Inn-1'1 5: A .3.‘ x‘ ‘3 . 3|; : . E «.1 .9". .. - .énflffififlfi .fi) v1.31! .u. :lzai. «.7»:an :LH .16? .0... . I. . ‘l i 2 .|«§ » L: J 3.13.1251! «335.1 2.3...."- Ci 1: u’l...3. 1.1 . .1! 1‘ L‘Iifllil I... n). 5...: mini. :0. u V ( . .hull: h»: ‘1{w..mu:ww®h «Ivar ML Iris). .:..r, v. .. "q. ‘I' $1, ; . fl . I... I 3 :3. 3“,. HI 51‘ . xzisa V\ {‘4' « i: ..\ .c 1:39,. 3J2} ; -;:;i?-: h ( . 8...; ,4 $4. llHlllllillllllzlllgllIUJHIHIHIIHIIIIHH\IillHlIlllllHHl 301405 7545 This is to certify that the dissertation entitled THE RELATIONSHIP OF PARENTAL GENOER,AGE, EDUCATION, AND SOCIO-ECONOMIC STATUS TO PARENT-NEWBORN COMMUNICATION presented by Cheryl Feenstra has been accepted towards fulfillment of the requirements for £h.D. degreein Eamily a Child Ecology Major professor Date March 28. 1996 MSU it an Ajflrmatiw Action/Equal Opportunity Institution 0- 12771 LIBRARY Michigan State Unlversity PLACE N RETURN BOXto monthl- chock” from your record. TO AVOID FINES return on or before data duo. DATE DUE DATE DUE DATE DUE THE RELATIONSHIP OF PARENTAL GENDER, AGE, EDUCATION, AND SOCIO-ECONOMIC STATUS TO PARENT-NEWBORN COMMUNICATION BY Cheryl Feenstra A DISSERTATION Submitted to Michigan State University in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of DOCTOR OF PHILOSOPHY Department of Family and Child Ecology 1996 ABSTRACT THE RELATIONSHIP OF PARENTAL GENDER, AGE, EDUCATION, AND SOCIO-ECONOMIC STATUS TO PARENT-NEWBORN COMMUNICATION by. Cheryl Feenstra Previous research has determined the value of early parent-infant interaction. The purpose of this descriptive study was to determine whether parent- newborn communication varies with parental gender, age, education, or socioeconomic status. One hundred English speaking parents and their infants (50) were observed in their homes when the infant was between two and four weeks of age. Parents were observed separately during a 7 1/2 minute period while communicating with their infant. Demographic data were obtained and analyzed using descriptive techniques. Multivariate regression analysis was.used to determine how much of parent- infant communication was accounted for by the five imajor components of vocalization, facial expression, gesture, touch and eye contact. ANOVA approaches were ‘used to determine if the scores for the communication components differed according to the parental attributes. Vocalization and touch were found to be the two primary communication components used by parsnrts. Mothers vocalized more than fathers, while fathers; touched more than mothers. Young parents used less vocalization than older parents but gestured more. Those parents in the lowest SES gestured more thari other groups. Education was not found to affect parent-infant communication. Repeated analysis showed that there was an interaction affect between parenrtal gender and gender of the infant for the communication components of vocalization and eye contact. Mothers communicated more with boy babies while fathers communicated more with girl babies. Overall these results conclude that parwent- newborn communication varies with parental gender, age and SES as well as with infant gender. Results can be used to determine the most effective ways to promote parent-newborn communication and help both parents and infants develop early communication skills. COpyright by CHERYL FEENSTRA 1996 TO MY FAMI LY Bern, Beth, Jennie, and Megan ACKNOWLEDGMENTS It takes a community to raise a child and it takes a community to produce a doctoral dissertation. Although theoretically the work of one doctoral student, the dissertation is dependent on the interacting influences of a wide variety of individuals and circumstances. Here the help of many people is acknowledged. My colleagues at Calvin and Hope Colleges have been most supportive in my journey to the dissertation. They have asked questions, given advice, taught my classes, arranged their schedules to accommodate mine, encouraged me and cheered me on as I persued this endeavor. My chairperson, Marjorie Viehl has been especially helpful as she tried to make my pursuit of the doctoral degree as painless as possible, never doubting that it would be accomplished. The families that allowed me to be a small part of their lives during the very special time of the birth and early weeks of their firstborn children have taught me how special this time is. They let me vi through their willingness to be a part of my study and their generous hospitality as I entered their homes. They are truly appreciated. Dr. Robert Boger encouraged my early interest in parent-infant communication during an early class on social support and the ecology of parent/infant programs. Here I learned Bronfenbrenner’s theory and began to see the importance of a variety of interacting effects on individual development within the family. Dr. Linda Nelson let me explore this area further in a class on theory development. She helped me focus on the essentials of parent-infant communication and propose a model to explain it. The personnel of the Boven Birth Center at Holland Community Hospital facilitated my efforts in data collection. They helped be to identify qualifying families, encouraged me in my project, and were gracious with their time and hospitality. ' I want to extend a very special thank you to my committee. I am most grateful for their guidance and thoughtful critique of my efforts. They helped me to develop a program which laid the foundation needed to accomplish this research. Dr. Robert Boger, the chairman, shared my interest in parents and their newborns from the beginning. His excitement encouraged me to continue to persue the topic of vii parent-infant communication throughout my courses and on into the dissertation. His knowledge of the research process was most helpful. I especially appreciated his sensitivity to my commuting schedule and willingness to use the telephone, facsimiles and the U.S. mail to avoid wasted time and miles. He was supportive and encouraging throughout the process and never wavered in his confidence that the dissertation would be accomplished. Dr. Dennis Keefe used his knowledge of family management and development of human capital to broaden my outlook on these concepts. His understanding of the family from his area of expertise helped me to be aware of the immense variety of ways of looking at family development. I especially appreciated his careful, thoughtful insights into the direction of the dissertation. Dr. Barbara Ames provided a great deal of psychological support throughout my educational process. She kept expectations clear, asked pertinent questions, expected a high level of performance, and was willing to help in any way possible. She was right about the helpfulness of having a woman on my Committee. Dr. James Snoddy provided a unique perspective to the committee. He was helpful to me in pointing viii out areas of a dissertation which can be unclear and ambiguous to those outside of the field being studied, since his area of expertise is not family-child ecology, but educational administration. His early critiques of the research project were very helpful in identifying areas to be clarified, especially regarding human ecology theory. In conclusion, I want to thank my family. My parents, Norman and Joyce Artz, encouraged me from my earliest years to use the talents God has given me to accomplish as much as I am able. In the early years of my doctoral studies they encouraged my efforts even though they did not understand all the details. I am sad that they both died before they could see the results of this endeavor, but I am certain they would be pleased. I must thank my husband, Bern, who never doubted that I would accomplish the doctoral degree and provided unending support along the way. There were many family meals he made and served, many child taxi jobs for which he drove, many computer fiascoes he patiently talked me through. I am ever so grateful for his love and support. Our daughters, Beth, Jennie, and Megan allowed me to know the joys of parenting myself and never questioned why I was going to all those classes. They ix were my cheering section and encouragers as I recruited and then visited all 50 research families. My heartfelt thanks to all who have enabled me to study this important subject. TABLE or CONTENTS CHAPTER I INTRODUCTION ...... . ................................ 1 Statement of the Problem ........................ 2 Importance of the Study ......................... 2 Ecological Framework ...... .. ........ ... ....... ..3 Study Variables.................................5 Conceptual and Operational Definitions .......... 6 Assumptions ..................................... 9 CHAPTER II REVIEW OF LITERATURE .............................. 11 Nature of Parent-Infant communication..........lO Requirements for Parent-Infant Communication xi To Occur .................................. ..13 Parental Variables ............................. 15 Gender......... .......... . ........ ..........15 Age ............. . ...... . ............ ........22 Socioeconomic Status ........................ 23 Education ................................... 25 Conceptual Model ............................ 26 CHAPTER III METHODOLOGY ....................................... 35 Research Questions ............................. 35 Research Hypotheses ............................ 36 Design of this Study ................. . ..... ....43 Instrumentation.. ......... .. ................ ...43 Sampling Procedures ....... .... ...... . ....... ...46 Data Collection Procedures... .............. ....47 Data Anaylsis............. ..... ................47 CHAPTER IV _ RESULTS.. ............ . ...... . ......... . ..... ......50 Demographic Data ............................. ..50 Research Questions.......... ....... ............51 Research Question 1 ...................... ...51 Research Question 2 ........................ .53 Research Question 3 ......................... 53 Research Question 4 ......................... 55 Research Question 5.........................58 Research Question 6 ......................... 60 Research Question 7 ......................... 64 CHAPTER V DISCUSSION ............ ........ .................. ..68 Implications of the Results on the Ecological Framework of the Study... ...... . ....... .....68 Communication Components......... ...... ........70 Parental Variables........-..... .......... .....74 Gender......................................74 Age..................... ...... ..............78 Education...................................80 Socioeconomic Status ........... .............82 Additional Findings... ................. ........83 CHAPTER VI ~ SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS............ ..... . ......... 88 Summary... ............. . ............ . ...... ..88 Limitations of the Study......... ........... ...89 Implications for Practical Use and Further Research .................................... 9O APPENDICES ........................................ 96 A. Demographic Information .............. . ..... 96 B. Hollingshead’s Two-Factor Index of Social Position ....... ............................97 C. Parent-Infant Communication Tool..........106 D. Consent Form for Research Project Participants................. ..... ........108 E. University Committee on Research Involving Human Subjects Approval Form ............. .109 F. Holland Hospital Institutional Review Committee Approval Form...................110 LIST OF REFERENCES ...... ...... ......... ..........111 xii LIST OF TABLES Page No. Frequency of Socioeconomic Classes Among Parents ....... ............ ..... ..... ............. 52 Multiple Regression Analysis of Communication on eye contact, Facial Expression, Touch, and Vocalization ................... . ........ .. ....... 52 Use of Communication Components for Parents Together and by Gender ...... .... ..... . ..... ......54 ANOVA of Vocalization by Gender of Parent and Infant .......... . ....... .............. ....... 57 ANOVA of Eye Contact by Gender of Parent and Infant ........................ .. ............. 57 Analysis of Variance Scores of Communication by Age of Parent..... ............. ........ ....... 61 Use of Communication Components by Education of Parents ........ ..................................63 Analysis of Variance Scores of Communication by Socioeconomic Status of Parent...................65 Means, Standard Deviations, and Correlations for Communication Components.........................67 xiii Figure 1. LIST or FIGURES Page No. Frequency of Parental Vocalization with Male and Female Infants in 7 1/2 Minute Observation.......OOOOOOOOOCOOOOOOOO ..... O ....... 59 Frequency of Parental Eye Contact with Male and Female Infants in 7 1/2 Minute Observation ...................................... 59 xiv Chapter I INTRODUCTION Over the past twenty years there has been an increasing interest among professionals working with parents and their infants in the phenomenon of parent-- infant communication. After Klaus and Kennell published their book, Maternal-Infant Bondinq, in 1976, work in this field expanded rapidly. The nature of communication between a new mother, a new father, and the newborn infant is both fascinating and perplexing. Just how a parent communicates with the infant has been the subject of much research. Numerous studies of mother-infant communication have yielded various theories about the nature of this phenomenon, without consensus. Father-infant communication also has been addressed, though less frequently than mother-infant communication. There have been some differences noted in father vs. mother interaction, which is a larger subject than communication. Other differences in parent-infant communication associated with differing parental age, education, or socioeconomic status have not been clearly identified. Yet, the first few months of an infant’s life may be a critical time for early development of 2 communication skills. Infants of parents who communicate effectively are more secure at one year of age (Blehar, Lieberman, and Ainsworth, 1977), talk earlier (Keller and Scholmerich, 1987), are more advanced and competent at age two (Olson, Bates, and Bayles, 1984), and exhibit higher IQ and language skills at age four (Bee, Barnard, Eyres, Gray, Hammond, Speitz, Snyder, and Clark, 1982), than those children who did not experience this advantage. Statement 9: the Problem This study investigated the relationship between specific components of parent-newborn [infant] communication and parental gender, age, education, and socioeconomic status (SES). The components of communication included in the study were vocalization, gesture, facial expressions, touch and eye contact. Importance of the Study This study helps to define the nature of parent-- newborn communication and shows how dimensions of communication differ with parental variables. Communication is a very important part of being a human being. It allows persons to interact meaningfully with each other. The infant can communicate through its behavior (Als, Lester, and Brazelton, 1979), but the infant must develop the skills necessary for verbal communication. Without language, a philosopical question 3 arises. Is a person a person if he or she cannot communicate using language? In rare cases in history, children have been found who have grown up with beasts as their only companions, or who have been abused or neglected to such an extent that they have grown up without human interaction. These children were never able to catch up with their peers and develop normal communication and interaction skills. The critical time period for a human being to learn communication skills had been missed (Curtiss, 1977). An infant must learn the foundations for later communication skills in face to face interactions with its parents (Field, 1977). According to Lester, et a1. (1985), the precursors of language development, rudimentary symbolic functions such as syntactical elements, intentionality, and reciprocal turn-taking may be learned through cycles of social exchanges, the type of exchanges a parent has on a daily basis with its infant. The parent has a great deal of influence on how the infant learns to communicate. By learning more about the communication process and the uniqueness of father and mother communication with the infant, it should be possible to promote optimum levels of parent-infant communication. Ecological Framework 4 All living things interact with the habitat or environment which surrounds them. Families and individuals all influence and are influenced by their surroundings. Andrews, Bubolz, and Paolucci (1980) developed a model for this ecological approach called the human ecology model. A key process in the model is adaptation by humans of and to their environment (Bubolz & Sontag, 1993). A family uses resources from their environment to provide the physical necessities of life such as food, clothing, and warmth, while at the same time gathering social resources from other people to give quality and meaning to life. The resources of the family are dependent on several things, some of which are the educational level of the parents, the amount of income earned, and the social status of the family. Within a functional family, an infant is supported and grows. He or she is provided with the physical necessities of life and is also given love, language, and values. Communication is created and transmitted between the parents and the infant within the family. It is one of the most significant interaction processes in the family ecosystem. The family supports and affects the development of all its members, at the same time interacting with the world outside their door. The way that parents interact with their children depends a great 5 deal on what happens to the parents both inside and outside their own home. Relationships of the parent are all passed on to the infant through interactions between the parent and the infant. As Bronfenbrenner (1989) suggests, the characteristics of a person at a given time in his or her life are a joint function of the characteristics of the persons and of the environment over the course of the person’s life up to that time. The developing child experiences relationships with his or her parents which vary substantially depending on the personal characteristics of the parent. The gender, age, educational background, and social experience of the parent all affect how a parent interacts with others, including the infant. An infant develops and grows within a family setting, interacting with those around him or her on a daily basis. Within the family, an infant develops competence in relationships and communication, acquiring skills, attitudes, values, and language. These skills are essential to live as a human in this world. Study Variables The independent variables examined in this study were parental gender, age, education and socio-economic status (SES). The dependent variable in this study was parent-- newborn communication. This variable includes components 6 of vocalization, facial expression, gesture, touch and eye contact. Conceptual and Operational Definitions Conceptual and variables are stated Parental Gender: CONCEPTUAL: OPERATIONAL: Parental Age: CONCEPTUAL: OPERATIONAL: operational definitions of the study below. The sex of the person who has the major caretaking responsibility for the infant. The stated sex of the person who has the major caretaking responsibility for the infant. The stated biological number of years alive. The age of the parent in three age ranges: 16-20 years of age, 21-29 years of age, and 30 years of age or more. Parental Education: CONCEPTUAL: OPERATIONAL: The number of years of formal schooling, including Kindergarten, of a parent. The stated number of years of formal schooling, including kindergarten, with general educational development 7 certificates (GED) the same as four years of high school. There were four educational levels: completion of less than 12th grade, completion through 12th grade (high school graduate or GED), completion of more than 12th grade, either college or vocational education, and college degree and above. Parental Socioeconomic Status: CONCEPTUAL: The status of social position of the parents. OPERATIONAL: The social class ranking of each parent based on the score on the Hollingshead Two Factor Index of Social Position (1991), which includes occupational and educational status of an individual. The dependent variable examined in this study was communication. This variable has several components. Parent-Newborn Communication: CONCEPTUAL: The exchange with another human being of thoughts and/or feelings. OPERATIONAL:.Vocalization, facial expression, gestures, touching, and eye contact between parent and newborn. 8 Parental Vocalization: CONCEPTUAL: OPERATIONAL: Parental Facial CONCEPTUAL: OPERATIONAL: A sound produced by a human voice to relate to another human being. Any sound directed toward the infant by the parent. Each episode is one vocalization. Expression: A movement of facial muscles to form an expression to enlist or retain the infant’s attention, eg. smile, frown. A retained expression (e.g. smile) is one expression, even if vocalization changes. Parental Gesture: CONCEPTUAL: OPERATIONAL: Parental Touch: CONCEPTUAL: OPERATIONAL: A body movement used to express emotion. A hand, head, or other body part which is moved to elicit involvement with the infant. A pause of more than three seconds indicates a new gesture. To physically contact another human. Any touch of the infant by the parent, other than for physical 9 support or caretaking of the infant. A pause of more than three seconds indicates a new touch. Parental Eye Contact: CONCEPTUAL: Having the eyes of one person look directly into the eyes of another person. OPERATIONAL: A meeting of the eyes of the parent and the infant for a minimum of three seconds. A continuous gaze is scored as one eye contact. For this study an infant was a human baby, between two and four weeks of age. Confounding variables which were considered include parents’ previous experience with infants and which parent was the primary caregiver. The variable of race was minimized since most researchers believe that parent-infant communication is an international language which does not differ by culture or ethnicity (Chase, .1991). Assumptions 1. Parent—infant communication consists of five basic aspects: vocalization, gesture, facial expression, eye contact and touch. 2. Communication is a primary component of the dyadic system. The system is a feedback loop in which 10 both parties contribute to the interaction; It is not static over time, but changes as each member of the dyad responds to the other member. The concept of communication must be examined part by part, but without putting these parts together, and looking at them as they interact and change, there is no concept. 3. Communication is valuable to both parties involved in it. There is personal value in the process of communication, both for the parent, to establish a foundation of behaviors which will mediate the nature of the parenting relationship, and for the infant, to develop skills necessary to function in a relationship with the parents and in society. Chapter II REVIEW OF LITERATURE Researchers have studied aspects of parent-infant communication and have attempted to discern exactly what is involved. This review will examine three major areas important to the further study of this phenomenon. First, the terminology used by various authors to describe parent-infant communication will define some components of the phenomenon as well as demonstrate the lack of consensus about its’ exact nature. Next, some of the requirements for parent-infant communication to occur will be examined. These requirements include the contributions necessary from each person in the dyad, and the physical requirements necessary for communication to occur. Finally, the review will examine the effects of parental variables on parent-infant communication. Nature g; Parent-Infant Communication Mother-infant communication has been described by various terms in the literature. These terms have attempted to explain what happens when a parent and an infant communicate. Hopkins (1983) sees mother-infant communication as a developing system. Brazelton (1982) and Lester, Hoffman, and Brazelton (1985) see communication as a cycle of social exchanges. It is seen 11 12 as turn-taking by Cohn and Tronick (1987), and Rutter and Durkin (1987). Both Brazelton (1982) and Censullo, Lester, and Hoffman (1985), describe mother-infant communication as rhythmic patterning, noting that the rhythmicity between primary caregiver and infant is an essential ingredient in their developing relationship. Brazelton goes on to state that mother and baby synchronize their interaction. Belsky, Taylor, and Rovine (1984) looked at mother-infant communication as reciprocal exchange in which the parent adjusts the rhythm and tempo of interaction in order to maintain behavioral synchrony between interactants. Interaction is another term frequently used for communication. Cohn and Tronick (1987) studied mother-- infant interaction and identified several components of it. They also recognized that mother-infant communication is transactional, since each partner changes in response to the changes of the other. The variety of labels used to describe parent-infant communication demonstrates the difficulty in pinpointing the exact nature of this phenomenon. Although each label adds a dimension of meaning to parent-infant communication, there is not a clear understanding of its nature. Several studies did attempt to identify components of parent-infant communication. Cohn and Tronick (1987) 13 described interaction as consisting of affective expressions, postures, vocalization, gestures and gazes. They observed these five components occurring in most episodes of interaction. A similar finding was reported by Yogman (1982), who studied father-infant interaction in order to determine how infants differ in their patterns of expressive behavior during interactions with fathers as compared with mothers and strangers. He used infant movement, facial appearance, look, and vocalization, and parent body position, facial appearance, look, vocalization, and touch, to score behavior. A pilot study for a program to promote greater responsiveness in adolescent parent-infant relationships used gaze, vocalization, facial expression, body position and limb movement as behaviors which both infants and parents use in communicating. These components helped to explain to young parents how communication occurs between infants and parents (Censullo, 1994). Finally, a 1992 study identified three distinct channels of communication evident in the free play interactions of 4-month-old infants and their mothers: attentional, vocal and affective (Barratt, Raoch, & Leavitt). Requirements for Parent-Infant Communication t9 Qggu; ~ In order to examine parent-infant communication, the researcher must be aware of what is necessary for this communication to occur. Both members of the dyad must 14 contribute something to the interactions. First of all, parents must be sensitive to their infants (Ainsworth, 1979; Brazelton, Koslowski, and Main, 1974; Lamb & Oppenheim, 1989). This involves being able to read the child’s signals, know what he or she wants, know how to respond appropriately, and know what expectations are realistic. It is sensitive mothering, evidencing appropriate responsiveness to infant cues, that fosters optimal infant development (Belsky and Benn, 1982). The mother acts as interpreter of the infant’s communication and must understand and act appropriately (Keller and Scholmerich, 1987). Mothers as well as fathers use a speech type very different from adult patterns (Stern, 1974) which has been called "motherese" (Chase, 1991). This speech type is more high pitched and has more tone contrast than adult speech. The tempo is slower, the intonations are more exaggerated and the rhythm is very different from adult speech. In addition to using a different type of speech, mothers imitate the infant’s facial expressions and gestures (Field, 1977). The infant’s contribution to the interactions is not as easily determined. However, it is neCessary that the infant respond to the parent by some signal such as body or eye movements. Gaze is very important, as shown by Fraiberg's (1977) longitudinal study of blind infants. 15 Body movement in response to mother’s voice also is something the infant does, though not necessarily in a synchronized fashion and not purposively (Trevarthen, 1977). Physical requirements necessary for communication to occur are simple. The mother and infant must be physically close to each other (Bell, 1974). Signal behaviors by the infant such as crying or smiling increase the proximity of mother and baby. The baby must be in an alert state (Klaus, and Kennell, 1976). Early and extended contact enhances synchrony and mother’s responsiveness (Siegel, 1982). Parental Variables Parental variables may affect parent-infant communication. Gender, age, educational level and socioeconomic status (SES) of the parents may affect how a parent communicates with his or her infant. Here these variables will be reviewed. Gender Both mothers and fathers are capable of skilled and sensitive social interaction with their young infants. Mothers spend more time than fathers in interaction with or being accessible to their children, even when both parents are employed (Lamb & Oppenheim, 1989), therefore many studies of infant interaction have focused only on the mother. In some cases, mother-infant interaction was 16 used to examine other variables like attachment (Ainsworth, 1979; and Blehar, Lieberman & Ainsworth, 1977), IQ and infant language skills (Bee, Barnard, Eyres, Gray, Hammond, Spietz, Snyder & Clark, 1982), and infant cognitive competence (Olson, Bates, & Bayles, 1984). Field (1977) studied mother-infant interaction as it was affected by early separation, infant deficits, and experimental manipulations. All of these researchers used interaction as a variable but did not attempt to study it as a phenomenon. Other scholars examined mother-infant interaction as an entity in itself. Belsky, Taylor, and Rovine reported a study to look at reciprocal interaction in the mother-infant dyad (1984). Using time sampling, frequency count observations of 74 mother-infant dyads examined at one, three, and nine months of age they attempted to capture dimensions of the mother—infant relationship in order to advance understanding of the development of that relationship. They were looking for change and stability of individual differences over time and development. Interaction was operationalized for the mother as vocalization, response, affect, including smiles and hugs, and stimulation of the infant. Results showed that their procedure for assessing mother-infant interactions could capture a set of theoretically important dimensions of mother-infant interaction, that 17 interaction remains constant over time, and that as infants develop they carry more of the interactive burden in social exchanges with mother. Two studies reported in 1985 (Censullo, Lester, & Hoffman; and Lester, Hoffman, & Brazelton), examined mother-infant interaction for patterns and rhythms. Censullo et. a1. looked at 30 pairs of mothers and their infants using five dyadic phases, each with several levels, to determine whether the interaction occurred in cycles and\or was synchronous. The dyadic phases clustered specific mother-newborn behaviors as interactive units along a dimension of disengagement-- engagement. These behaviors included positive affect, arousal, gaze and animation increase. Spectral analysis revealed nonrandom, reliable rhythms in dyadic mother-- newborn interaction from birth in term infants and from 40 weeks gestation for preterm pairs. Lester, et al. (1985), studied 40 mother-infant pairs to quantify social interaction rhythms in three to five month old infants. The seven categories of monadic phases which had been developed in an earlier study, avoidance, aversion, monitoring, eliciting, setting, playing and talking, were expanded to thirteen categories, and each dyad was scored second-by-second with scores ranging from one to thirteen. Both the mother and the infant received a total score which was 18 analyzed using spectral analysis to determine cyclicity of interaction. Results showed periodicity in behaviors, with both cycles and synchrony exhibited. The authors concluded that the interactive rhythms found in the study indicate the presence of dynamic processes in the development of social interaction. These may have implications for the development of communication and language. The phenomenon of mother-infant interaction was further studied for the sequence of dyadic states (Cohn & Tronick, 1987). Eighteen mother-infant pairs were videotaped in an observation room at 3, 6, and 9 months of age to analyze the transitions among dyadic states. The interactions were grouped into phases clustering affective expressions, postures, vocalizations and gestures and gaze. This attempt to explain mother-infant interaction showed that mothers and infants do not change states simultaneously, but each attempts to regulate his or her behavior in response to that of the other. There is a relationship between the responses of both mothers and babies, but not in a precisely synchronized manner. These studies have examined how a mother interacts with her infant and how the infant responds to the mother. Two limitations of these studies are noteworthy as they relate to the current study. First, the phenomenon studied was interaction, a broader concept 19 than communication, since it includes activities like playing games, feeding and diapering. Second, the components of interaction were not specifically identified. That is, the amount of time that a mother spends on parts of interaction like vocalization, gaze, or touch were not delineated. The components were used to examine other concepts like rythmicity, reciprocity, and state changes, but were not studied for their own value. Fathers also influence the development of their children, both directly through interaction and indirectly by their impact on the family’s social and emotional climate. Children with highly involved fathers are characterized by increased cognitive competence, increased empathy, less sex-stereotyped beliefs and a more internal locus of control (Lamb & Oppenheim, 1989). As with mothers, father-infant interaction has been studied both as a means to examine other variables like attachment (Lamb, 1980), and as a phenomenon of itself (Clarke-Stewart, 1980: Parke & O’Leary, 1976; Parke & Sawin, 1980: Yogman, 1982; Yogman, 1987). In a classic study by Parke and O’Leary (1976), nineteen fathers, mothers and their infants were directly observed to explore the manner in which fathers interact with their newborns and to compare father and mother patterns. The frequency of parent behaviors for such as 20 look, vocalize, smile, rock, touch, kiss, imitate, feed, and change position were recorded. Fathers held, rocked, and provided more auditory and physical stimulation to their infants than did their mothers, who, in turn, both fed and smiled more at their infants than did the fathers. Both first and second order effects also were analyzed. When alone, mothers and fathers differed only slightly in their patterns of interaction. Later studies had differing results. In a short term longitudinal study of parent-infant interaction over three months beginning at birth (Parke & Sawin, 1980), parents were observed while feeding and playing with their infants partly to determine the interrelations among patterns of behavior in interactions. It was found that mothers were found to engage in more caretaking activities and verbal interaction than fathers, while fathers provided more social stimulation than mothers. A similar study showed that mothers and fathers did not differ in the frequency of the majority of behaviors (Parke and Tinsley, 1981). It was found that when fathers spend more time in caretaking activities the amount of playing done with their infants decreases (Sheilds & Sparling, 1993). A study was done with older children, aged 15 to 30 months, to assess similarities and differences in mother and father attitudes and interactions with their 21 children. It found that mothers and fathers were similar in responsiveness, stimulation, affection, effectiveness, in attitudes about the child, independence, teaching and in the patterns of interrelations among their behaviors. Mothers and fathers differed in the amount of time and interaction they had with their children but were relatively similar in the quality of their interaction (Clarke-Stewart, 1980). Later studies by Yogman (1982, 1987) with full term and preterm infants were done to determine how infants differ in patterns of expressive behaviors during interaction with fathers compared with mothers and strangers. These studies looked at the monadic phases of talk, play, set, monitor, avert, and protest/avoid and the patterns and amounts of time spent in each phase. Both fathers and mothers were found to spend about 90% of their time in the affectively positive phases of set, play and talk, with obvious cycles occurring. However, fathers had more accentuated peaks of maximal attention and valleys of minimal attention, while mothers were more gradual and modular in their phase shifts. It also was found that fathers play more games with their infants than mothers do, especially physical games which are more vigorous, arousing and stimulating than the more visual, distal games played by mothers. These studies revealed some of the differences in 22 parent-infant interaction which occur related to parental gender. However, they do not focus specifically on communication rather than interaction, nor do they completely examine the various components of communication such as vocalization, facial expression, gestures, touch, and eye contact and how these are different or the same between mothers and fathers. Age The age of the parent has an affect on parent-infant communication. Young mothers’ communicative styles seem to be less verbal, less emotionally positive, and less didactic as found in a study of 50 women using the Home Observation for Measurement of the Environment (HOME) (Coll, Hoffman, and Oh, 1987). In a study of one hundred sixty infant-mother dyads of whom half were teen mothers and half were adult mothers, teenage mothers were less vocal, less contingently responsive and engaged in less game playing during face-to-face interactions than adult mothers (Field, 1980). Communications also were found to be of lower frequency and lower quality than in a comparison group of older mothers (Schellenbach, Whitman, and Borkowski, 1992). They vocalize to their infants less and have fewer positive exchanges with their children than older mothers (Jorgensen, 1993). Older mothers on the other hand are noted to be more sensitive toward their infants and display more mutual 23 gaze, vocalizations and touch than their younger counterparts (Censullo, 1994; Hans & Bernstein, 1991). Older fathers too were noted to have more communication with their infants in the form of touch than younger fathers (Sheilds, 1993). Socially and emotionally, children of young mothers tend to experience higher levels of impairment and mild behavior disorders than children of older mothers, although this association is generally weak and is less significant than findings for educational achievement (Voydanoff & Donnelly, 1990). Overall the effect of the mother’s age on her child’s social and emotional development is not direct but is transmitted through other factors associated with early childbearing, such as educational and economic disadvantage and greater likelihood of marital breakup (Baldwin & Cain, 1980). Socioeconomic Status Comparisons of early interactions across socioeconomic status (SES) groups have freqently revealed that both lower-class infants and their mothers are less active, particularly verbally, than their middle-class counterparts. As early as the first month of life, lower-class infants received significantly less verbal stimulation from their mothers in both a lulling and chatting fashion during interaction and care-giving activities (Kilbride, Johnson, & Streissguth, 1977). 24 Studies of 4-month-old infants, for example, by Lewis and Wilson (1972) report less smiling and vocalizing among the lower-class infants and less contingent responsivity among their mothers, although no class differences were reported for the frequency of mother vocalizations. In a study of 160 mother-infant dyads at four months of age, the 80 lower class mothers vocalized for lesser proportions of the time and received less optimal ratings on physical activity, vocalizations, infantized behavior, contingent responsivity, and game-playing than the 80 middle class mothers observed (Field, 1980). Middle class mothers tend, on average, to talk more to their infants than less advantaged mothers (Adams & Ramey, 1980). Socioeconomic status of the mother was examined as related to structural aspects of maternal speech by Adams and Ramey (1980). In 27 mother-infant dyads observed at six months of age, it was found that there were large individual differences for measure of sentence form, lower SES mothers used more imperatives, but there was little difference in the amount of speech to infants for SES. The SES of the mother was closely linked to her child's cognitive test scores in one study. It was noted that most of the children of young mothers with truncated education and poor employment performed worse on 25 cognitive development tests than children of older mothers of higher SES (Baldwin and Cain, 1980). Education Research relating educational level to parent-infant communication is scarce. Because educational level is a weighted component of the SES, there should be similar relationships between SES and parent-infant communication and parental education and parent-infant communication. Usually younger parents are both less educated and poorer than older parents, so data obtained about those variables may be generalized to educational level of the parent. In a doctoral study of parent sensitivity to the infant, it was found that mothers with partial college or higher levels of education were more sensitive to infants than were those with less education. This was not found to be true of fathers (Broom, 1991). Alternatively, however, in a descriptive study of twenty-one fathers in interaction with their three-month-old infants, fathers’ eductional level appeared to be positively related to the sensitivity of the fathers. Here the father’s educational level was correlated with the amount and quality of physical involvement with the infant (Sheilds & Sparling, 1993). The literature has shown that there are many relationships between parental variables and parent-- infant communication. However, a clear picture of how 26 the components of communication may differ relating to parental variables has not appeared. This study attempted to demonstrate these relationships. Conceptual Model Two models served to guide this study. The first was the human ecology model. The ecological approach is founded in ecology, the study of the interrelations of organisms and environment. It is built on the concept of an ecosystem, a name for the interaction system comprised of living things together with their habitat or environment which surrounds them. An ecological approach utilizes concepts from general systems theory and social systems theory (Andrews, Bubolz, & Paolucci, 1980). Human ecology has emerged as a perspective in several social science disciplines, as well as in the arts and humanities. Human ecology is concerned with interaction and interdependence of humans as individuals, groups and societies with the environment. A key process is adaptations by humans of and to their environment (Bubolz & Sontag, 1993). A family ecosystem consists of a given family system interacting with its environment. The family ecosystem has three central organizing concepts: environed unit, environment, and the patterning interactions and transactions between them (Andrews, Bubolz, & Paolucci, 1980). In the family ecosystem, the environed unit is the 27 group of persons who constitute the family; A family is a unit of interacting and interdependent personalities who have a common theme and goals, have a commitment over time and share resources and living space. The family is a unity of interacting persons with an identity and character of its own, more than the sum of the individuals who make it up. It depends on the natural environment for physical sustenance and the social environment for humanness and for giving quality and meaning to life (Hook & Paolucci, 1970). Family members operate as autonomous individuals but are also mutually dependent upon each other. They have needs for having, relating, and being. These needs are met within the family as physical, psychological and spiritual resources are distributed, exchanged and used (Bubolz & Paolucci, 1993). Within the family, an individual becomes progressively more able to interact with more differentiated and complex environments on physical, social, emotional, and cognitive levels. In this study, the influence of the parents on the development of the infant is examined. The parent and infant, both within the family, interact with and communicate on a daily basis. The parents assist the infant to become progressively more able to interact with them, then more complex environments. The family is a critical microsystem for human development. 28 The environments of the family furnish the resources necessary for life and constitute the life-support system. Environment consists of the totality of the physical, biological, social, economic, political, aesthetic, and structural surroundings for human beings and the context for their behavior and development. Three interrelated environments are conceptualized. The natural physical-biological environment includes physical and biological components as they exist unaltered in nature, such as climate, soil, plants and animals. The human built environment includes alterations and transformations made by humans of the natural physical-- biological environment such as roads, urban settlements, and polluted air and water. The social-cultural environment includes things such as the presence of other human beings, cultural constructions like language and values, and social and economic institutions like industrial systems and market economy. The environments are embedded within each other (Bubolz & Sontag, 1993). The environment which is most relevant to the current study is the social-cultural environment. Here the infant is influenced by his or her parents and by the language which they speak. The family ecosystem itself can be viewed as an environment that supports the development of individual subsystems or family members. The sociopsychological and 29 behavioral environment of roles, rules, and interactions supports the development of those human characteristics that serve as integrative functions for society such as the building of trust, love, relatedness, and order. Family aspirations, values, and child rearing styles interact with the material resource base of the family. Family communication is very important within the family environment as it influences the atmosphere of the home and the way that infants and children learn to interact. The conditions of the home environment critically influence the development and continuing growth of both children and adults (Andrews, Bubolz, & Paolucci, 1980). A third component of the family ecosystem is the organization derived from patterns of transactions between environed units and the environment. This organization relates the family system to the environment and is created and constantly evolving through reciprocally directed transactions or exchanges of energy between and among systems and environments. Family members structure a pattern of communication for transforming matter-energy and information. Communication is the process of interaction by which information and meaning are created and transmitted between parents and their children or between the family and other systems in the environment. It is one of the most significant interaction processes in the family 3O ecosystem (Bubolz & Sontag, 1993). Communication requires a feedback system. The parent must recognize and understand the methods of communication of his or her infant, and must be able to transmit messages utilizing a similar system. Each member of the dyad must learn the nuances of behavior patterns of the other member of the dyad. The rules for communication are constantly altered by each member of the dyad, and flexibility and change are necessary for maintaining optimal interaction (Brazelton, Koslowski, & Main, 1974). Both individual and family attributes can influence parent-infant communication. Individual attributes of the parent could be values, personality, education, intelligence, spouse interactions, beliefs, parental goals, perception of the child, physical ability, and health (Bristor, 1983). Individual attributes of the infant could be temperament (Thomas & Chess, 1997), state of consciousness (Ashton, 1973), and responsiveness to tactile, visual and auditory stimuli (Brazelton, et al., 1974). Family attributes which might have an influence on parent-infant communication might include any or all of the following: family size, patterns of interaction, housing, sex roles, goals, labor force participation, and resources such as education, money, medical care, and social support. These attributes could directly or indirectly influence parent-infant communication by 31 changing the amounts of time, space or energy available to the dyad. From an ecological perspective, the larger environment could also have an influence on the parent--- infant communication process, though in an indirect way. It could affect each individual member of the dyad. This in turn would affect the way each member interacts with the other member. Cultural values and rules, "rules" learned from neighbors, friends, and extended family would all have an influence on the way a mother or father communicates with the infant. This, in turn, would influence the way an infant communicates back to the parent. It is important to consider individual, family and environmental attributes when examining the transactional patterns of parents and infants. Within the family, energy is required for system maintenance and existence. Additional energy is required for transactions with other systems beyond the family, like educational, religious, or economic systems. Still higher levels of energy are needed for adaptive behavior to cope with changing environments and rules. The family uses information, goods and services to support the production, consumption, and socialization functions of the family. They use communication, decision making, and technology to organize themselves, to sustain themselves and to develop the family members (Bubolz & Sontag, 32 1993). They then reach outcomes which give them a certain quality of life and quality of the environment, hopefully for human betterment. The family produces output to the environment of material goods, information, waste products and human resources (Andrews, Bubolz, & Sontag, 1980). One of the major outputs of a family system is human resources. Bronfenbrenner (1979) proposed a model which helps to understand how individuals develop within the family system. The individuals within the family perceive, conceptualize and act in relation to their environment. Bronfenbrenner described the individual’s environment as a set of nested structures, each inside the next, like a set of Russian dolls. He proposed four levels of environmental systems, differentiated on the basis of their immediacy with respect to the developing person. The family is the principal microsystem context within which development takes place. Mesosystems (e.g. relations among home and school), exosystems (e.g. like work settings), and the macrosystem which includes cultural beliefs, value systems, and institutions are also powerful influences upon human development. The micro-, meso-, and exosystems are embedded in the macrosystem. The chronosystem adds the dimension of time to the model, since the fluidity of time encompasses all life situations (Bronfenbrenner, 1989). 33 Within this ecosystem, an individual develops and changes. Bronfenbrenner proposed that the characteristics of a person at a given time in his or her life are a joint function of the characteristics of the person and of the environment over the course of the person’s life up to that time. Within the microsystem the pattern of activities, roles, and interpersonal relations experienced by the developing person in a given face-to-face setting with particular physical and material features, and containing other persons with distinctive characteristics of temperament, personality, and systems of belief shapes development. The developmental processes taking place within a setting can vary substantially as a function of the personal attributes of significant others present in the setting as well as the belief systems, resources, life styles, life course options, and patterns of social interchange that are imbedded in the system (Bronfenbrenner, 1989). There is dyadic interaction between individuals which causes both of them to change and develop. An infant must develop competence within the family to carry out family functions and to later participate in community affairs and utilize community institutions. The basic elements of human competence such as communication and relationships must be learned within the family. Communication is not static over time, but changes as 34 each member of the dyad responds to the other member. Transactions occur which allows both parent and child to change and grow. Individuals acquire a repertoire of skills, attitudes, and values within the family which are required to persevere and perform in all levels of the ecosystem. These two models directed this research. The study looks at the family as a system, examining the dimensions of parent-infant transaction, not extensive concepts of communication theory. The family ecosystem supports the development of family members. Parents, with all of their personal characteristics and attributes influence how a newborn learns to communicate. The environments in which the family exists all influence and are influenced by the family and the individuals within the family. Parental gender, age, education and SES all are interrelated and affect the development of communication between parent and newborn. Chapter III METHODOLOGY Research Questions The overall purpose of this research was to determine whether parent-newborn communication varies with parental gender, age, education, or socioeconomic status. Components of parent-newborn communication have been variously stated in the literature and were explored as to their validity and their relationship to a parent’s gender, age, education, and socioeconomic status. In order to accomplish this objective, several specific research questions were addressed. 1. Are there differences in the degree of utilization of communication components in parent-newborn communication? 2. Are there differences in the degree of utilization of communication components in mother-newborn communication? 3. Are there differences in the degree of utilization of communication components in father-newborn communication? 4. Is there a relationship between parental gender and parent-newborn communication? 5. Is there a relationship between parental age and 35 36 parent-newborn communication? 6. Is there a relationship between parental education and parent-newborn communication? 7. Is there a relationship between parental socioeconomic status and parent-newborn communication? Research Hypotheses Because a number of hypotheses were posed for several of the research questions, the research question is restated before each set of hypotheses. The following hypotheses were proposed addressing the research questions. Research Question 1: Are there differences in the degree of utilization of communication components in parent-newborn communication? Ho 1: There will be no difference in the degree of utilization of communication components in parent-newborn communication. Ha I: There will be a difference in the degree of utilization of communication components used in parent-newborn communication. Research Question 2: Are there differences in the degree of utilization of communication components in mother-newborn communication? Ho 2: There will be no difference in the degree of utilization of communication components used Ha 37 in mother-newborn communication. There will be a difference in the degree of utilization of communication components used in mother—newborn communication. Research Question 3: Are there differences in the degree of utilization of communication components in father-newborn communication? Ho Ha 3: There will be no difference in the degree of utilization of communication components used in father-newborn communication. There will be a difference in the degree of utilization of communication components used in father-newborn communication. Research Question 4: Is there a relationship between parental gender and parent-newborn communication? Ho Ha Ho Ha Ho 4: There will be no relationship between parental gender and parent-newborn communication. There will be a relationship between parental gender and parent-infant communication. There will be no relationship between parental gender and the communication component of vocalization. Mothers will use more vocalization than fathers in parent-newborn communication. There will be no relationship between Ha 6: Ho 7: Ha 7 Ho 8: Ha 8: Ho 9: Ha 9: 38 parental gender and the communication component of facial expression. Mothers will use more facial expressions than fathers in parent-newborn communication. There will be no relationship between parental gender and the communication component of gesture. Fathers will use more gestures than mothers in parent-newborn communication. There will be no relationship between parental gender and the communication component of touch. Fathers will use more touch than mothers in parent-newborn communication. There will be no relationship between parental gender and the communication component of eye contact. There will be a difference between the scores of mother-newborn and father-newborn communication for eye contact. Research Question 5: Is there a relationship between parental age and parent-newborn communication? Ho 10: Ha 10: There will be no relationship between parental age and parent-newborn communication. Older parents will have higher parent-infant Ho Ha Ho Ha Ho Ha Ho Ha Ho 11: 11: 12: 12: 13: 13: 14: 14: 15: 39 communication scores than younger parents. There will be no relationship between parental age and the communication component of vocalization. Older parents will vocalize more to their infants than younger parents. There will be no relationship between parental age and the communication component of facial expression. There will be a relationship between parental age and the communication component of facial expression. There will be no relationship between parental age and the communication component of gesture. There will be a relationship between parental age and the communication component of gesture. There will be no relationship between parental age and the communication component of touch. There will be a relationship between parental age and the communication component of touch. There will be no relationship between parental age and the communication component of eye contact. 40 Ha 15: There will be a relationship between parental age and the communication component of eye contact. Research Question 6: Is there a relationship between parental education and parent-newborn communication? Ho 16: Ha HO Ha Ho Ha 16: 17: 17: 18: 18: There will be no relationship between parental education and parent-newborn communication. Parents with higher levels of education will have higher parent-infant communication scores than parents with lower levels of education. There will be no‘relationship between parental education and the communication component of vocalization. Parents with higher levels of education will have higher parent-newborn scores for vocalization than parents with lower levels of education. There will be no relationship between parental education and the communication component of facial expression. There will be a relationship between parental education and the communication component of facial expression. HO Ha Ho Ha Ho Ha 19: 19: 20: 20: 21: 21: 41 There will be no relationship between parental education and the communication component of gesture. There will be a relationship between parental education and the communication component of gesture. There will be no relationship between parental education and the communication component of touch. There will be a relationship between parental education and the communication component of touch. There will be no relationship between parental education and the communication component of eye contact. There will be a relationship between parental education and the communication component of eye contact. Research Question 7: Is there a relationship between parental socioeconomic status and parent—newborn communication? ‘Ho 22: There will be no relationship between parental SES and parent-newborn communication. Ha 22: Parents of higher SES will have higher parent-newborn communication scores than Ho Ha Ho Ha Ho Ha Ho Ha Ho 23: 23: 24: 24: 25: 25: 26: 26: 27: 42 parents with lower SES. There will be no relationship between parental SES and the communication component of vocalization. Parents with a higher SES will vocalize more to their newborns than parents with lower SES. There will be no relationship between parental SES and the communication component of facial expression. There will be a relationship between parental SES and the communication component of facial expression. There will be no relationship between parental SES and the communication component of gesture. There will be a relationship between parental SES and the communication component of gesture. There will be no relationship between parental SES and the communication component of touch. There will be a relationship between parental SES and the communication component of touch. There will be no relationship between parental SES and the communication component 43 of eye contact. Ha 27: There will be a relationship between parental SES and communication component of eye contact. Note that hypotheses 4, 10, 16, and 22 deal with relationships between overall communication scores and parental variables, while hypotheses 5-9, 11-15, 17-21 and 23-27 deal with relationships between parental variables and components of communication. Design Qf this Study In order to examine the communication between a parent and the infant, and to determine the relationship between parental variables and communication patterns, the following study was carried out. The non-experimental, descriptive study was cross-- sectional using parents and infants in dyads of mother-- newborn and father-newborn. The setting was partially controlled. It occurred in a western Michigan community which is primarily Caucasian and is stable economically. Significance of the data was determined by using the decision rule of p=<.05. The null hypothesis was rejected if there was a five percent or more probability that the null hypothesis could have occurred by chance. Instrumentation Two instruments were used to collect the data. The first was a demographic data sheet (Appendix A). It 44 included items such as age, race, sex, marital status, education, occupation, and primary caregiver status. The education was divided into four categories: completion of less than 12th grade or GED, completion of 12th grade or GED, completion of more than 12th grade (college or vocational), and college graduate. The socio-economic data were classified according to the Hollingshead Two Factor Index of Social Position (1991). The occupational scale is a 7 point scale which ranks professions into different groups and businesses by their size and value. The educational scale is also divided into 7 positions. In the two-factor index, occupation is given a weight of 7 and education a weight of 4. The range of scores in each of five social classes is 11-17, class I, 18-31, class II, 32-47, class III, 48-63, class IV, and 64-77, class V. Extensive use of the tool in the United States has extablished its reliability at approximately 90% (Appendix B). The second tool used was an instrument designed specifically for this study, called Parent-Infant Communication Tool (PICT) (Appendix C). It was coded into headings for vocalization, facial expression, gesture, touch, and eye contact. It was designed to determine which aspects of parent-infant communication are used most often by the parent. The researcher manually marked each instance of the five aspects of 45 communication as they occurred during a seven and one half minute period, with alternating 45 second intervals of recording and not recording. Scoring was achieved in two ways. First the frequency score for each of the five categories was obtained. This score was the raw score for the category. Next, the five raw scores were added for each person. This was the combined raw score, the total score. Prior to the study, the instrument was tested for reliability by administering it to three families meeting the criteria of the study, but who were not included in the study sample. Parents scored similarly on the tool and it proved workable. A videotape was made of one family to allow the researcher to score that interaction at different times. Intrarater reliability was found to be approximately 90%. The tool has construct validity since it is based on the work of Cohn and Tronick (1987). A similar measure was used by Yogman (1982), who studied infant movement, facial appearance, look and vocalization, and parent body position, facial appearance, look, vocalization, and touch. Face validity was established by submission of the tool to two nurses who work with parents and infants. Both nurses felt that the components of communication listed on the tool were accurate reflections of what happens when a parent communicates with his or her 46 newborn infant. Sampling Procedures The population studied were parents and their infants in a medium-sized midwestern community. One hundred parents and their 50 infants constituted the study group. To qualify to be in the study, each family group must have contained two parents and a full term (37 week), healthy singleton infant who was between two and four weeks of age. The parents spoke English and were living with each other and the infant, though were not necessarily legally married. The infant was the first infant raised by this set of parents. Neither of the parents had raised an infant prior to this one. Families were obtained through lists of births in a local hospital between May and August, 1995. After permission was obtained from the University’s Committee on Research Involving Human Subjects (UCRIHS), and the hospital’s human research committee, birth records were examined. Those parents who met the qualifications specified above were listed. No attempt was made to stratify the sample. Those parents who met the study criteria were personally contacted by the researcher while they were still in the hospital. The researcher is a registered nurse with both obstetric, newborn and community health experience. 'The study was explained, questions answered, 47 and written permission obtained to participate in the study (Appendix D). Arrangements were made for the researcher to call or write to the parents within two weeks to establish a date for a home visit. A phone call was then made to set up the appointment to meet with the parents and the infant in their home. The mother-newborn dyad and the father-newborn dyad were both to be available. Data Collection Procedures A visit was made on a day and time convenient to the family, when both parents and the newborn were at home. The infant was between two and four weeks of age. One parent was asked to fill out the demographic questionnaire while the other parent and the newborn were observed during an interaction. To reduce any bias resulting from the order of observation, the parent who was observed first in each family alternated between the mother and the father. The PICT was used during a seven and one half minute observational period after the parent had been instructed to play with the newborn without using any toys. The parents all held the infant while sitting down. Data Analysis By examining the data obtained, it was possible to state how the parent-newborn pairs communicate and how differences in parental gender, education, age and SES 48 were related to the communication. The demographic data were analyzed using descriptive techniques. The mode, mean, median, range and standard deviation for age, education, and SES status were determined. To answer research questions one, two and three regarding the differences in the degree of utilization of communication components in parent-newborn communication, in mother-newborn communication and in father-newborn communication, the scores obtained from each component of the PICT were added for fathers and also for mothers. This raw score for each communication component for fathers and for mothers was examined for frequencies, range and standard deviation. Next, the total scores for fathers and for mothers were examined for central tendencies, range, and standard deviation. Finally, the total scores for both fathers and mothers were combined to get a family score. This too was examined for central tendencies, range, and standard deviation. The means of these scores were compared using a t-test. In addition, a multivariate regression analysis was done using the family score. This analysis showed the influence of each of the five components of the communication score on the parent-newborn communication score. The overall significance was determined using an F test, and the significance of each variable determined using a t-test. The null hypothesis was rejected with a significant F or 49 t test(<.05). Research questions four through seven asked if the scores for the communication components differed according to the parental attributes of gender, age, education, and SES. To answer these questions, ANOVA was used. This allowed examination of each of the communication components versus each independent variable. The significance was determined using an F test. Additional analysis was done on some of the variables. A repeated analysis was done with the family considered the observation. Baby’s gender was used as an additional independent variable, using parent gender as the dependent variable. The data were observed for interactions. Multivariate regression analysis also was used to investigate the relationship between the communication components for each parent and other variables. Chapter IV Results This chapter presents study findings organized into two sections. The first section presents demographic data obtained about the families involved in the study. The second section reports the results of ANOVA and multivariate regression analyses related to the seven research questions. Demographic Data One hundred parents and their 50 infants took part in this study over a three and one half month period in the summer of 1995. Fifty fathers with an average age of 27.8, range of 18 to 36, and fifty mothers with an average age of 26.2, range of 16 to 35, took part in the study. Fathers were close to two years older than mothers on the average (t=3.94, p=<.05). All infants were between two and four weeks of age. There were 24 boys (48%) and 26 girls (52%). The majority of infants were born vaginally (72%). Ninety two percent (46) of the couples were married, and 8% (4) were unmarried but living together. As a group, the parents were quite highly educated. Fifty (50%) of them were college graduates, 27 (27%) had education beyond high school, 14 (14%) were high school 50 51 graduates and 9 (9%) had less than a 12th grade education. More fathers than mothers were high school graduates (18% vs. 10%), but more mothers than fathers were college graduates (54% vs. 46%). All of Hollingshead’s (1991) five social classes were represented, with a fairly even distribution among the classes (Table 1). The social class of fathers and mothers were calculated separately, since social class is based on education and occupation. Forty percent (40%) of the mothers were in the lowest two classes while 32% of the fathers were in these classes. Thirty eight percent (38%) of the mothers were in the top two classes while 48% of the fathers were in these classes. Research Questions In this section the research questions asked in this study will be identified, followed by the hypotheses which follow from them. Then the results will be presented. Research Question 1: Are there differences in the degree of utilization of communication components in parent-newborn communication? Hol There will be no difference in the degree of utilization of communication components in parent-newborn communication. Table 2 presents the relative contribution of the variables to the prediction of communication, when other 52 Table l Emuengy Qf Smiflgnomic Classes among Parents ‘ Social Class Mother (50) Father (50) f % f % Class I 12 24 11 22 Class II 7 l4 13 26 Class III 11 22 10 20 Class IV 13 26 12 24 Class V 7 14 4 8 NQ‘IIE: SE8 classes according to Hollingshead with I being the highest class and V the lowest class. Table 2 Mulg'ple Regression Analysis of gzgmmunication Qn Eye antact, Facial Expressign, Tguch, and Vocaligtign Independent Variable B Beta t Eye Contact 0.12 0.15 2.45* Facial Expression 0.14 0.17 2.80* Touch 0.54 0.57 9.46* Vocalization 0.66 0.64 1080* RE = .71, E(4,95) = 57.65* NOTE: B = unstandardized regression coefficients Beta = standardized regression coefficients *p= <.01 53 variables are controlled. Vocalization has the greatest influence on parent-infant communication. It has a beta weight of .64 which indicates that vocalization has a relatively high contribution to the prediction of the total communication score. Touch has the next greatest contribution, with eye contact and facial expression following. The R-squared indicates that 71% of the variance in communication scores can be explained by the combined influence of these four independent variables. Table 3 shows that there is a great deal of difference in the degree of utilization of communication components in parent-newborn communication. Vocalizations are by far the most frequently used component of parent-infant communication, accounting for 57% of the total score. Touch, facial expression, eye contact and gestures following in decreasing importance. The null hypothesis is rejected. Research Question 2: Are there differences in the degree of utilization of communication components in mother-newborn communication? H02 There will be no difference in the degree of utilization of communication components used in mother-newborn communication. Research Question 3: Are there differences in the degree of utilization of communication components in father-newborn communication? 54 an”: 85 v u N .. 323.. on .9652: on .3539 o2 u 2 ”a is; R: 4.2 3. 9: ed a. 8_ N.: 3 38. 8. N E _ N Z _ N 2 _ 6586 9m N. NN we 3 MN 3 E on he 3 685 8. N 3 1 N 2 _ N .1 I 2286 R. a 3 a. a pm 1. a pm 1. aeaoaxm EOE 3N mm as N R 3.. N R NN GN =oe-fi8> 92 a 8 m 32 a on w 92 a on N. 38858 aufimm 6562 aofiowos 3..on gang—25:50 ..C. a E: .u.. .c--..nm . .435. ..m... m: :2. . .. MO—Dflh. 55 H03 There will be no difference in the degree of utilization of communication components used in father-newborn communication. These two research questions can be answered in the affirmative. The pattern of utilization of the communication components is the same for mothers and for fathers and for both parents together (Table 3). Vocalization accounts for more than half of the communication by both mothers and fathers with their infant. Touch is the second most frequent component used by parents with their infants, accounting for 28% of mothers’ total communication and 32% of fathers’ total communication. The other three components account for very little of parent-infant communication. Null hypotheses two and three are rejected. Research Question 4: Is there a relationship between parental gender and parent-newborn communication? H04 There will be no relationship between parental gender and parent-newborn communication. H05 There will be no relationship between parental gender and the communication component of vocalization. H06 There will be no relationship between parental gender and the.communication component of facial expression. H07 There will be no relationship between parental 56 gender and the communication component of gesture. H08 There will be no relationship between parental gender and the communication component of touch. H09 There will be no relationship between parental gender and the communication component of eye contact. Table 3 shows that there is a statistically significant difference in the amount of vocalization done by mothers and fathers (t=2.9, p<.05), with mothers vocalizing more than fathers. Facial expression, gesture, touch and eye contact show differences in the means of each communication component but they are not significant. Although not statistically significant (t=1.78, p=.08), there was a considerable difference in the total number of times communication components were used by mothers and by fathers with their newborns. An analysis of variance of these results is presented in Tables 4 and 5. Differences in vocalization were statistically significant with F=(1,48)9.7, p=<.05. .The relationship between parental gender and parent-newborn communication becomes clear when the interaction effects are examined. There is an interaction between vocalization by gender of the parent and baby’s gender which is statistically significant, 57 Table 4 Aneve ef Vggglieag'on by Gender ef Egent and ef Infant Source Sum DF Mean F of Squares Squares Parental Gender + residual 1343.81 48 28.0 Vocalization 271.23 271.2 9.7* Baby Gender x Vocalization 145.19 1 145.2 5.2* * p = < .05 Table 5 Aneve ef Eye Centeet by Gender ef Parent Qd ef Infant Source Sum DF Mean F of Squares Squares Parental Gender + residual 100.8 48 2.1 Eye contact 1.1 1 1.1 .50 Baby Gender x Eye Contact 9.9 1 9.9 4.69"‘ *p= <.05 58 §=(1,48)5.2, p=<.05. Figure 1 gives a graphic picture of the vocalization of each parent with his or her newborn of different genders. Mothers vocalize more overall and more to male than female babies while fathers vocalize more to female than male babies. Differences in eye contact were not statistically significant, but the interaction effect between eye contact by gender of parent and baby’s gender was significant with £(1,48)=4.69, p=<.05. Figure 2 represents this effect. Mothers have more eye contact overall and have more eye contact with male than female babies, while fathers have more eye contact with female than male babies. Null hypotheses four and five are rejected. Null hypotheses six through nine are retained. Research question 5: Is there a relationship between parental age and parent-newborn communication? H010 There will be no relationship between parental age and parent-infant communication. H011 There will be no relationship between parental age and the communication component of vocalization. H012 There will be no relationship between parental age and the.communication component of facial expression. H013 There will be no relationship between parental 59 Male Female Average Mom 28.71 26.5 27.5_6 Dad 23 25.62 24.36 T Figure 1. Frequency of Parental Vocalization with Male and Female Infants in 7 1/2 Minute Observation Male Female Average Morn 1.63 0.65 1.12 Dad 0.79 1 .1 0.94 L Figure 2. Frequency of Parental Eye Contact with Male and Female Infants in 7 1/2 Minute Observation 60 age and the communication component of gesture. H014 There will be no relationship between parental age and the communication component of touch. H015 There will be no relationship between parental age and the communication component of eye contact. The mean scores of the communication components by age of the parent are presented in Table 6. Parents aged 21 through 29 used the most vocalization, with a significant difference between the youngest parents and those aged 21 through 29, with £(1,48)=4.95, p=<.05. The use of gestures was also significantly different depending on the age of the parent. Those parents aged 16 through 20 used significantly more gestures (£(2,97)=3.9, p=<.05) than parents aged 21 through 29. These results show that there is a relationship between parental age and parent-newborn communication. Younger parents use less vocalization than older parents and more gestures than older parents. Null hypotheses ten, eleven, and thirteen are rejected. Null hypotheses twelve, fourteen and fifteen are retained. Research question 6: Is there a relationship between parental education and parent-newborn 61 mo.V "a... N: Na 3. _.: S n: 9. as... . amt «4| «4.. lel WI ”4| 4. 85:00 ohm ... 8.6 n: as 2 so 3 6.5... .3“ 3 3 2 _ ...N N 8280 NS Na 3. an ... E N ..saaaxm 38m .3... n «N as N 1:: 8 aouaeaao> 8 m om .... om. m eNnE 8.8 Gonzo NNIN suzc 81.: 388.180 m 8on do ow< abscissa—cu e 035,—. communication? 62 H016 There will be no relationship between parental H017 H018 H019 H020 H021 education and There will be education and parent-newborn communication. no relationship between parental the communication component of vocalization. There will be no relationship between parental education and the communication component of facial expression. There will be education and of gesture. There will be education and of touch. There will be education and no relationship between parental the communication component no relationship between parental the communication component no relationship between parental the communication component of eye contact. Parents who were college graduates vocalized more and used more facial expressions with their infants than did parents who were high school graduates. Parents who were high school graduates used more touch and gestures than parents who were college graduates. Although these differences were not significant, the results are presented in Table 7. N0 relationship is seen between parental education and parent-newborn communication. 63 WO.V "a... 8. N9 «.3 an 4.3. as... a1 .3: 3| 3. 3. 68.8 9m s. N 3 G on ..88. ms.— 3 2 3 3 2280 8... m.m we be ad commmoaxo 38% we..- as 92 3 3N Sausages, om M 0m m amaze 3.880 8230 a; "20 298.0 .628 SE 25.880 . .8388 3.85“— 558256800 5 25¢. Null retained. 64 hypotheses sixteen through twenty-one are Research question 7: Is there a relationship between parental socioeconomic status and parent-newborn communication. H022 H023 H024 H025 H026 H027 There will be no relationship between parental SES and parent-newborn communication. There will be no relationship between parental SES and the communication component of vocalization. There will be no relationship between parental SES and the communication component of facial expression. There will be no relationship between parental SES and the communication component of gesture. There will be no relationship between parental SES and the communication component of touch. There will be no relationship between parental SES and the communication component of eye contact. The relationship between parental SES and parent-- newborn communication is shown in Table 8 which gives the mean scores of the five communication components by SES of the parent and an analysis of variance. Vocalization scores are high in the lowest, the highest and the middle classes. Gesture shows a statistically significant mc.V "a... .326 .832 as > es. 2% .852 as as... _ s? assuage: s «5288 8.36 ms Nada 82 2 Ne : Na. N_ a. N_ a. a we as... new... «A v.4. 3 a. j 31 «A 3. ..3 3. 65:8 ohm s N_. a 2 n 2 Ne. 3 as 3 NS 5: 58... e .3... : SN 3 3 2 N. 3 Z N; 3 _ 8380 3. «N in ad ad Wm fin ed On , m6 he connotes 3on SN 3 N «N N 51 N N N Na 3N ,aoeS%8> Gm M an m Om m Gm m Om m > 2 E = _ 35:88.00 m 2.55% om—cozcooomoom GOQNOESEEOU ..-...t. ...T.-. ...—.4431... ......vT::. .25? .33... ... ...4 wv—gflh. 66 difference between the lowest class and any other class, F(4,95)=4.31, p=<.01. The mean score for gesture in parents of the lowest SES is more than twice that of any other class. Little variance is noted in the other communication components by parental SES. Overall the only relationship between parental SES and parent-newborn communication is that the lowest SES class gestures more than any other class. Null hypotheses 22 and 25 are rejected. Null hypotheses 23, 24, 26, and 27 are retained. Means, standard deviations, and correlations for communication components are given in Table 9. None of the communication components show strong correlation among themselves. The total communication score is quite strongly correlated with vocalization and is statistically significant (.74, p=<.01). 67 an 3 NN N... ..2 on N... 3 8 S: 3 x 8. 2. z. 8. 8. 8280 o... R. 8. - R. 5939 38.. :. aN. - a. .0580 am 8. - ..N. 83.85 3.. 68a. cosmoaxm 38m 68:00 Pam eoufia80> coach Eon. 32> ......«.... .....u... :z. . ...... -.. .... .......~.- 32...... ......v.) QO—n—QH. .l Chapter V Discussion Implications g: the Results 93 the Ecological Framework g: the Study Bubolz’ and Sontag’s theory of human ecology theory (1993) and Bronfenbrenner’s theory of human deve10pment (1989) made up the theoretical framework for this study. These two theories provided the basis for looking for a relationship between parent-infant communication and parental variables of gender, age, education and SES. The communication between a parent and an infant was viewed as a transaction within the family or microsystem. The parental variables of gender and age were seen as personal developmentally instigative characteristics (Bronfenbrenner, 1989) while the variables of education and SES were seen as influences from the exosytem and macrosystem (Bronfenbrenner, 1989) or social-cultural environment (Bubolz & Sontag, 1993). This study was approached from the perspective that parental variables could influence parent-newborn communication. Communication is one of the most significant interaction processes in the family ecosystem, influencing family members as well as those outside the microsystem. Communication is affected by the interrelationships of 68 69 the family members with their environments[ so it is important to expand research to examine more of its aspects. In this study only the communication occurring between parents and their infants, as influenced by parental gender, age, education and SES were considered, though the many additional influences of the other environments certainly could be explored. The personal attributes of gender and age of the parents were found to have a relationship to parent-- newborn communication in this study. Mothers vocalized more than fathers, and more to girl babies than boy babies. Fathers used more touch than mothers. There was an interaction affect between fathers and infant gender. Fathers have more eye contact with their girl babies than their boy babies. The implication, in view of the theoretical framework, in that developmental processes taking place within the family vary with the personal attributes of significant members in the setting. The parental attributes of education and SES are influenced a great deal by the social-cultural environments, mesosystems and macrosystems of the parent. Although all of the interrelationships among these systems were not explored in this study, they must be considered. The personal and background characteristics of the parents do influence everyone with whom they interact, here their own infants. 70 These relationships were supported in the current study, though not to a great extent. There was no relationship found between parental education and parent-newborn education. There was, however, a relationship found between parental SES and parent-infant communication. Those parents of the lowest SES used significantly more gesture than parents of any other class. This lends some credence to the theorists’ views that parent-infant communication is influenced by the multitude of interactions that occur between a person and the people, objects, and incidents in that person’s environment over the continuum of time. Communication Components This study found that parent-newborn communication contains five major components: vocalization, facial expression, gesture, touch and eye contact. Approximately 70% of the variation in parent-newborn communication scores can be explained by the combined influence of these components. This is similar to the findings of Cohn and Tronick (1987) who described interaction as affective expressions, postures, vocalization, gestures and gazes. It is also consistent with Yogman’s 1982 findings which scored father behavior in interaction with his infant for body position, facial appearance, look, vocalization and touch. These components of communication are very basic to 71 human interaction. Although infants do not understand speech, nor can they speak back, they do learn communication skills beginning in the earliest hours and weeks of their lives. From birth, infants possess sensory capabilities that indicate a state of readiness for social interaction. Communication has been shown to be more than just talking to or making sounds for the infant. Vocalization, whether words or sounds, is a communication technique used both with adults and with very small infants. The human infant appears to be particularly tuned in to the rhythms of human speech in preference to all other sounds (Condon & Sander, 1974). It is the most commonly mentioned communication or interaction component in all studies of parent-infant communication (Brazelton, 1982; Yogman, 1982; Hopkins, 1983; Belsky, Taylor, & Rovine, 1984; Censullo, Lester, & Hoffman, 1985; Cohn & Tronick, 1987; Rutter & Durkin, 1987; Barratt, Roach & Leavitt, 1992; and Censullo, 1994). Vocalization is an elicitor of visual attention by parents and infants (Barratt, Roach, & Leavitt, 1992) and is used as an important communication technique. It is a component of parent-infant communication which accounts for about 57% of the total communication in this study. Facial expression is used for much of non-verbal 72 communication. Happiness, sadness, signs of enjoyment, displeasure and fear, for example, can all be exhibited by facial expression. Small infants focus best at a distance of 8-12 inches from an object. Parents normally hold their infants in the enface position, about 8-12 inches from themselves, while "talking to" them. This places the infant in the ideal position to observe the facial expressions on their parents’ faces. From birth onward, infants are able to fix their eyes and gaze intently at objects (Bobak & Jensen, 1993), which allows them to observe the facial expressions of their parents. As part of vocalization, as well as between vocalizations, parents give the non-verbal messages to their infants through their facial expressions. Both Cohn and Tronick (1987) and Yogman (1982) used facial expression when they observed parent-infant interaction in their studies. More recently, Censullo (1994) used facial expression between parents and their infants as an important component of establishing a parent-infant relationship in adolescent parents. Gestures are also used as a component of communication. Parents move their heads, arms, hands, or fingers to elicit involvement with the infant. Even two to four week old infants are able to follow a moving object with their eyes, especially if it is within their focal distance (Bobak & Jensen, 1993). In communication 73 with their infants, parents use this ability of their infants to get and hold their attention. In most episodes of interaction between mothers and infants, Cohn and Tronick (1987) observed the parents using gestures. The importance of this communication component is reiterated by its inclusion in Censullo’s pilot study to promote greater responsiveness in adolescent parent-- infant relationships (1994). Expressions of affection and touch are mentioned by several authors as part of parent-infant interaction (Yogman, 1982; Cohn & Tronick, 1987: and Barratt, Roach, & Leavitt, 1992). Sensory pathways for tactile (touch) activities are the first to be completed during fetal development (Purpura, 1975) which makes the newborn infant well prepared to receive and process tactile messages. New parents use touch as one of the first attachment behaviors: fingertip touch, soft stroking of the face, and gentle massage of the infant’s back (Bobak & Jensen, 1993). The touch necessary for holding and caretaking is part of interaction, but not communication, as described in this study. Touch such as stroking the cheek, head or limb of the infant or kissing the infant are used by the parent to communicate with the infant. Eye contact is the final component of parent-infant communication to be identified. The ability of infants to gaze into their parents’ eyes permits them to 74 establish a subtle communication. As stated above, infants can and do focus on objects 8-12 inches away from them from birth on. Parents spend much time getting their infants to open their eyes and look at them. Eye contact appears to have a cementing effect on the development of a beginning and trusting relationship and is an important factor in human relationships at all ages. It is a communication component identified by several authors as an important part of parent-infant communication (Yogman, 1982; Cohn & Tronick, 1987; and Censullo, 1994). Parental Variables Gender Both mothers and fathers have skilled and sensitive social interaction with their young infants. However, in this study, mothers communicated more with their newborns than fathers did, looking at the total number of communication components used in a given time period. This finding is different from that of Parke and Tinsley (1981) who found that mothers and fathers did not differ in the frequency of observed behaviors such as holding infant, changing position, looking at infant, smiling, vocalizing, touching, rocking, dressing infant, exploring infant, imitating infant, feeding infant, and giving infant to the other parent. In fact, they found this to be true in both a highly educated, middle-class, involved set of parents as well as in a lower-class, less involved 75 set of parents. Similar findings occurred in a study which compared the behaviors of American and German mothers and fathers. The authors concluded that parents, regardless of gender, interact in relatively similar ways when they are holding their infants (Parke & Tinsley, 1981). A later report by the same authors was different from the first (Parke & Tinsley, 1987). It supported the findings of the current study. It stated that mothers and fathers differ in the amount of time that they spend in actual interaction with their infants. In a longitudinal study of middle- and working-class families in which mothers, fathers, and their infants were observed at 1, 3, and 9 months of age, mothers were found to respond to, stimulate, express positive affection toward, and provide more basic care for their infants at all time points. It was also reported that in a comparison of families in which the father elected to stay home as primary caregiver for one month or more versus a traditional family, mothers in both families surpassed fathers in holding and affectional behavior. The authors concluded that in unstructured naturalistic settings, mothers and fathers clearly differ in terms of their degree of involvement with their infant. The propensity of mothers to be more involved with, to communicate more with their infants than fathers may 76 be a biological predisposition. Since studies done with parents in America, Sweden and Israel all found the same phenomenon, more general sex-role expectations, rather than immediate competing role demands may account for the differences between maternal and paternal behavior (Parke & Tinsley, 1987: Lamb & Oppenheim, 1989; Frodi, Lamb Hwang & Frodi, 1983). This does not imply that the father is in any way less competent than the mother in communication with the infant. In spite of the fact that a father may spend less time in communication with the infant, he may be as sensitive as mothers to infant cues and as responsive to them in other contexts. Vocalization is the primary method of parent communication with the newborn. In this study mothers were found to do more vocalizing than fathers do. Parke and O’Leary’s classic 1976 study showed the opposite to be true. In that study fathers held, rocked, and provided more auditory and physical stimulation to their infants than did their mothers, who in turn, both fed and smiled more at their infants than did the fathers. Even when first and second order effects were analyzed, there was little difference in the patterns of interaction. A later study by Parke (Parke & Sawin, 1980) found that mothers had more verbal interaction than fathers, while fathers provided more social stimulation than mothers. An explanation for the differing results may be the 77 actual phenomenon being observed. In this study vocalization was being measured as a specific component of parent-infant communication, so it was carefully defined. In some other studies vocalization was part of a total observation of interaction and may or may not have been observed specifically. In general, though, other studies support the results of the current study in that mothers have more vocalizations with infants than do fathers. This too could be part of a biological predisposition on the part of mothers. It could also be accounted for by culture. Since the above studies as well as this one were all done with American parents, there may be a cultural predisposition for parents to communicate primarily by vocalization and for mothers to vocalize more than fathers. Touch accounts for 30% of the parent-newborn communication score. In the current study, fathers did more touching than mothers did, though the difference was not statistically significant. This also was found by Parke and O’Leary (1976), who noted that fathers provided more physical stimulation than mothers did. Fathers of older infants were also found to be more physical with their infants than mothers were (Yogman, 1982, 1987). Most of the observations in these studies were of the physical interactions between parents and their infants. In these cases, mothers spent more time touching their 78 infants for caretaking purposes, while fathers touched their infants to play with them. Since all the parents in the current study were told to play with their infants without using any toys and were not engaged in any caretaking activities during the time of observation, touch was only used to communicate in some way with the infant, whether in affection or play. Fathers may use more touch to communicate with their infants than vocalization because of culturally determined appropriate behavior of fathers with infants. Or perhaps fathers have some biological propensity to be more physical with their infants and less verbal. Since fathers and mothers were observed within minutes of each other, and, at times after watching the other parent communicate with the infant, the primary and secondary affects of the others’ presence was similar. This could, however, have caused either parent to communicate with the infant differently because of the secondary effect of the presence of the other parent. Age The age of the parent did have an effect on parent-- infant communication. As found by several authors (Field, 1980; Ragozin, Basham, Crnic, Greenberg, & Robinson, 1982: C011, et al, 1987: Hans & Bernstein, 1991; Schellenbach, et al, 1992; Jorgensen, 1993; Censullo, 1994), young parents are less verbal and 79 vocalize less to their children than older parents. Studies also have found that younger parents use less touch and mutual gazing than older parents (Field, 1980: and Ragozin, et.al., 1982). p In this study those parents between 16 and 20 years of age used significantly less vocalization with their infants than did parents aged 21 through 29. These young parents used significantly more gestures, however, than did older parents. The other communication components varied somewhat according to parental age, but not significantly so. Reasons for this communication pattern vary. It may be that adolescent parents experience different stresses than older parents which may cause them to communicate differently with their infants (Baldwin & Cain, 1980). This pattern may also be due to psychological factors such as degree of emotional maturity or egocentrism. As parents age, they become more sure of themselves and are then able to communicate differently with the world around them, including their own infants. Older parents with a first born infant also may have waited a long time to become parents and may treat the infant differently than young parents whose infant may not have been as eagerly anticipated. A further explanation for the different communication pattern in younger parents may be an interaction between young age and lower SES. Younger 80 parents are not usually as educated or have as high a level of occupation as older parents, therefore are of lower SES. As explained further below, parents of the lowest SES use significantly more gestures than those of other SES. A final consideration may be that younger parents have less realistic beliefs about infant developmental milestones (Jorgensen, 1993) than older parents and thus do not know that young infants are capable of or interested in listening to their parents vocalize. They also may be of the understanding that infants respond best to parent gestures. The communication pattern of less vocalization and more gestures is thought to help explain why children of young parents tend to experience higher levels of impairment and mild behavior disorders than children of older mothers (Baldwin & Cain, 1980). Education Education levels of the parent were thought to be related to parent-infant communication. Usually younger parents, especially those under age 21, are less educated than their older counterparts. As quoted by Schlesinger (1988), only 20% of the single teenage mothers interviewed for a study had completed high school compared to 65% of married, older mothers. Younger parents also do not communicate to their infants the same way as older parents do. Therefore it is logical that 81 those parents with less education would communicate differently with their infants. In this study overall the score for frequency of communication was the same for all groups. There was not a statistically significant difference in any of the communication components related to educational level of the parent. However there were some differences found. College graduates used vocalization and facial expression more often than high school graduates, while high school graduates used more gesture and touch than college graduates. There were too few parents with less than a high school education to analyze. Although statistically it appears that educational level of the parent makes no difference in parent-newborn communication, these results provide support for the findings of other authors. Mothers and fathers with higher levels of education were found to be more sensitive to their infants (Broom, 1991; Shields & Sparling, 1993) than parents with less education. Also, the educational level of fathers was correlated with the amount and quality of physical involvement with the infant, i.e., the higher the educational level, the more and the better quality of involvement with the infant (Shields & Sparling, 1993). These findings cannot be directly correlated to more vocalization and facial expression, or more gesture and touch, but it can be 82 noted that parents with differing levels of education interact differently with their infants. Socioeconomic Status It was hypothesized that parents of higher SES would have higher parent-newborn communication scores than parents of lower SES. The study found no statistically significant difference in total communication scores among the parents of different SES. In looking at the communication components, it was found that there was a pattern of more vocalization by parents in the high, middle and low classes, with less in the middle high and middle low classes (Table 8). This is difficult to interpret, and is not statistically significant. The finding is similar to that of Adams and Ramey (1980) which found that middle class mothers tend to talk more to their infants than less advantaged mothers, but overall, there was little difference in the amount of speech to infants based upon the SES of the mother. Perhaps results can be interpreted in light of a 1980 study by Faran and Ramey which showed that SES is more strongly related to parent-infant interactions as the child gets older. The infants here were very young. It was found that parents of the lowest SES gestured significantly more than parents in any other SES. The amount of gesturing was very noticeable, since these parents were found to gesture more than twice as much as 83 any other socioeconomic group. In studies of mother-- infant interaction, lower class mothers engaged in less verbal activity than their middle-class counterparts (Lewis & Wilson, 1972: Kilbride, et al., 1977: Field, 1980). Commonly, people of different social classes use communication components differently. Those persons in the lower socioeconomic classes use fewer words and more gestures in communicating than those persons in the upper socioeconomic classes. This pattern seems to be used in communication with infants as well as adults, as shown in this study. Additional Findings Although not anticipated, infant gender was found to be related to how parents communicated with their infants. The study showed an interaction effect between the gender of the parent and the gender of the infant (Figures 1 & 2). For both vocalization and eye contact, there was a statistically significant difference in the way mothers and fathers communicated with their newborns of different genders. Mothers vocalized more and had more eye contact with their male newborns, while fathers vocalized more and had more eye contact with their female newborns. In the literature infant gender has been associated with differences in parental behavior. Many studies do not account for its effects, yet the preponderance of 84 evidence supports the theory that infant gender is a major determinant of parental treatment. Two studies that found no evidence of differential treatment focused exclusively on mother-infant dyads and involved small samples. Friedman et. a1. (1976) noted no difference in mutual visual regard for 16 middle class mother-infant pairs observed at four, six, and eight months of age. Thoman, Acebo, Becker and Freese (1979) observed no differences in patterns of interaction for 10 first-time mother-infant pairs at two, three, four, and five weeks of age. A study using exclusively father-infant dyads also found no differences. Fortier (1988) observed attachment behavior (talk to, talk about, look at, touch and stroke, nuzzle) of 60 fathers with their one-month-old first and later born infants. No differences in paternal behavior during a structured play session were attributable to infant gender. Studies that compared parental behaviors in dyads and triads also found no differences related to infant gender. Field’s (1978) laboratory observations of 36 middle-class parents with four-month-olds found no differences in caretaking, play, smile, or mimicry. Home observations of middle-class parents during the infants’ first year of life noted no differences in similar types of behaviors (Field, 1978; Belsky, Gilstrap, & Rovine, 85 1984). However, more studies report differential treatment related to infant gender than do not. Three studies focusing exclusively on mother-infant pairs found differences. Thoman, Leiderman, and Olson (1972) compared breastfeeding behaviors of 40 mothers of first-- born and later-born infants at 48 hours of age. First-- time mothers talked and smiled more at female infants than they did to male infants. Lewis (1972) and Lewis and Lee-Painter (1974) noted many differences in the 32 mother-infant pairs observed at three months of age. Overall, male infants got more proximal (touch and hold) treatment and females received more distal (vocal, smile) treatment. Reiber’s 1976 study of nine families with first-horns found similar results. There is evidence that these differences may be true regardless of SES or ethnic status. Forty-five low-- income, black mother-infant pairs were observed in feeding situations at three days of age. In general, boys were rocked, rubbed, patted, and vocalized to more than female infants (Bakeman & Brown, 1977). Several studies comparing parental behaviors found differences related to infant gender. In a 1971 study (Rebelsky & Hanks), it was reported that middle-class fathers initially vocalized more frequently to daughters than to sons. However, during the first three months, 86 the pattern reversed with fathers talking more to male infants and mothers talking more to female infants. Palkovitz (1984) on the other hand, noted that a sample of 40 fathers vocalized more to five-month-old daughters than to sons. No maternal differences were noted. Parke and O’Leary’s 1976 observations of parent-- infant triads and dyads at six and 48 hours after birth found that both parents tended to touch male infants more than female infants with both parents present. In a related study, fathers touched and vocalized more to male infants than to females in both dyads and triads. Mothers, on the other hand, showed the opposite pattern - vocalizing and touching male infants less, but only when alone with the infant. Mothers exhibited no differences due to infant gender when fathers were present. Parke and Sawin (1980) found that both parents’ affectional behaviors focused more on the opposite gender child, while attending and stimulating behaviors were more frequent with same gender infants. While the data suggest no consistent pattern, there does appear to be modest support for the hypothesis that infant gender affects parental behavior in both two-- person and three-person family groupings. The literature suggests that parents.tend to vocalize more to infants of the opposite gender. Support for these findings is given in this study as fathers vocalize and gesture more with 87 female infants and mothers vocalize and gesture more with male infants at two to four weeks of age. Perhaps there is a cultural bias among American, English speaking parents for the child of the opposite gender from their own. Traditionally, male infants have been preferred over female infants. This could account for the communication with the male infant by the mother. However, it is unclear why a father would vocalize more and have more eye contact with a female infant than a male infant. Chapter VI SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS Summary This study was conducted to investigate the relationship between specific components of parent-- newborn communication and parental gender, age, education, and SES. One hundred parents and their 50 infants were recruited in the hospital after the birth of their first infant. Parents completed questionnaires and were observed in their homes when the infants were between two and four weeks old. Parent-newborn communication was directly observed, and the frequency of communication components was recorded. Each parent was observed separately with the newborn for a 7 1/2 minute period. Three research questions which asked about the differences in the degree of utilization of communication components were answered. Vocalization, facial expression, gesture, touch, and eye contact were all used by parents with their infants. Vocalization and touch accounted for 87% of the communication between parents and their infants. Four research questions which asked about the relationship between parental gender, age, education, and SES and parent-newborn communication were 88 89 answered. Parental gender, age, and SES all are related to parent-infant communication while parental education is not. As anticipated, it was found that parent-newborn communication occurs frequently between mother, fathers and their newborn infants. Most communication performed by the parent is done through vocalizations. These are the sounds, words and noises which are made to the newborns. Mothers vocalize more than fathers, but both parents use this method of communication the majority of the time. Touch is the second most used method of communication and is used more by fathers than by mothers, even with newborns. Gestures, eye contact and facial expressions are also a part of this communication, but are much less frequently used. There is some variation in how parents communicate with their newborns related to their age, their education, and their SES. Parents less than 21 years of age vocalize less than older parents, but gesture more. Parents of low SES gesture more than parents of higher SES. Education makes little difference in how parents communicate with their newborns. These findings generally support the findings of other authors who have studied parent-infant communication and interaction. Limitations 9; the Study This study has several limitations which lessens its 90 generalizability to the entire population of parents and infants. 1. The study sample was not obtained in a random manner. 2. The sample is limited in its overall representation of all parents who have infants. The sample is of only English speaking Caucasian parents, includes only first time parents, includes infants who have two parents, and infants who are full term, healthy and are singletons. The sample is rather homogeneous, with an disproportional number of highly educated parents, and low numbers of parents under the age of 21. The study sample was self-selected and voluntary in nature. Those who agreed to participate may in some way be different from those who did not, therefore limiting external validity. Each parent may communicate differently with the infant because he or she has a partner. 3. The variable of culture was not considered in the study. Parental communication with an infant may vary with cultural background. 4. The method of gathering data may constitute threats to measurement reliability since parent-infant interaction behaviors may have been influenced by having an observer present. Implications for Practical Use and Further Research 91 Since all parents communicate in some manner with their infant, this study broadened the base of knowledge available on how this communication occurs, and if there is a difference in parent-newborn communication considering parental gender, age, education and SES. The first few months of the infant’s life may be a critical time for early development of the skills involved in communication. The infant is dependent on the parents for language development, a skill essential to establishing relationships necessary to interacting in this world. By face to face interactions with the parents an infant learns the foundations for later communication skills. The precursors of language development are learned through cycles of exchanges that a parent has on a daily basis with the infant. The observation of early interactions between a parent and an infant offers a window into the parent-- child relationship and into later social, cognitive, and language development. It provides information on the communication style of mothers and fathers and how these styles vary with parental variables. The infant develops within the ecosystem of the family and in influenced by the personal attributes of both mother and father. Knowledge about how parents differ can offer a vehicle for reinforcing appropriate communication techniques or discussing alternative techniques for 92 communicating with infants. Health care professionals or parent educators can integrate this knowledge into prenatal classes, parenting classes or other educational settings. Knowing that early interaction is essential to later child competence, IQ and language skills, those working with new parents can teach them the importance of communication with their infant. Depending on the gender, age, and SES of the parent, the health care professional or parent educator can tailor teaching to encourage mothers and fathers to talk to, touch, and gesture to their infants. They can also encourage eye contact with the infants and using facial expressions with them. By knowing that mothers vocalize more than fathers do, that young parents vocalize less than older parents and gesture more, that parents of lower SES gesture more than those parents of other SES, the health care professional can work specifically with the parent to help them to achieve the best communication possible with their own infant. They can promote early and, regular parent-infant communication. This study leads to additional questions about parent-infant communication. Since the study used an analytical research design to help develop a synthetic model, more work should be done. The human ecology model is very complex. To integrate all aspects of the model is extremely difficult and complicated. Further studies of 93 parent-infant communication should attempt to consider more aspects of the human ecology model, especially affects of other individual and family properties like values, goals and resources.‘ If conceivable, additional aspects of the model like family adaptation to the new infant and/or the physical environment in which the family lives could be included. With many additional studies a larger study could be done to utilize all the information into an integrated model. This would help to verify the usefulness of the human ecology model. Research should be done using a more varied sample of parents, especially for ethnic and cultural background. The small numbers of parents under the age of 21 should be enlarged to achieve a clearer picture of how these parents communicate with their infants. The study should be expanded to include parents who have had previous children to determine if there are differences between these groups. The current study had an unusually high number of highly educated parents. Results would be more accurate with a more representative sample of the general population. In retrospect, some change should have been made regarding data collection. The amount of time spent observing each parent communicating with the newborn seemed excessive. It was difficult for the two to four week old infants to remain alert for the 15 to 20 minutes 94 it took to perform the observation. The parents tried to have the infants fed and awake when the researcher arrived at the home, but such young infants do not normally stay awake and happy for the thirty minutes it took to conduct the home visit. A shorter observation time would probably have been sufficient to obtain valid information and allowed the infant to be alert for a shorter time. A second change would be in the categories on the PICT tool. During observations of the 100 parents, it was noted that many parents, especially fathers, sometimes rock and/or bounce their infants while communicating with them. This is supported in the literature in that fathers have more physical and playful interaction with their infants (Parke & O’Leary, 1976) than mothers. A component should be added to the PICT to record these interactions. The categories on the PICT of eye contact and gestures were not often used. On average, only one eye contact and one gesture was noted during each observation period. However, it seems inappropriate to delete these components, since they are supported by the literature and seem very important to the parents. Eye contact, though infrequently observed, was greatly desired by the parents, who tried very hard throughout each communication period to get the infant to look at them. 95 The information learned here about parent-newborn communication should stimulate further research to determine the most effective ways to promote this phenomenon and help both parents and infants develop early communication skills. APPENDICES 96 Appendix A Family Number Demographic Information Please complete the following. Today’s date Your age Are you baby’s mother or father Marital status Married Single Divorced Educational level less than 12th grade high school graduate or GED more than high school college graduate Occupation Annual Income that you make Are you the person who does most of baby’s care? Yes No Baby’s birth date Baby’s gender M F Type of delivery Vaginal Caesarean 97 Appendix B HOLUNGSHEAD’S rworAcron INDEX or SOCIAL POSITION Mutable measured: Positions individuals occupy in the status structure. Description: There are two- and three-factor forms of the index that have been used extensively. The two-factor index is composed of an occupational scale and an educational scale. The three-factor index includes a residential scale. Since the residential scale was based on sociological analysis previously made by Davis and Myers in New Haven, many communities would not be amenable until residential areas were mapped into a six-position scale. The two-factor index requires only knowledge of occupation and education. ' The occupational scale is a 7-point scale representing a modification of the Edwards system of classifying occupations into socioeconomic groups. The Edwards system does not differentiate among kinds 0f professionals or the size and economic strength of businesses. The Hollingshead index of social position ranks professions into different groups and business by their size and value. The educational scale is also divided into seven positions. In the two-factor index, occupation is given a weight of 7 and education is given a weight of 4. If one were to compute a score for the manager of a Kroger store who had completed high school and one year of business college, the procedure would be as follows: Factor Scale Score X Factor Weight - Partial Score Occupation 3 7 21 Education 3 4 1_2_ Index of Social Position Score 33 The range of scores in each of five social classes (of New Haven, Connecticut) are 3 follows: Class I: 11-17 Class II: 18-31 Class 111: 32-47 Class IV: 48-63 Class V: 64-77 Where published: August B. Hollingshead, 7100 Factor Index of Social Position (copyright 1957), privately printed 1965, Yale Station, New Haven, CT. August B. Hollingshead and Frederick C. Redlich, Social Clan and Mental Illness: A Commu- nity Study (New York: John Wiley, 1958), 387-97. The researcher will find Hollingshead's account of the background and rationale for the two-factor scale in August B. Hollingshead, “Commentary on “The Indiscrim- inate State of Social Class Measurement} " Social Forces 49 (June 1971): 563-67. Reliability and validity of Index of Social Position: High correlation is reported between the Hollingshead and Redlich measure and the index of class position devised by Ellis, Lane, and Olesen.‘ Various combinatiom of the scale score for occupation and education are repro- ducible in the Guttman sense, for there is no overlap between education-occupation 98 combinations. If an individual‘s education and occupation are known, one can calculate his or her score; if one knows an individual‘s score, one can calculate both occupational and educational level. Hollingshead and Redlich report a correlation between judged class with education and occupation as Rim) - .906. Judged class with residence, education, and occupa- tion, R 4234) - .942. , Hollingshead and others have made extensive studies of the reliability of scoring and validity of the index on more than 100 variables. Slomczynski, Miller, and Kohn report that "the use of the Hollingshead index of occupational status for research in the U.S. is validated by longitudinal measurement models that show the Hollingshead index to be as strong an indicator of occupational status as is Treiman's International Prestige Scale, the Hodge-Siegel Index, or the Duncan Socio—Economic Index." 2 Utility: Because of the difficulty in obtaining residential information where ade- quate ecological maps do not exist, the two-factor variation of the Index of Social Position has been used widely. Only occupation and education are needed, and these data are relatively easy to obtain. The scale score can be quickly computed and individual social position established. Research applications: Bell, Gerald D. "Processes in the Formation of Adolescents' Aspirations." Social Forces 42 (December 1963): 179-86. (See p. 182) Ellis, Robert A. "Social Stratification and Social Relations: An Empirical Test of the Disjunctiveness of Social Classes." American Sociological Review 22 (October 1957): 570-78. (See p. 571) Hollingshead. August 8.. and Frederick C. Redlich. "Social Stratification and Psychiatric Disorders." American Sociological Review 18 (April 1953): 163-69. (See p. 165) —— . "Social Stratification and Schizophrenia." American Sociological Review 19 (June 1954): 302-6. ' (See p. 302) — . "Social Mobility and Mental Illness." American Journal of Psychiatry 112 (September 1955): 179-85. (See pp. 180-82) —. Social Class and Mental Illness: A Community Study. New York: John Mley. 1958. (See pp. 390-91) , Robert Ellis, and E. Kirby. "Social Mobility and Mental Illness." American Sociological Review 19 (October 1954): 577-84. (See p. 579) Hollingshead, August 8., Frederick C. Redlich. and 1.. Z. Freeman. "Social Class and the Treatment of Neurotics." In The Social Welfare Forum. 194-205. New York: Columbia University Press, 1955. (See pp. 195) Hunt, Raymond 0., Orville Gursslin, and Jack L. Roach. "Social Status and Psychiatric Science in a Child Guidance Clinic." American Sociological Review 23 (February 1958): 81-83. (See p. 81) Kohn, Melvin J... "Social Class and Parental Values." American Journal of Sociology 64 (January 1959): 337-51. (See p. 338) — and Eleanor E. Carroll. "Social Class and the Allocation of Parental Responsibilities." Sociometry 23 (December 1960): 372-92. (See p. 374) Lawson, Edwin D., and Walter E. Bock. "Correlations of Indexes of Families' Socio-Economic Status." Social Force: 39 (December 1960): 149-52. (See p. 150) Lefton. Mark. Shirley Angrist, Simon Dintz. and Benjamin Pasamanick. "Social Class, Expectations. and Performance of Mental Patients." American Journal of Sociology 68 (July 1962): 79-87. (See p. 82) Leslie. Gerald R., and Kathryn P. Johnsen. "Changed Perceptions of the Maternal Role." American Sociological Review 28 (December 1963): 919-28. (See p. 923) Levinger. George. "Task and Social Behavior in Marriage." Sociometry 27 (December 1964): 433-48. (See pp. 442. 446) Lewis. Lionel 8. "Knowledge. Danger. Certainty, and the Theory of Magic." American Journal of Sociology 69 (July 1963): 7-12. (See p. 9) 99 and Joseph Lopreato. "Arationality, Ignorance, and Perceived Danger in Medical Practices." American Sociological Review 27 (August 1962): 508-14. (See p. 508) Mizruchi. Ephraim H. "Social Structure and Anomia in a Small City." American Sociological Review 25 (October 1960): 645-54. (See p. 647) Psathas. George. "Ethnicity, Social Class and Adolescent Independence from Parental Control." American Sociological Review 22 (August 1957): 415-23. (See p. 417) Rosen, Bernard C. "The Achievement Syndrome: A Psychocultural Dimension of Social Stratification." American Sociological Review 21 (April 1956): 203-11. (See p. 204) —— . "Race, Ethnicity, and the Achievement Syndrome." American Sociological Review 24 (February 1959): 47-60. (See p. 48) —. "Family Structure and Achievement Motivation."American Sociological Review 26 (August 1961): 574-85. (See p. 576) —— . "Socialization and Achievement Motivation in Brazil." American Sociological Review 27 (October 1962): 612-24. (See p. 613) —— . "The Achievement Syndrome and Economic Growth in Brazil." Social Forces 42 (March 1964): 341-54. (See p. 345) — and Roy d'Andrade. "The Psychosocial Origins of Achievement Motivation." Sociometry 22 (September 1959): 185-218. (See p. 189) Slomczynski, Kazimierz M, Joanne Miller, and Melvin L. Kohn. "Stratification, Work, and Values." American Sociological Review 46 (December 1981): 720-44. (See p. 727) Smith, Bulkeley, Jr. "The Differential Residential Segregation of Working Class Negroes in New Haven." American Sociological Review 24 (August 1959): 529-33. (See p. 530) Strodtbeclt. Fred I... Margaret R. McDonald, and Bernard C. Rosen. "Evaluation of Occupations: A Reflection of Jewish and Italian Mobility Differences." American Sociological Review 22 (October 1957): 546-53. (See p. 547) Wechsler, Henry. "Community Growth, Depressive Disorders, and Suicide." American Journal of Sociology 67 (July 1961): 9-16. (See p. 15) Yarrow, Marian R., Phyllis Scott, Louise del..eeuw, and Christine Heinig. "Child-Rearing in Families of Working and Nonworking Mothers." Sociometry 25 (June 1962): 122-40. (See p. 124) Notes 1. R. Bills, W. Lane, and V. Olesen, "The Index of Class Position: An Improved Intercommunity Measure of Stratification," American Sociological Review 28 (April 1963): 271-77. 2. Slomczynslti, Kazimierz M.. Joanne Miller, and Melvin L. Kohn. "Stratification, Work. and Values," American Sociological Review 46 (December 1981): 727. Hollingshead’s Two-Factor Index of Social Position The following two scales are reprinted by permission from Hollingshead and Redlich, Social Class and Mental Illness: A Community Study (New York: John Wiley, 1958). Copyright 1958 by John Wiley and Sons, Inc. The Occupational Scale 1. Higher Executives of Large Concerns, Proprietors, and Major Professionals A. Higher Executives (Value of corporation $500,000 and above as rated by Dun and Bradstreet) Bank Business Presidents Vice-Presidents Vice-Presidents Assistant vice-presidents Assistant vice-presidents Executive secretaries Research directors Treasurers B. Proprietors (Value over $100,000 by Dun and Bradstreet) Brokers Contractors Dairy owners C. Major meesionals Accountants (CPA) Actuaries Agronomists Auditors Architects Artists, portrait Astronomers Bacteriologists Chemical engineers Chemists Clergymen (professional trained) Dentists Economists Engineers (college graduates) Foresters Geologists Partners Lumber dealers Judges (superior courts) Lawyers Metallurgists Military: commissioned officers, major and above Officials of the executive branch of goverrunent, federal, state, local: e.g., Mayor, City manager, City plan director, Internal Revenue director Physicians Physicists, research Psychologists, practicing Symphony conductor Teachers, university, college Veterinarians (veterinary surgeons) 2. Businss Managers, Proprietors of Medium-Sized Btsinesses, and Lesser Professionals A. Business Managers in Large Concerns (Value 8500, 000) Advertising directors Branch managers Brokerage salesmen Directors of purchasing District managers Executive assistants Export managers, international concerns Government officials, minor, e.g., Internal Revenue agents Manufacturer's representatives Office managers Personnel managers Police chief; Sheriff Postmaster Production managers Sales engineers Sales managers, national concerns Store managers B. Proprietors of Medium Busineses (Value 335.0005 I 00, 000) Advertising Clothing store Contractors Express company Faun owners Fruits, wholesale Furniture business C. Laser Professionals Accountants (not CPA) Chiropodists Chiropractors Correction officers Director of Community House Jewelers Poultry business Real estate brokers Rug business Store Theater Military: commissioned officers, lieutenant, captain Musicians (symphony orchestra) Nurses Opticians Engineers (not college graduate) Finance writers Health educators Labor relations consultants Librarians Optometrists, D.O. Pharmacists Public health officers (MPH) Research assistants, university (full-time) Social workers 3. Administrative Personnel, Owners of Small Businesses, and Minor Professionals A. Administrative Personnel Advertising agents Chief clerks Credit managers Insurance agents Managers, departments Passenger agents, railroad Private secretaries Purchasing agents Sales representatives 3. Small Business Owners ($6, 000-335, 000) Art gallery Auto accessories Awnings Bakery Beauty shop Boatyard Brokerage, insurance Car dealers Cattle dealers Cigarette machines Cleaning shops Clothing Coal businesses Contracting businesses Convalescent homes Dccoratin g Dog supplies Dry goods Engraving business Feed Finance companies, local Fire extinguishers Five and dime Florist Food equipment Food products Foundry Funeral directors C. Semiprofem'ionals Actors and showmen Army, master sergeant Artists, commercial Appraisers (estimators) Section heads, federal, state and local governmental offices Section heads, large businesses and industries Service managers Shop managers Store managers (chain) Traffic managers Furniture Garage Gas station Glassware Grocery, general Hotel protection Jewelry Machinery brokers Manufacturing Monuments Music Package stores (liquor) Paint contracting Poultry Real estate Records and radios Restaurant Roofing contractor Shoe Signs Tavern Taxi company Tire shop Trucking Trucks and tractors Upholstery Wholesale outlets Window shades Navy, chief petty officer Oral hygienists Physiotherapists Piano teachers 102 Clergymen (not professionally Publicity and public relations trained) Radio, TV announcers Concem managers Reporters, court Deputy sheriffs Reporters, newspapers Dispatchers, railroad Surveyors Interior decorators Title searchers Interpreters, courts Tool designs Laboratory assistants Travel agents Landscape planners Yard masters, railroad Morticians D. Farmers Farm owners (320,000-335,000) 4. Clerical and Sales Workers, Technicians, and Owners of Little Businsses (Value under $6,000) A. Clerical and Sales Workers Bank clerks and tellers Factory supervisors Bill collectors Post Office clerks Bookkeepers Route managers Business machine operators, Sales clerks offices Sergeants and petty officers, military Claims examiners services Clerical or stenographic Shipping clerks Conductors, railroad Supervisors, utilities, factories Factory storekeepers Supervisors, toll stations 8. Technicians Dental technicians Locomotive engineers Draftsmen Operators, PBX Driving teachers Proofreaders Expediter, factory Safety supervisors Experimental tester Supervisors of maintenance Instructors, telephone company, Technical assistants factory Telephone company supervisors Inspectors, weights, sanitary, Timekeepers railroad, factory Tower operators, railroad Investigators Truck dispatchers Laboratory technicians Window trimmers (stores) C. Owners of Little Businesses (53.00036, 000) Flower shop Newsstand Grocery Tailor shop D. Farmers Owners (Value 310,000-320,000) 5. Skilled Manual Employees Auto body repairers ers Barbers Blacksmiths Bookbinders Boilermakers Brakemen, railroad Brewers Bulldozer operators Butchers Cabinet makers Cable splicers Carpenters Casters (founders) Cement finishers Cheese makers Chefs Compositors Diemakers Diesel engine repair and maintenance (trained) Diesel shovel operators Linoleum layers (trained) Masons Masseurs Mechanics (trained) Millwrights Moulders (trained) Painters Paperhangers Patrolmen, railroad Pattern and model makers Piano builders Piano tuners Plumbers Policemen, city Postmen Printers Radio, television maintenance Repairrnen, home appliances Small Farmers Owners (Value under $10,000) 103 Electricians Engravers Exterminators Firemen, city Firemen, railroad Fitters, gas, steam Foremen, construction, dairy Gardeners, landscape (trained) Glass blowers Glaziers Gunsmiths Gauge makers Hair stylists Heat treaters Horticulturists Linmen, utility Linotype operators Lithographers Locksmiths Loom fixers Machinists (trained) Maintenance foremcn Rope splicers Sheetrnetal workers (trained) Shipsmiths Shoe repairmen (trained) Stationery enginers (licensed) Stewards, club Switchmen, railroad Tailors (trained) Teletype operators Tool makers Track supervisors, railroad Tractor-trailer trans. hpogmphcrs Upholsterers (trained) Watchmakcrs Weavers Welders Yard supervisors, railroad Tenants who own farm equipment 6. Machine Operators and Semisla'lled Employees Aides, hospital Apprentices, electricians, printers, steam fitters, toolmakers Assembly line workers Bartenders Bingo tenders Bridge tenders Building superintendents (construction) Practical nurses Pressers, clothing Pump operators Receivers and checkers Roofers Setup men, factories Shapers Signalmen, railroad Soldcrers, factory ~ I Bus drivers Sprayers, paint Checkers Steelworkers (not skilled) Coin machine fillers Standcrs, wire machines Cooks, short order Stripper: rubber factory Deliverymen Taxi drivers Dressmakers, machine Testers Elevator operators Timers Enlisted men, military services . Tire moulders Filers, sanders, buffers Trainmen, railroad Foundry workers Truck drivers, general Garage and gas station attendants Waiters—waitresses ("better placed" Greenhouse workers Weighers Guards, doorkcepers, watchmen Welders, spot Hairdressers Winders, machine Housekccpcrs Wiredrawers, machine Meat cutters and packers Wine bottlers Meter readers Wood workers, machine Operators, factory machines Wrappers, stores and factories Oilers, railroad Farmers Smaller tenants who own little equipment 7. Unslo‘lled Employees Amusement park workers Laborers, unspecified (bowling alleys, pool rooms) Laundry workers Ash removers Messengers Attendants, parking lots Platform men, railroad Cafeteria workers Peddlers Car cleaners, railroad Porters Carriers, coal Relief, public, private Countermen Roofer 's helpers Dairy workers Shirt folders Deck hands Shoe shiners Domestics Sorters, rag and salvage Farm helpers Stage hands Fishermen (clam diggers) Stevedorcs Freight handlers Stock handlers Garbage collectors Street cleaners Gravediggers Struckmen, railroad Hod carriers Unemployed (no occupation) Hog killers Unskilled factory workers Hospital workers, unspecified Waitresses ("hash houses") Hostlers, railroad Washers, cars Janitors (sweepers) Window cleaners Laborers, construction Woodchoppers Farmers Sharecroppers The Educational Scale The educational scale is premised upon the assumption that men and women who possess similar educations will tend to have similar tastes and similar attitudes, and they will also tend to exhibit similar behavior patterns. The educational scale is divided into seven positions: 105 1. Graduate professional training: Persons who completed a recognized professional course that led to the receipt of a graduate degree were given scores of 1. 2. Standard college or university graduation: All individuals who had completed a four- year college or university course leading to a recognized college degree were assigned the same scores. No differentiation was made between state universities and private colleges. . 3. Partial college training: Individuals who had completed at least one year but not a full college course were assigned this position. 4. High school graduation: All secondary school graduates, whether from a private prepa- ratory school, public high school, trade school, or parochial school, were given this score. 5. Partial high school: Individuals who had completed the tenth or eleventh grades, but had not completed high school were given this score. 6. Junior high school: Individuals who had completed the seventh grade through the ninth grade were given this position. 7. Less than seven years of school: Individuals who had not completed the seventh grade were given the same scores irrespective of the amount of education they had received. 106 Appendix C Parent-Infant Communication Tool Instruct the parent to spend 5 minutes playing with the infant without using any toys. Observe the parent-infant dyad for a five minute period. Observe and record all communication components for a 30 second period. Then wait for 30 seconds. Do not record any observations noted during that time. Repeat alternating 30 second observation and non-observation periods until the five minutes have elapsed. Observe for five components of communication. 1. Vocalization - Any sound directed toward the infant by the parent. Each episode, whether long or short (e.g. entence or nonsense noise) is one vocalization. 2. Facial expression - Any movement of facial muscles to form an expression to enlist or retain the infant’s attention, eg. smile, frown, "funny face". A retained expression like a smile is one expression, even if vocalization changes. 3. Gesture - A hand, head, or other body part which is moved to elicit involvement with the infant. After a pause of more than 3 seconds record a new gesture.) 4. Touch - Any touch of the infant by the parent, other than for physical support of caretaking of the infant. After a pause of more than 3 seconds record a new touch. 5. Eve contact - A meeting of the eyes of the parent and the infant for a minimum of three seconds. A continuous gaze is scored as one eye contact. Eli: Barent-Lnfant 107 Minimizer Communication 1991 45$ec 455ec 455ec 455ec 455ec total voc'n facial exprsn gestr touch eye contct TOTAL GRAND TOTAL 108 Appendix D Consent Form for Research Project Participants The purpose of this study is to examine how parents and their infants communicate. An infant must learn how to communicate with all those around him or her and a parent has a great deal of influence on how he or she learns to do that. The results of this study should help us understand how this happens and make it possible to help parents and infants develop early communication skills. This research is being conducted by Cheryl Feenstra, RN, as course completion work for a doctoral degree in family-child ecology at Michigan State University. Any questions can be directed to Mrs. Feenstra at 957-6255 (days) or 772-1421 (evenings). As participants, we understand that we will be asked to complete a brief form and communicate with our baby while being observed. The time involved will be about 30 minutes when our baby is between two and four weeks old. It is not anticipated that being in the study will result in any physical, psychological, or economic risk. There is no cost to be in the study, nor will we receive any direct benefits as a result of participation. All results will be treated with strict confidence and we will remain anonymous in any report of research findings. We will be assigned numbers for the study and our names will not be retained in any manner. If we request, results will be made available to us, but no names will be used. ' We freely consent to take part in this study. We may choose not to participate in parts of the study and may discontinue our part in the study at any time without penalty. We have read and understand the information presented. Parent Witness Parent Date 1(39 MICHIGAN STATE Appendix E U rq l V’ E El S l 1' Y December S, 1994 TO: Cheryl Feenstra 1712 88th. Ave. Zeeland, MI 49464 RE: IRB‘: 94-563 TITLE: THE RELATIONSHIP OF PARENTAL GENDER. AGE, EDUCATION AND SOCIOECONOMIC STAus To pARENT-NEwDOAN COMMUNICATION. REVISION REQUESTED: N/A CATEGORY: —D APPROVAL DATE: 12/05/94 The University Committee on Research Involving Human Subjects'(UCRIHS) reView of this proyect is complete. I am pleased to adVise that the rights and welfare of the human subjects appear to be adequately protected and methods to obtain informed consent are appropriate. herefore, the UCRIHS approved this projeCt including any revision listed above. RENEWAL: UCRIHS approval is valid for one calendar year, beginning with the approval date shown above. Investigators planning to continue a progect be ond one year must use the green renewal form (enclosed with t e original approval letter or when a project is renewed) to seek u ate certification. There is a maXimum of four such expedite renewals possible. Investigators wishing to continue a project beyond that time need to submit it again or complete reView. REVISIONS: UCRIHS must review any changes in procedures involving human subjects. rior to initiation of t e change. If this is done at the time o renewal, please use the green renewal form. To revise an approved protocol at any other time during the year, send your written request to the UCRIHS Chair. requesting revised approval and referenCing the project's IRB I and title. Include in your request a description of the change and any revised instruments, consent forms or advertisements that are applicable. PROBLEMS/ CHANGES: Should either of the following arise during the course of the work, investigators must noti y UCRIHS promptly: (1) problems . (unexpected Side effects, comp aints, etc.) inv01Ving uman 0wm£m= subjects or (2) changes in the research environment or new information indicating greater risk to the human sub ects than RESEARCH existed when the protocol was previously reviewed an approved. AND GRADUATE If we can be of any future help, lease do not hesitate to contact us STUDIES at (517)355-2180 or FAX (517).”) 6- 171. University Commit!" on Research Invoan HumanSuMeds (UCRIHS) MmmmnflmeWmamy aVid 8' "(igh flSMmmmmmmawmm UCRIHS ChaLr Eunsmqummmn DEW:pjm «wN4ms 517/355-2180 FAX 517i432:l171 cc: Robert Boger USU ~ IHNIW'LH‘H' law“. .'..I- 'i't‘v‘?‘ "". 'r'TVflim". 110 I ’ Holland Appendix F 4“ community Hospital 602 Mzcthan AVEnue Holland Mncmgan 49423-4999 (616) 392—5741 February 22, 1995 Cheryl Feenstra, RNC, MSN 1721 88th Avenue Zeeland, MI 49464 Dear Cheryl: I am pleased to inform you that on February 21. 1995, upon recommendation of the Institutional Review Committee, the Hospital Board gave approval for you to conduct your research project, 'The Relationship of Parental Gender, Age, Education and Socioeconomic Status to Parent-Newborn Communication'. As you know, you will be asked to attend an Institutional Review Committee meeting to give a report on the results of your research project. This can be anytime after the completion of your study but no later than March, 1996. In addition, any Changes in the study tool must be addressed immediately to me. I wish you much success in conducting this study and look forward to reviewing the results. Please feel free to contact me at 616/394-3207 with any questions. Sincerely, fiat/fa DJLRN l/M‘: Reezie Vice President Patient Operations and CNO cc: Judy Javorek ()l/l' \Iinmu :- I}! IIn/vrnn' I/H' Hal/Ill u/‘Ilu' Cummunilim ”'2' vac LIST OF REFERENCES 111 LIST OF REFERENCES Adams, J. L., & Ramey, C. T. (1980). Structural aspects of maternal speech to infants reared in poverty. Child Development, £1, 1280-1284. Ainsworth, M. D. (1979). Infant-mother attachment. American Psychologistl 34, 10, 932-937. Als, H., Lester, B. M., & Brazelton, T. B., (1976). Dynamics of the behavioral organization of the premature infant: A theoretical perspective. In Field, T. M., Sostek, A. M., Goldberg, S., & Shelman, H. H. (Eds.). Infants born at risk. New York: Spectrum. Andrews, M. P., Bubolz, M. M., & Paolucci, B. (1980). An ecological approach to study of the family. Marriage Familv Review, 3, 29-49. Ashton, T. (1973). The state variable in neonate research: A review. Merrill Palmer Quarterly, 3-20. 9, Bakeman, R. & Brown, L. (1977). Behavioral dialogue: An approach to the assessment of mother-infant interaction. Child Development. 48, 195-203. Baldwin, W. & Cain, V. S. (1980). The children of teenage parents. Family Planning Perspectivesl 12, 34-44. Barnard, K. (1978). Nursing child assessment teaching scale manual. Seattle: University of Washington. Barnard, K. W., Booth, C. L., Mitchell, S. K., & Telzrow, R. W. (1984). Newborn nursing models. (Grant No. R01-NU-00719). Final report to Division Of Nursing, Bureau of Health Manpower. Health Resources Administration. Department of Health and Human Resources. U. S. Public Health Service. 112 Barratt, M. 8., Roach, M. A., & Leavitt, L. A. (1992). Early channels of mother-infant communication: Preterm and term infants. Journal 9; Child Psychology and Psychiatrvl 3;, 7, 1193-1204. Bee, H. L., Barnard, K. W. Eyres, S. J., Gray, C. A., Hammond, M. A., Spietz, A. L., Snyder, C., & Clark, B. (1982). Prediction of IQ and language skill from perinatal status, child performance, family characteristics, and mother-infant interaction. Child Developmenti 53. 1134-1156. Bell, R. Q. (1974). Contributions of human infants to caregiving and social interaction. In Lewis, M., & Rosenblum, L. A. (Eds). The effect 9: the infant 9g its caregiver. New York: Wiley & Sons. Belsky, J., & Benn, J. (1982). Beyond bonding: A family-centered approach to enhancing early parent- infant relations. In Bond, L. A., & Joffe, J. M. (Eds.). Facilitating infant and early childhood development. Hanover: University Press of New England. Belsky, J., Gilstrap, B., & Rovine, M. (1984). Stability and change in mother-infant and father-infant interaction in a family setting: 1 to 3 to 9 months. Child Developmentl §§, 692-705. Belsky, J., Taylor, D. G., & Rovine, M. (1984). The Pennsylvania infant and family developmnet project, II: The developmnet of reciprocal interactions in the mother-infant dyad. Child DevelopmentL §§, 706-717. Blehar, M. C., Liebermen, A. F., & Ainsworth, M. D. (1977). Early face-to-face interaction and its relation to later infant-mother attachment. thld DevelopmentL 48, 182-194. Bobak, I. M., & Jensen, M. D. (1993). Maternity and gynecologic care. The nurse and the family. 5th Ed. St. Louis: Mosby. Brazelton, T. B., Koslowski, B., & Main, M. (1974). The origins of reciprocity: The early mother-infant interaction. In Lewis, M. & Rosenblum, L. A. (Eds.). The effect 9; the infant g3 its caregiver. New York: Wiley & Sons. 113 Brazelton, T. B. (1982). Mother-infant reciprocity. In Klaus, M. H., Leger, T. & Trause, M. A. (Eds.). Maternal attachment and mothering disorders. Skillman, NJ: Johnson & Johnson. Brazelton, T. B., Koslowski, B., & Main, M. (1974). The origins of reciprocity: The early mother-infant i interaction. In Lewis, M. & Rosenblum, L. A. (Eds.). The effect 9; the infant pp its caregiver. New York: John Wiley & Sons. Bristor, M. W. (1983). The effects pf perinatal coaching pp mother-infant interactions. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, Michigan State University, East Lansing. Bronfenbrenner, U. (1979). The ecology pf human development: Experiments py nature and design. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press. Bronfenbrenner, U. (1989). Ecological systems theory. Annals g; child development, Q, 187-249. ' Broom, B. L. (1991). Impact of marital quality and psychological well-being on parental sensitivity for first-time mothers and fathers: A nursing study. (Doctoral dissertation, University of Texas at Austin, 1991). Bubolz, M. M., & Sontag, M. S. (1993). Human ecology theory. In Boss, P., Doherty, W., LaRossa, R., Schumm, W., & Steinmetz, S. K. (Eds.). Sourcebook g; family theories and methods: A contextual approach. New York: Plenum. Censullo, M. (1994). Strategy for promoting greater responsiveness in adolescent parent/infant relationships: Report of a pilot study. Journal pf Pediatric Nursingi 2, 1, 326-332. Censullo, M., Lester, B., & Hoffman, J. (1985). Rhythmic patterning in mother-newborn interaction. Nursing Research. 34. 342-346. Chase, M. (1991). Study of baby talk is in its infancy: grown-ups go gaga. The Wall Street Journal, LXXII, 152, May 20, 1991. (Zohn, J. P., & Tronick, E. Z. (1987). Mother-infant face-to-face interaction: The sequence of dyadic states at 3, 6, and 9 months. Developmental Psychology. 21‘ 69-77. 114 Coll, C. T. G., Hoffman, J., & Oh, W. (1987). The social ecology and early parenting of caucasian adolescent mothers. Child Development. 58. 955-963. Condon, W. S., & Sander, L. W. (1974). Neonate movement is synchronized with adult speech: Interactional participation and language acquisition. Science, 183, 99. Curtiss, S. (1977). Genie: A psycholinguistic study pf a modern-day ’Wild Child’. New York: Academic Press. Farren, D. C. & Ramey, C. T. (1980). Social class differences in dyadic involvement during infancy. Child Development. p;, 254-257. Field, T. M. (1977). Effects of early separation, interactive deficits, and experimental manipulations on infant-mother face-to-face interaction. Child Development. 48, 763-771. Field, T. M. (1978). Interaction behaviors of primary versus secondary caretaker fathers. Developmental Psychology. 14, 183-185. Field, T. M. (1980). Interactions of preterm and term infants with their lower-and middle-class teenage »and adult mothers. In T. M. Field (Ed.) High risk infants and children. New York: Academic Press. Fortier, J. C. (1988). The relationship of vaginal and cesarean births to father-infant attachment. Journal pf Obstetricy Gynecologic and Neonatal Nursing, 11, 128-134. Fraiberg, S. (1977). Blind infants and their mothers: An examination of the sign system. In Lewis, M. & Rosenblum, L. A. (Eds.). The effect of the infant ———*—_—— pp its caregiver. New York: Wiley & Sons. Friedman, S., Thompson, M., Crawley, S., Criticos, A., Crake, D., Iacobbo, M., Rogers, P., & Richardson, L. (1976). Mutual regard during mother-infant play. Perceptual and Motor Skills- 4;, 427-431. I?rodi, A. M., Lamb, M. E., Hwang, C. P., & Frodi, M. (1983). Father-mother-infant interaction in traditional and nontraditional Swedish families: A longitudinal study. Alternative Lifestyles, p, 142-163. 115 Hans, S. L. & Bernstein, V. J. (1991). Adolescent parenting programs: Assessing parent-infant interaction. Evaluation and Program Planningl 87-95. 4. Hollingshead, A. (1991). Two-factor index of social status. In D. C. Miller (Ed.) Handbook pf pesearch- design and social measurement. Fifth edition. Newbury Park, NJ: Sage Publications. Hook, N. C., & Paolucci, B. (1970). The family as an ecosystem. Journal g: Home Economics, pg, 5, 315-318. Hopkins, B. (1983). The developmnet of early non-verbal communication: An evaluation of its meaning. Journal pf Child Psychiatryy 24- 1, 131-144. Jorgensen, S. R. (1993). Adolescent pregnancy and parenting. In Gulotta, T., Adams, G. R., & Montemayor, R. (Eds.), Adolescent sexuality. Newbury Park, CA: Sage. Keller, H., & Scholmerich, A. (1987). Infant vocalizations and parental reactions during the first 4 months of life. Developmental Psychology- 3, 1, 62-67. Klaus, M. H., & Kennell, J. H. (1976). Maternal-infant bonding. St. Louis: Mosby Lamb, M. B., & Oppenheim, D. (1989). Fatherhood and father-child relationships. In Cath, S. H., Guritt, A., & Gunsberg, L. (Eds.). Fathers and their families. Hillsdale, NJ: Analytic Press. Lester, B. M., Hoffman, J., & Brazelton, T. B. (1985). The rhythmic structure of mother-infant interaction in term and preterm infnats. Child Development. pg, 15-27. Lewis, M. (1972). State as an infant-environment interaction: An analysis of mother-infant interactions as a function of sex. Merrill-Palmer Quarterly, 18, 95-121. .Lewis, M., & Lee-Painter, S. (1974). An interactional approach to the mother-infant dyad. In M. Lewis & L. A. Rosenblum (Eds.), The effect 9: the infant pp its caregiver. New York: Wiley & Sons. 116 Olson, S. L., Bates, J. B., & Bayles, K. (1984). Mother- infant interaction and the development of individual differences in children’s cognitive competence. Developmental Psychologyi 2Q, 1, 166-179. Palkovitz, R. (1984). Parental attitudes and fathers’ interactions with their five-month old infants. Developmental Psychology- 29, 1054-1060. Parke, R., & O’Leary, S. (1976). Father-mother-infant interaction in the newborn period: Some findings, some observations, and some unresolved issues. In Reigel, K., & Meacham, J. (Eds.). The developing individual ip g changing world. Vol. II; Social gpg environmental issues. The Hague: Mouton. Parke, R. D., & Sawin, D. B. (1980). The family in early infancy: Social interactional and attitudinal analyses. In Pedersen, F. A. (Ed.). Egg father- infant relationship. Observational studies 1p phg family setting; New York: Praeger. Parke, R. D. & Tinsley, B. R. (1981). The father’s role in infancy: Determinants of involvement in caregiving and play. In Lamb, M. E. (Ed.). 1gp role pf the father ip child development. New York: Wiley & Sons. Parke, R. D., & Tinsley, R. J. (1987). Family interaction in infancy. In J. D. Osofsky (Ed.), Handbook g: infant development. New York: Wiley & Sons. Pupura, D. (1975). Dendrite differentiation in human cerebral cortex: Normal and aberrant developmental patterns. Advanced Neurologyi 1;. 91. Ragozin, A. S., Basham, R. B., Crnic, D. A., Greenberg, M. T., & Robinson, N. M. (1982). Effects of maternal age on parenting role. Developmental Psychologyi 18, 4, 627-634. Rebelsky, R., & Hanks, C. (1971). Fathers’ verbal interaction with infants in the first three months of life. Child Development. 4;, 63-68. Reiber, V. D. (1976). Is the nurturing role natural to fathers? The Americal Journal g: Maternal Child Nursing, 1y 366-371. 117 Rutter, E. R., & Durkin, K. (1987). Turn-taking in mother-infant interaction: An examination of vocalizations and gaze. Developmental Psychologyi 2;, 1, 54-61. Schlesinger, B. (1988). The single teenage Canadian mother in the 1980’s. Conciliation Courts Review. pg, 1, 91-102. Schellenbach, C. J., Whitman, T. L., & Borokowski, J. G. (1992). Toward an integrative model of adolescent parenting. Human Development. 35- 81-99. Seigel, E. (1982). A critical examination of studies of parent-infant bonding. In Klaus, M. H., & Robertson, M. O. (Eds.). Birth. interaction and attachment. Skillman, NJ: Johnson & Johnson. Shields, M. J. & Sparling, J. W. (1993). Fathers’ play and touch behaviors with their three-month-old ~ infants. Physical g Occupational Therapy ip Pediatrics- 1;, 1, 39-59. Stern, D. N. (1974). Mother and infant at play: The dyadic interaction involving facial, vocal, and gaze behaviors. In Lewis, M. & Rosenblum L. A. (Eds.). The effect pf the infant pp its caregiver. New York: John Wiley & Sons. Thoman, E. B., Leiderman, P. H., & Olson, J. P. (1972). Neonate-mother interaction during breast-feeding. Developmental PsychologY- p, 110-118. Thoman, E. B., Acebo, C., Dreyer, C. A., Becker, P. T., & Freese, M. P. (1979). Individuality in the interactive process. In E. B. Thoman (Ed.), Origins pf the infant’s social responsiveness. New York: Lawrence Erlbaum. ' Thomas, A., & Chess, S. (1977). Temperament and development. New York: Brunner/Mazel Trevarthen, C. (1977). Descriptive analysis Of infant communicative behavior. In Schaffer, H. R. (Ed.). Studies 1p mother-infant interaction. New York: Academic Press. Voydanoff, P., & Donnelly, B. W. (1990). Adoleppent sexuality and pregnancy. Newbury Park, CA: Sage. 118 Yogman, M. W. (1982). Development of the father-infant relationship. In Fitzgerald, H. B., Lester, B.M., & Yogman, M. W. (Eds.). Theory ppg research ip behavioral pediatricpy Vol. 1;, New York: Plenum. "llllllllllllllllllll“