non-distress vocalizations 48%
other 38%
Berlin Los Angeles Beijing
38 20 17 36
gaze 10%
smile 4%
Delhi
Reactions to non-distress vocalizations
neutral vocalizations of low or middle intensity
Contingency toward infant signals in mother-infant dyads from Culture & different cultural environments development
Joscha Kärtner & Heidi Keller
Percentages of child events
SAMPLES
Child N Girls 47.4% 61.9% 64.7% 47.1% 57.7% Firstborn** * 73.7% 71.4% 100.0% 40.0% 26.9%
12
Mother Age*** 34.0a (3.0) 34.5a (3.0) 27.9b (2.8) 29.0b (3.4) 30.2 (6.2) 29.0b (8.4) Education* ** 15.2a (3.4) 17.0a (1.6) 15.2a/b (3.0) 15.5a (1.4) 12.9b (1.8) 6.6c (1.9)
THEORETICAL BACKGROUND • To react contingently toward a baby’s signals is part of the universal intuitive parenting repertoire (Papoušek & Papoušek, 1991). In two recent studies vocalizing was the dominant modality followed by touching (Hsu & Fogel, 2003; VanEgeren et al., 2001) • Furthermore, there are culture-specific modulations: • Gusii mothers from rural Kenya predominantly reacted by holding and touching whereas Boston middle-class mothers reacted primarily by looking and vocalizing (Richman et al., 1992) • Japanese mothers reacted more by touching as compared to Euro-American mothers who used facial expressions and vocalizing more often (Fogel et al.,1988) Our study addresses the general occurrence of contingent responsiveness as well as the specificity of reactions using a multicultural design with mothers who differ with respect to their interactional preferences: • Mothers with an independent model of parenting (Berlin and Los Angeles) should use distal modalities more often, • Mothers with an interdependent model of parenting (rural Nso) should use proximal modalities more often, and • Mothers with an autonomous relational model of parenting (Beijing, Delhi, urban Nso) should use both distal and proximal modalities equally often PROCEDURE • Families were visited at home • 10 minutes free play interaction between the caretaker and her 3-month old baby was videotaped METHODS – modalities for contingent responsiveness: 1.Body contact (holding) 2.Body stimulation (touching) 3.Gaze (looking) 4.Smile 5.Facial expression (raised eyebrows, mouth open) 6.Vocalization (talking) 7.Object stimulation (toys) 8.Acoustical stimulation (flipping, rattling)
Reactions to nonverbal events
smile and gaze
urban Nso 24
Contingent reactions by modality
80 70
contingency rate irs and Los rural Nsofrom 26Berlin 73.1% 38.5% Angeles responded about10 4 8 times more often with a distal than with a proximal modality 6 (the ratios for the mothers of 4 all other samples were 2 around 2)