Cover not available
Article published In:
Interaction Studies
Vol. 22:1 (2021) ► pp.1–23

Do 12-month-old infants maintain expectations of contingent or non-contingent responding based on prior experiences with unfamiliar and familiar adults?

| Uppsala University
The current study examined whether infants use previous encounters for maintaining expectations for adults’ contingent responding. An unfamiliar adult responded contingently or non-contingently to infant signaling during an initial play situation and 10 min later presented an ambiguous toy while providing positive information (Experiment 1; forty-two 12-month-olds). The infants in the contingent group looked more at the adult during toy presentation and played more with the toy during the concluding free-play situation than the infants in the non-contingent group. When the parent had responded contingently or non-contingently to infant bids (Experiment 2; forty 12-month-olds), the infants in the contingent group tended to look more at the parent and tended to play more with the toy than did the infants in the non-contingent group. The results indicate that from just a brief exposure, infants form expectations about adults’ responsiveness and maintain these expectations of contingent/non-contingent responding from one situation to another.
Keywords: infants, contingency, social referencing, unfamiliar adult, familiar adult
Article outline
  • Experiment 1
  • Method
    • Participants
    • Situations and experimental conditions
    • Setup and materials
    • Design and procedure
      • Contingency situation
      • Ten-minute break
      • Toy exposure situation
      • Free-play situation
    • Coding and reliability
    • Manipulation checks
      • Contingency situation
      • Toy exposure situation
    • Infant behaviors
      • Contingency situation
      • Toy exposure situation
      • Free-play situation
  • Results
    • Toy exposure situation
    • Free-play situation
  • Discussion
  • Experiment 2
  • Method
    • Participants
    • Situations and experimental conditions
    • Setup and materials
    • Design and procedure
      • Training phase
      • Free-play situation
    • Coding and reliability
      • Contingency situation
      • Toy exposure situation
    • Infant behaviors
      • Contingency situation
      • Toy exposure situation
      • Free-play situation
  • Results
    • Toy exposure situation
    • Free-play situation
  • Discussion
  • General discussion
  • Acknowledgements
  • References
Published online: 17 September 2021
DOI logo
https://doi.org/10.1075/is.18044.ste
References (27)
References
Bigelow, A. E., & Birch, S. A. J. (1999). The effects of contingency in previous interactions on infants’ preference for social partners. Infant Behavior and Development, 22(3), 367–382. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Cohen, J. (1988). Statistical power analysis for the behavioral sciences, 2nd ed. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Inc.Google Scholar
Feinman, S. (1992). In the broad valley. An integrated look at social referencing. In S. Feinman (Ed.), Social referencing and the social construction of reality in infancy, (pp. 3–13). New York: Plenum. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Feinman, S., Roberts, D., Hsieh, K-F., Sawyer, D., & Swanson, D. (1992). A critical review of social referencing in infancy. In S. Feinman (Ed.), Social referencing and the social construction of reality in infancy, (pp. 15–54). New York: Plenum Press. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Feldman, R. (2007). Parent-infant synchrony and the construction of shared timing; physiological precursors, developmental outcomes, and risk conditions. Journal of Child Psychology and Psychiatry, 48(3/4), 329–354. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Gergely, G., Koós, O., & Watson, J. S. (2010). Contingent Parental Reactivity in Early Socio-Emotional Development. In T. Fuchs, H. C. Sattel, & P. Henningsen (Eds.), The embodied self: Dimensions, coherence and disorders, (pp. 141–169). Stuttgart: Schattauer GmbH.Google Scholar
Gergely, G., & Watson, J. S. (1999). Early social-emotional development: Contingency perception and the social biofeedback model. In: P. Rochat (Ed.), Early Social Cognition, (pp. 101–136). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Inc.Google Scholar
Hains, S. M. J., & Muir, D. W. (1996). Effects of stimulus contingency in infant-adult interactions. Infant Behavior and Development, 19(1), 49–61. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Keller, H., Lohaus, A., Völker, S., Cappenberg, M., & Chasiotis, A. (1999). Temporal contingency as an independent component of parenting behavior. Child Development, 70(2), 474–485. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Mesman, J., van IJzendoorn, M. H., & Bakermans-Kranenburg, M. J. (2009). The many faces of the still-face paradigm: A review and meta-analysis. Developmental Review, 29(2), 120–162. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Needham, A., Joh, A. S., Wiesen, S. E., & Williams, N. (2014). Effects of contingent reinforcement of actions on infants’ object-directed reaching. Infancy, 19(5), 496–517. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Neisser, U. (1991). Two perceptually given aspects of the self and their development. Developmental Review, 11(3), 197–209. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Northrup, J. B., Libertus, K., & Iverson, J. M. (2017). Response to changing contingencies in infants at high and low risk for autism spectrum disorder. Autism Research, 101, 1239–1248. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Radesky, J. S., Kistin, C. J., Zuckerman, B., Nitzberg, K., Gross, J., Kaplan-Sanoff, M., … Silverstein, M. (2014). Patterns of mobile device use by caregivers and children during meals in fast food restaurants. Pediatrics, 133(4), 843–849. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Radesky, J. S., Schumacher, J., & Zuckerman, B. (2015). Mobile and interactive media use by children: The good, the bad, and the unknown. Pediatrics, 135(1), 1–3. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Ramey, C. T., & Ourth, L. L. (1971). Delayed reinforcement and vocalization rates of infants. Child Development, 42(1), 291–297. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Shrout, P. E., & Fleiss, J. L. (1979). Intraclass correlations: Uses in assessing rater reliability. Psychological Bulletin, 861, 420–428. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Stenberg, G. (2009). Selectivity in infant social referencing. Infancy, 14(4), 457–473. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
(2017a). Does contingency in adults’ responding influence 12-month-old infants’ social referencing? Infant Behavior and Development, 461, 67–79. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
(2017b). Effects of adults’ contingent responding on infants’ behavior in ambiguous situations. Infant Behavior and Development, 491, 50–61. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Stenberg, G., & Hagekull, B. (1997). Social referencing and mood modification in 1-year-olds. Infant Behavior and Development, 20(2), 209–217. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Stern, D. (1999). Vitality contours: The temporal contour of feelings as a basic unit for constructing the infant’s social experience. In P. Rochat (Ed.), Early social cognition: Understanding others in the first months of life, (pp. 67–80). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Inc.Google Scholar
Striano, T., Henning, A., & Vaish, A. (2006). Selective looking by 12-month-olds to a temporally contingent partner. Interaction studies, 7(2), 233–250. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Tarabulsy, G. M., Tessier, R., & Kappas, A. (1996). Contingency detection and the contingent organization of behavior in interactions: Implications for socioemotional development in infancy. Psychological Bulletin, 120(1), 25–41. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
van Egeren, L. A., Barratt, M. S., & Roach, M. A. (2001). Mother-infant responsiveness: Timing, mutual regulation, and interactional context. Developmental Psychology, 37(5), 684–697. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Walden, T. A., & Baxter, A. (1989). The effect of context and age on social referencing. Child Development, 60(6), 1511–1518. DOI logoGoogle Scholar
Watson, J. S., & Ramey, C. T. (1972). Reactions to response-contingent stimulation in early infancy. Merrill-Palmer Quarterly, IS1, 219–227.Google Scholar