.0 2.0 1.0 ***Unswaddled*** High Boys 2.5 .2 0.7 0.0 Contact Girls 0.0 0.0 0.2 0.2 Low Boys 1.2 3.0 3.7 3.2 Contact Girls 1.0 1.5 0.7 1.7 ***Stranger*** High Boys 0.5 . 1.0 1.0 Contact Girls 1.7 2.0 0.2 0.7 Low Boys 1.7 2.5 0.2 0.5 Contact Girls 2.5 3.7 2.7 2.0 CO OOH- NO OO (seaw- c>c> \nna EMF FWD CHv \TQ 105 Table H8 Summary of Means on Shoulder Contact Contact X Time Time 1 Time 2 Time 3 Time 4 Time 5 High Contact 0.9 1.2 1.1 1.5 Low Contact 2.1 0.4 0.6 1.2 Table H9 Summary of Means on Moving Close Contact Time 1 Time 2 Time 3 Time 4 Time 5 1.0 0.2 0.5 0.9 1.4 Table 310 Summary of Means on Active Contact Contact HighkContact Low Contact 2 108 Table H11 Summary of Means on Touching Condition X Time Stranger Mother Time 1 3.2 6.0 Time 2 3.6 4.0 Time 3 3.4 3.7 Time 4 5.0 4.0 Time 5 .2 4.2 109 Table H12 Summary of Means on Moving Limb Contact X Sex High Contact Low Contact Boys 0.4 . Girls 1.4 0.6 Condition X Time Stranger Mother Time 1 1.1 0.2 Time 2 0.8 1.2 Time 3 0.5 0.8 Time 4 0.3 1.2 Time 5 1.0 0.7 110 Table H13 Summary of Means on Adjust Position Contact X Time High Contact Low Contact Time 1 1.0 2.4 Time 2 1.9 1.6 Time 3 1.8 1.5 Time 4 1.7 2.2 Time 5 2.1 1.7 111 Table H14 Summary of Means on Facial Change Condition High Contact Low Contact 2.6 3-3 Time Time 1 Time 2 Time 3 Time 4 Time 5 1.7 3 4.2 2.5 2.1 Contact X Time High Contact Low Contact Time 1 1.0 2.5 Time 2 4.6 4.0 Time 3 3.1 5.3 Time 4 2.0 3.1 Time 5 2.5 1.7 Sex X Time Boys Girls Time 1 1.6 1.9 Time 2 4.3 4.2 Time 3 4.1 4.3 Time 4 1.2 3.9 Time 5 1.2 2.9 Condition X Time Stranger Mother Time 1 1.6 1.9 Time 2 6.8 1.7 Time 3 6.0 2.4 Time 4 3.8 1.2 Time 5 2.8 1.4 112 Table H14 (cont! (1) Contact X Condition X Time Stranger T' 1 High Contact 1,7 1me Low Contact 1.h T' e 2 High Contact 7,1 1m Low Contact 6,5 Time 3 High Contact 4,4 Low Contact 7.6 Time 4 High Contact 2.9 Low Contact 4.7 Time 5 High Contact 3.0 Low Contact 2.6 :3 ct ON I—‘H UJI—J l—lm WOO (D '1 0 ‘JC) ¥“‘ <3\O \nCD ouo:r Ir RRRRRR 1111111111111 IIIIIIIIIIII 1111111911 31