Crying 3

8/2/2019 Crying 3

1/10

Social Experiences and Daily Routines of African American Infants inDifferent Socioeconomic Contexts

Hillary N. FoutsUniversity of Tennessee

Jaipaul L. RoopnarineSyracuse University

Michael E. LambUniversity of Cambridge

Sixty-two 3- to 4-month-old African American infants from lower, middle, and uppersocioeconomic status (SES) backgrounds were each observed in naturalistic contexts for 12hr. The social experiences of infants in the 3 groups were similar in many ways: Infants fromall backgrounds slept and were vocalized to for similar amounts of time. However, infants inthe upper SES families engaged in more self-play, vocalized less, fussed less, had fewer butlonger naps, and fewer but longer bouts of social interaction than did infants in the middle-and lower SES families. Infants in the upper SES families also received more verbal affectionand soothing responses to their fussing and crying than did the other infants, whereas infantsin the lower SES families interacted more with extended kin than did infants in the upper SESfamilies. These results underscore the need to study African American families in a varietyof socioeconomic contexts because families in more advantaged circumstances may greatlydiffer from those who are more disadvantaged, especially in terms of reliance on extended kinas caregivers.

Keywords: infant behavior, social interactions, extended kin, SES, African Americanfamilies

Little is known about socioeconomic differences in earlyinfant experiences. The purpose of this study was to exam-ine how the everyday experiences and social behavior of 3-

to 4-month-old African American infants varied, dependingon their families socioeconomic status (SES), by natural-istically observing infants and caregivers in three differentSES contexts (low, middle, and upper). Most previous stud-ies of African American children have tended to focusdisproportionately on disadvantaged families (Graham,1992), even though substantial numbers of African Ameri-can families live in middle- and upper SES contexts. Oneearlier study revealed more heterogeneity among AfricanAmerican parents than had previously been recognized(Roopnarine, Fouts, Lamb, & Lewis-Elligan, 2005), but few

consistent SES differences were evident when the parentsgender was controlled in the analyses. Contrary to thewidespread belief that parents in low-SES families are not

adequately involved with their children (Magnusson &Duncan, 2002), parents spent similar amounts of time withtheir infants in all SES groups (Roopnarine et al., 2005).Building on Roopnarine et al.s (2005) study of parentingbehavior, we focused in this study on infant behaviors andinteractions with all social partners, not only parents. Spe-cifically, we examined variations in the structure of infantsawake and asleep periods, responses to the infants fussingand crying, infants social engagement and the structure oftheir dyadic social interactions, and the identity of theinfants social partners.

Like other researchers advocating cultural-contextual andadaptive-resilient perspectives, we assumed that child-rearing and family patterns evolve over time to meet thedemands of specific sociocultural and economic ecologies(Low, 2005; Ogbu, 1981; Super & Harkness, 1997). Insteadof assuming that families with particular characteristics(e.g., single-parent, low-income) are deficient, therefore, wepresume that they have adapted to particular socioculturaland economic ecologies. In this study, we examined notonly how infants were treated but also how infants behavedin these differing ecologies.

Ogbu (1981) proposed that researchers interested incross-cultural comparisons should first study within-ethnicgroup variations in behavior across a variety of contexts toensure that subsequent cross-cultural comparisons avoid

Hillary N. Fouts, Department of Child and Family Studies,University of Tennessee; Jaipaul L. Roopnarine, Department ofChild and Family Studies, Syracuse University; Michael E. Lamb,Faculty of Social and Political Sciences, University of Cambridge,Cambridge, England.

This study was supported by funds from the National Instituteof Child Health and Human Development awarded to Michael E.Lamb. We are grateful to the families who participated in thepresent study.

Correspondence concerning this article should be addressed toHillary N. Fouts, Department of Child and Family Studies, Uni-versity of Tennessee, 1215 West Cumberland Avenue, Knoxville,TN 37996-1912. E-mail: [email protected]

Journal of Family Psychology Copyright 2007 by the American Psychological Association2007, Vol. 21, No. 4, 655 664 0893-3200/07/$12.00 DOI: 10.1037/0893-3200.21.4.655

655

8/2/2019 Crying 3

2/10

representing one group as deficient relative to anothergroup. Studies that examine a cultural or ethnic group in arange of SES contexts facilitate cross-cultural or majority-minority comparisons, and we thus focused on AfricanAmerican families in different socioeconomic contextsrather than on different ethnic groups.

In line with the cultural-contextual perspective, Lareau(2003) conducted an ethnographic study of childhood andsocial class among U.S. families from diverse ethnic back-grounds. Lareau concluded that upper-middle-class parentsdeliberately tried to stimulate their childrens developmentand foster their cognitive and social skills (p. 5), whereaslower- and working-class parents placed more emphasis onproviding comfort, food, and shelter. In upper-middle-classhomes, for example, children had very structured days andwere often directed to engage in activities that fostered newskills even during play time, whereas children in lower- andworking-class families had more unstructured and unsuper-vised periods during which they could choose what to doand also spent more time interacting with extended kin.

Lareau (2003) suggested that these differences are bestviewed as transmitting differential advantages to children(p. 5) rather than as being better or worse than one another.The upper-middle-class contexts may foster success inschools, but children from lower- and working-class fami-lies may be more comfortable making independent deci-sions and have a better understanding of social and kinnetworks.

Although SES may have substantial effects on child-rearing strategies, other scholars have suggested that Afri-can American families have child-rearing practices that aredistinct from other minorities and European Americans(Bartz & Levine, 1978; Heath, 1989; Thornton, Chatters,

Taylor, & Allen, 1990). For example, Bartz and Levine(1978) exemplified how lower- and working-class AfricanAmerican parents had different child-rearing expectationscompared with Latino and European American parents inlower- and working-class contexts. Specifically, Bartz andLevine found that the African American parents in theirstudy expected early autonomy with respect to childrensbodily functions and emotions, valued both high supportand control over childrens behavior, and emphasized egal-itarian family roles.

Although interest in the development of children fromminority groups has grown in the last decade (Quintana etal., 2006), few studies have focused on infants. This isespecially problematic because early experience has a con-siderable impact on later socioemotional development (Fra-ley, 2002). Three- to 4-month-olds are especially interestingbecause their behavior is increasingly characterized by dis-criminating sociabilitythe emergence of preferences fordifferent social partners. This age is also marked by morecoordinated behavior, less variable levels of arousal, andlonger periods of time awake when they are alert andengaged in social interactions (Lamb, Bornstein, & Teti,2002). The review of relevant literature that follows reflectsthe paucity of information about African American infantsby focusing on studies involving children, rather than in-fants.

Most researchers have focused on parents (especiallymothers), and so far less is known about infant interactionswith nonparental kin. Nonparental kin provide a great dealof infant care in many cultures throughout the world (Hark-ness & Super, 1992; Rogoff, Mistry, Goncu, & Mosier,1991), and such kin commonly help care for older African

American children (Early & Burchinal, 2001; Jackson,1993; Uttal, 1999). We sought to determine whether thiswas also true with respect to infants, not only to see howearly in life kin became involved in child care but also toidentify possible socioeconomic differences in the relianceon kin care and the effects of varying kin involvement onearly social experiences.

The effects of SES on levels of social interaction andverbal stimulation in infancy are unclear, although Brodyand Flor (1997) proposed that financial resources directlyaffect maternal state (such as depressive symptoms andself-esteem), which, in turn, affects motherchild harmony.Financial resources should also affect the behavior of care-givers other than mothers as well as the everyday routines of

families. Several researchers have suggested that high levelsof verbal stimulation are a distinctive characteristic ofparentchild interaction in upper socioeconomic contextsregardless of ethnicity (Gottfried, 1984; Hart & Risley,1995; Hoff, 2003), but SES does not predict levels of verbalstimulation in all ethnic groups (Leyendecker, Lamb,Scholmerich, & Fricke, 1997). For example, levels of ma-ternal vocalization to infants in low-, middle-, and upperSES African American families did not differ significantly(Roopnarine et al., 2005). Likewise, Leyendecker et al.(1997) did not find SES differences in overall levels ofinfant and maternal vocalization in Costa Rican families,although there were SES differences in specific contexts

(e.g., feeding, caretaking, and social interactions).Overall, few conclusions can be drawn about the effects

of SES and ethnicity on levels of verbal stimulation andinteraction because researchers have tended to focus nar-rowly on motherchild dyads rather than on overall socialexperiences and have tended to confound SES and ethnicity(Graham, 1992). Feiring and Lewis (1981) reported thatEuropean American 3-month-old infants in upper-middle-class families vocalized more frequently and were moreoften engaged in dyadic social interactions with their moth-ers than did European American infants in middle-classfamilies. These findings suggest that socioeconomic cir-cumstances may influence infants as young as 3 months ofage, but further research carefully distinguishing betweenthe effects of ethnicity and SES is clearly needed.

There has been more research on responses to fussing andcrying than on responses to other infant behaviors. In theirrecent analyses of the National Institute of Child Health andHuman Development Early Childcare Research Networkdata set, Bakermans-Kranenburg, van IJzendoorn, andKroonenberg (2004) concluded that the predictive associa-tions between maternal sensitivity and attachment securitywere evident in both African American and EuropeanAmerican contexts. Poverty appeared to impede maternalsensitivity to fussing and crying, however. Perhaps as aresult, African American children had substantially lower

656 FOUTS, ROOPNARINE, AND LAMB

8/2/2019 Crying 3

3/10

Attachment Q-sort scores than European American childrenbecause African American children were overrepresented inlower SES groups. In the present study, we focused onresponses by all caregivers rather than only on maternalsensitivity, but emphasized responses to fussing and cryingbecause parental sensitivity to fussing and crying has been

shown to affect later socioemotional development (Ains-worth, Blehar, Waters, & Wall, 1978; de Wolff & vanIJzendoorn, 1997). Although Bakersmans-Kranenburg andcolleagues (2004) suggested that motherinfant attachmentsmight develop differently in African and European Ameri-can families because multiple caregiving networks are morecommon in the former, socioeconomic variations (and theirpossible impact on socioemotional development) remainunexplored. There is emerging evidence that family func-tioning and relationships with other caregivers may influ-ence the quality of parentinfant attachment (Caldera &Lindsay, 2006; Cowan, 1997), and although we did notexplore the effects on attachment, we did examine varia-tions in responsiveness when there were multiple care-

givers.As is the case with verbal stimulation and social interac-

tions, less attention has been paid to the sleeping routines ofinfants with different SES backgrounds. The daily routinesof infants revolve predominantly around their sleepwakecycles so that napping patterns are central to their dailyroutines. There is some evidence that sleep-wake cyclesdiffer across SES contexts. Leyendecker, Lamb, Scholmer-ich, and Fracasso (1995) reported that the circadian distri-bution of sleep among middle-class European Americaninfants reflected an emphasis on schedule, whereas infantsin small-scale societies characterized by low levels of edu-cation and financial resources are often allowed to sleep and

breastfeed whenever they choose (e.g., Hewlett & Lamb,2005; Super & Harkness, 1982). Research on middle-classEuropean American infants daily routines may not accu-rately reflect the experiences of infants in other ethnicgroups in the United States.

In the present study, we attempted to fill substantial gapsin the literature on child-rearing and infant social develop-ment by examining African American families in a broadrange of socioeconomic contexts. We also attempted torepresent infant social interactions with all caregivers, ratherthan focusing only on motherinfant interactions, and be-cause so little is known about the associations between SESand infants daily routines, we documented infants sleep-wake cycles. Pursuant to these concerns, we asked threequestions: (a) Do 3- to 4-month-old African American in-fants behave differently and have different daily sleep rou-tines depending on their socioeconomic context? (b) Do theinfants social experiences and the extent to which they areengaged in social interactions vary depending on their SES?and (c) Do the number and types of individuals interactingwith infants vary systematically depending on the socioeco-nomic context?

On the basis of the few studies of infant behavior anddaily routines, we expected infants in the higher SES con-texts to have more sustained periods of social interactionand wakefulness (Leyendecker et al., 1995). Even though

many researchers have reported that European Americans inhigher SES contexts tend to talk to their infants and childrenmore than in lower SES contexts (Brody & Flor, 1997;Gottfried, 1984; Hart & Risley, 1995; Hoff, 2003), we didnot predict significant differences because some studieshave shown that SES does not always predict verbal inter-

action with infants and children, especially among AfricanAmericans (Roopnarine et al., 2005). On the basis of thenumerous reports that families in lower SES contexts oftenhave extended kin both living in their households and play-ing prominent roles in the care of older children (Early &Burchinal, 2001; Jackson, 1993; Uttal, 1999), we expectedthat infants in the lower SES contexts would have moreinteractions with nonparental kin than infants in the othergroups.

Method

Participants

Sixty-two families from three different socioeconomicbackgrounds participated in this study. Each parent self-identified as African American. None of the parents wererecent immigrants to the United States, and English was theprimary language spoken in each household. All of thefamilies had infants between 3 and 4 months of age. Thefamilies were recruited through advertisements in neighbor-hood newspapers, churches, health clinics, day care centers,and by word-of-mouth. Participating families came fromdifferent neighborhoods in a midsize northeastern city andwere paid $60 for their participation.

SES was assessed using indices of educational attain-ment, income, and occupation (Entwisle & Astone, 1994),

and 20 of the participating families were categorized aslower SES, 21 as middle SES, and 21 as upper SES. Table1 describes features of the families, including details aboutemployment, yearly income, and household composition.The lower SES families met the federal criteria for living inpoverty, and the parents had obtained less education thanhad the middle- and upper SES parents. In fact, the majorityof parents in the lower SES group had either attended highschool but not finished or had finished high school and takensome college courses (25% and 60%, respectively); veryfew parents had college degrees (7.5%). In the lower SESgroup, parents who were employed typically worked insemiskilled jobs such as factory work, fast food restaurants,claims agents, delivery, hair salons, and waiters at restau-rants. Seventy-five percent of these families made less than$10,000 annually. The average salary range for the middleSES families was higher ($35,000$55,000), and the ma-jority of parents had taken some college classes or hadgraduated from college (42.9% and 35.7%, respectively).Parents in the middle SES group were typically employed asmanagers, mechanics, drivers, engineers, sales and cus-tomer service representatives, fitness trainers, day care pro-viders, and nurses. Upper SES families had the highestsalaries of the three groups (average of above $80,000), andthe majority of parents had college degrees or postgraduatedegrees (33.3% and 57.1%, respectively). The majority of

657SOCIAL EXPERIENCES OF AFRICAN AMERICAN INFANTS

8/2/2019 Crying 3

4/10

parents in the upper SES group were employed in profes-sional positions such as physicians, lawyers, teachers,school principals, and heads of companies.

In the lower SES group, none of the mothers and fatherswere married to each other at the time of observation,whereas 61.9% of parents in the middle SES group and85.7% of parents in the upper group were married to eachother. Very few fathers in the lower SES group lived in thehousehold with their infants. Mothers and fathers alsotended to be older in the middle- and high-SES groups. Ineach group, there were few firstborn infants.

Procedure

Each focal infant was observed in unstructured circum-stances for 3 hr on four different days (811 a.m.,11 a.m.2 p.m., 26 p.m., 68 p.m.) so that each infantwas observed over a total of 12 hr. The observations wereconducted by five adult graduate and undergraduate stu-dents who each self-identified as African American. Priorto the first observation session, the observer visited thefamily to explain and answer questions about the proce-dures. During this visit, demographic data were collected.Families were told that during observations, they werefree to go about their normal activities and schedules.Mothers were not required to take leave from work or tobe present during the observations. However, most moth-ers were present and not working outside of the homeduring observations. This was most likely an artifact ofthe young age of the infants.

The behavioral coding protocol was based on that devel-oped by Belsky, Gilstrap, and Rovine (1984) and has beenused to observe 3- to 4-month-old infants in many differentcultural and ethnic contexts in Central Africa, CentralAmerica, Germany, Canada, and the United States (e.g.,Fracasso, Lamb, Scholmerich, & Leyendecker, 1997;Hewlett, Lamb, Shannon, Leyendecker, & Scholmerich,1998; Leyendecker et al., 1997; Roopnarine et al., 2005).Using a 20-s observe and 10-s record time sampling tech-nique, observers used a checklist to record the occurrence of

infant behaviors; behaviors directed at the infants (all indi-viduals were coded); dyadic behaviors; the location, room,or space in which the infant was located; and the identityof all those who were present. Each 20-s observation isreferred to throughout the remainder of the article as aninterval of observation. Each 3-hr observation period wasbroken up into three segments containing a 45-min ob-servation period followed by a 15-min break. Each ob-serve (20 s) and record (10 s) segment was indicatedthrough an earphone connected to a tape recorder wornby the observer.

Before conducting live observations, observers weretrained in the observational technique for 3 weeks by ob-serving 45-min video recordings of 3- to 4- month-old

African American infants in their homes. Observers wereonly permitted to begin field observations once they agreedwith one another regarding at least 90% of the occasions onwhich each behavioral code was used. Interobserver reli-ability was reassessed intermittently during 10% of fieldobservations, and Cohens kappa was used to calculateinterobserver reliability. For identifying caregivers and so-cial partners, the observers agreed 100% of the time duringreliability checks. Cohens kappa coefficients were as fol-lows: infant smiles .63, infant vocalizes .72, infantplays with self .91, infant fuss .83, infant cry .84,infant sleep .82, vocalization to infant .85, stimulate/arousal of infant .72, verbal affect .81, physical af-

fect .63, verbal soothe .88, and physical soothe .84.Infant smile and physical affect have relatively low reliabil-ity scores. This is perhaps due to the co-occurrence of thesebehaviors with other behaviors that may have obscureddemarcation of smiling and physical affect. For example,physical affect often co-occurred with verbal affect, andinfant smile often occurred with social engagement behav-iors.

In this study, six infant behaviors, eight behaviors di-rected toward infants, and instances of dyadic social inter-actions between infants and others were examined (seeTable 2 for definitions).

Table 1Characteristics of Families

CharacteristicLower SES

(n 20)Middle SES

(n 21)Upper SES

(n 21)

Female infant 10 12 12Male infant 10 9 9

% of firstborn infant 35 19.05 42.86% of infants with at least one sibling 65 80.95 57.14Mothers age (mean) 23.05 30.29 34.86Fathers age (mean) 25.58 34.25 37.26% father resident 20 76 86% both parents employed 30 42.86 42.86% father-only employed 30 42.86 47.62% mother-only employed 15 14.29 14.29No employment 25 0 0Average yearly income rangea below $10,000 $35,00$55,000 Above $80,000

Note. SES socioeconomic status.a Participants reported their income range rather than their exact yearly income.


8/2/2019 Crying 3

5/10

Statistics

Scores for infant behaviors, social engagement, and so-cial interactions were prorated to represent the proportion ofintervals that the infants were awake. Sleep patterns, how-ever, were quantified as proportions of the total number ofintervals observed.

Multivariate analyses of variance (MANOVAs) were con-ducted to determine whether infant behaviors, behaviors di-rected toward infants, proportion of soothing to fussing andcrying, soothing styles, affection styles, social interactions,social partners, and sleep patterns differed as a function ofSES. A MANOVA, in which SES was entered as the inde-pendent variable, was conducted for each set of dependentvariables, as shown in separate sections of Tables 3 and 4. All

descriptive information for the dependent variables is shown inthese tables as well. Following each MANOVA yielding sig-

nificant effects, univariate analyses (ANOVAs) were con-ducted. T tests or nonparametric t tests were used as appropri-ate to make pairwise comparisons between SES groups.Cohens fwas used to quantify effect sizes. Cohen (1988) hascategorized small effect sizes as ranging from .10 to .24,medium from .25 to .39, and large as .40 or greater.

Results

Infant Behavior

A MANOVA of the infant behaviors (shown in Table 3:smiling, vocalizing, self-play, fussing, and crying) revealed

Table 2Definitions of Behavioral Codes

Behaviors Definitions

Infant smiles The infant smiled while awake or in response to external stimulation. Smiles during sleep werenot coded. By definition, infant smiles could not co-occur with sleep, fuss, or cry.

Infant vocalizes The infant was awake and made sounds or vocalized, but vocalizations reflecting irritable

states, nonlinguistic vocalizations (hiccups, coughs, sneezes), or sounds clearly due tophysical effort or noises produced while child was sucking were not coded.Infant plays with self (self-play) The infant paid attention or entertained her- or himself or distracted her- or himself with

objects she or he could look at or touch with parts of her or his own body, or the infantplayed with her or his body without objects. Infant play could not co-occur with sleep, fuss,or cry.

Infant fuss The infant was awake and showed signs of agitation or upset; she or he was bothered andemitted moans, whines, and whimpers but did not cry.

Infant cry The infant was awake and made vocalizations, gestures, and motor behaviors that left no doubtthat the infant was crying. This variable was not coded if the infant was only whimpering,complaining, or restless.

Infant sleep The infant was sleeping with eyelids shut.Vocalizing to infant A person vocalized to the infant using short, simple dialogue, vocalizing slowly and baby

talking some words so that the infant would pay attention or talk normally. The personcould make animal sounds for the child, sing to her or him, or change the intonation as away of calling or drawing her or his attention.

Stimulate/arouse infant Action by which a person attempted to draw or maintain the infants attention on an event inorder to maintain alertness or the level of positive affect. The person might touch the infantwith a finger to call attention, play with her or him, or make other efforts to stimulate theinfant: For example, making him jump on her lap; moving him, pulling limbs, etc.Stimulation was not coded if the individual was soothing the infant.

Verbal positive affect A person expressed positive affect to the infant, either verbally (praise, terms of endearment)or by smiling in response to a behavior. This variable was reserved for clear demonstrationsof love and affection, which went beyond simple states of pleasure.

Physical positive affect A person expressed affect physically (touching, hugging, kissing, makes loving gestures, orpatting infant affectionately) in clear demonstrations of love and affection.

Combined positive affect Simultaneous verbal and/or physical affect (verbal plus physical affect), as defined above.Verbal soothe Through verbal and facial expressions and gestures to distract the infant, a person tried to quiet

or calm an irritable or crying infant. If the infant calmed for at least 20 s, then verbalsoothe was no longer coded.

Physical soothe A person tried to physically quiet or calm an irritable or crying infant, for example, byrocking, patting, picking up, pushing the infant in a carriage, or showing the infant a toy.This behavior was only coded while the infant was irritable or crying. If the infant calmed

for a period of 20 s, then physical soothe was no longer coded.Combined soothe The combined score of verbal and/or physical soothing.Social interaction Social interaction was coded whenever an infant expressed a social behavior (smiling or

vocalizing) while receiving a social bid from someone (vocalizing, stimulate/arouse,affection). Social interactions were measured in terms of the number of intervals (eachcoding every 30 s) observed as well as the number of bouts (2 or more contiguous intervalsof social interaction).

Social partners Social partners were coded for each social interaction. Social partners were classified as theinfants mother, father, sibling, relative, and nonrelative (e.g., family friends). Analysisfocused on the proportion of social interactions in which each partner was involved.


8/2/2019 Crying 3

6/10

a significant main effect for SES (Wilkss .69), F(10,110) 2.27, p .05, f .46. Subsequent univariateanalyses revealed SES differences for levels of infant vo-calizing, F(2, 59) 3.47, p .05, f .35; self-play, F(2,59) 4.94, p .01, f .41; and fussing, F(2, 59) 3.55,

p .05, f .35, but not for smiling and crying. Pairwisecomparisons showed that infants in upper SES familiesvocalized less than did infants in middle-, t(40) 2.41, p .05, or lower, t(39) 2.03, p .05, SES families butengaged in more self-play than infants in middle-, t(40) 1.93, p .06, or lower, t(27.93) 3.16, p .01, SESfamilies. Levels of infant vocalizing and self-play were notsignificantly different in the middle- and lower SES groups.Infants in lower SES families fussed significantly more thaninfants in middle-, t(39) 2.03, p .05, and upper, t(39) 2.46, p .05, SES families, whereas fussing levels forinfants in middle- and upper SES families were not signif-icantly different.

In summary, infants in upper SES families differed frominfants in the other groups in several ways: They vocalizedless, fussed less, and engaged in more self-play than infantsin the lower SES contexts.

Infant Daily Routines

A MANOVA of the measures of infant sleeping patternsshown in Table 3 revealed a significant effect for SES(Wilkss .63), F(6, 114) 4.95, p .001, f .51.Subsequent univariate analyses showed socioeconomic dif-ferences in the number of bouts of sleeping, F(2, 59) 10.04, p .001, f .58, and in the average length of

sleeping bouts, F(2, 59) 12.85, p .001, f .66. Infantsin the three groups had three distinct sleep patterns: Infantsin upper SES families had longer but less frequent boutsthan infants in middle-SES, frequency t(40) 2.48, p .05; length t(40) 2.65, p .05, and lower SES families,

frequency t(24.75) 3.83, p .001; length t(23.70) 5.39, p .001, and infants in middle-SES families hadlonger and less frequent bouts than those in the lower SESfamilies, frequency t(25.76) 2.45, p .05; lengtht(25.22) 2.88, p .01.

In summary, daily sleeping routines were distinct in eachgroup, with fewer but longer naps enjoyed by infants in thehigher SES contexts.

Infant Experiences: Social, Affectionate, andSoothing Behavior Directed Toward Infants

A MANOVA of behaviors directed toward infants, in-cluding vocalizing, stimulate-arouse, affection, and sooth-ing (see Table 3), revealed a main effect for SES (Wilkss .71), F(8, 112) 2.67, p .01, f .44. Subsequentunivariate analyses showed SES differences for affection,F(2, 59) 4.20, p .05, f .37, and soothing, F(2, 59) 6.83, p .01, f .48, but not for vocalizing or stimulate-arouse. Specifically, infants in the upper SES families re-ceived more affection than did infants in middle-, t(40) 2.46, p .05, and lower SES families, t(36.76) 2.34,

p .05, whereas infants in the middle- and lower SESfamilies received similar amounts of affection. Likewise,infants in upper SES families received more soothing thandid infants in middle-, t(38.50) 3.16, p .01, and

Table 3Mean Percentages of Infant and Social-Partner Behaviors Observed

Variable

Lower SES(n 20)

Middle SES(n 21)

Upper SES(n 21)

M SD M SD M SD

Infant behaviorsa

Smiling 9.73 6.72 9.58 6.39 7.64 4.58Vocalizing 19.82 9.57 20.28 7.76 13.55 10.17Self-play 6.88 3.96 8.75 7.46 13.63 8.90Fuss 10.76 4.35 8.15 3.98 7.78 3.38Cry 4.61 4.68 2.68 2.43 4.77 2.90

Infant sleepingSleep during the day 36.00 12.83 35.01 10.04 37.25 11.10Number of sleep bouts per day 9.10 4.88 6.19 2.14 4.62 1.96Length of sleep bouts in minutes 23.40 6.68 35.94 18.75 50.91 22.37

Social engagement behaviors of infantsa

Vocalizing 37.06 16.15 38.01 12.96 42.42 11.05Stimulus-arousal 10.89 6.62 10.68 7.05 8.17 6.28Affection 18.13 12.09 17.40 12.98 28.60 28.60Soothing 10.05 5.28 8.94 6.60 16.12 8.06

Relative rate of soothing to fussing and crying 0.67 0.24 0.81 0.34 1.34 0.46Types of soothinga

Physical 5.39 3.59 4.65 4.59 8.47 6.34Verbal 4.51 2.39 4.30 2.60 8.81 4.18

Types of affectiona

Physical 16.32 11.35 13.79 9.80 17.20 10.92Verbal 1.81 1.44 3.84 7.43 11.40 9.13

Note. SES socioeconomic status.a Mean percentages of intervals that the infant was awake.


8/2/2019 Crying 3

7/10

lower, t(34.67) 2.87, p .01, SES families eventhough infants in upper SES families fussed less than infantsin middle- or lower SES families.

Because of these SES differences in the infants expe-riences, we examined soothing and affection styles aswell as the ratios of soothing to fussing and crying. An

ANOVA of the ratios of soothing to fussing and cryingshown in Table 3 revealed a main effect for SES, F(2,59) 19.71, p .001, f .82. Infant fussing and cryingwere more likely to elicit responses in upper SES familiesthan in middle-, t(36.76) 4.24, p .001, and lower,t(30.56) 5.83, p .001, SES families, whereas themiddle- and lower SES groups did not differ significantlywith respect to the proportions of fussing and cryinginstances that received responses.

A MANOVA of soothing styles (see Table 3: physical,verbal) revealed a significant main effect for SES(Wilkss .69), F(4, 116) 6.57, p .001, f .46.Univariate analyses indicated that SES significantly pre-dicted levels of both physical, F(2, 59) 3.45, p .05,

f .35, and verbal soothing, F(2, 59) 13.44, p .001,f .68. Infants in upper SES families received morephysical and verbal soothing than infants in middle-,physical t(40) 2.24, p .05; verbal t(33.49) 4.20, p .001, and lower, physical t(31.95) 1.92,

p .06; verbal t(32.12) 4.07, p .001, SES fami-lies, whereas levels of soothing in the middle- and lowerSES groups did not differ significantly.

A MANOVA of affectionate behavior styles (see Table 3:physical, verbal) revealed significant main effects for SES(Wilkss .71), F(4, 116) 5.34, p .001, f .42.Univariate analyses showed that SES was significantly as-sociated with levels of verbal affection, F(2, 59) 11.11,

p .001, f .62. Infants in upper SES families receivedmore verbal affection than did infants in middle-, t(38.41) 2.95, p .01, or lower, t(21.04) 4.75, p .001, SESfamilies. In order to further examine the lack of differencesin verbal affection between the lower and middle-SES con-texts, a subsequent MANOVA of affectionate behaviors

was conducted, entering number of siblings as a covariate.The SES effect remained significant, and number of siblingsdid not predict variation in levels of physical or verbalaffection.

In summary, infants in the upper SES context differedfrom those in the other contexts in that they received more

soothing and affection than other infants. Differences wereevident with respect to physical and verbal soothing, butonly with respect to verbal (not physical) affection.

Social Interactions

A MANOVA of the measures of overall social interactionshown in Table 4 revealed a significant effect for SES(Wilkss .72), F(6, 114) 3.45, p .01, f .42.Univariate analyses indicated that SES predicted the fre-quency of social interaction bouts, F(2, 59) 5.59, p .01,

f .44, and the average length of bouts, F(2, 59) 6.51,p .01, f .47, but not the overall number of intervalsspent in social interaction. In the upper SES families, the

bouts of social interaction were longer than in the lower,t(34.21) 4.02, p .001, and middle-SES families,t(40) 2.31, p .05, but social interactions were lessfrequent in the upper SES than in the middle-, t(40) 2.91,

p .01, and lower SES families, t(39) 2.83, p .01.Social interaction bout frequency and length were similar inmiddle- and lower SES contexts.

In summary, social interaction bouts followed the samegeneral pattern as sleeping bouts: Longer but fewer boutsoccurred in the higher SES contexts.

Social Interaction Partners

A MANOVA of the proportions of social interactionswith various partners (see Table 4) revealed a significantmultivariate effect for SES (Roys largest root . 22), F(5,56) 2.44, p .05, f .47. Univariate analyses showedSES differences in the numbers of social interactions withrelatives, F(2, 59) 3.07, p .05, f .32, but not with

Table 4Mean Percentages of Social Interactions Observed Between Infants and VariousPartners

Variable

Lower SES(n 20)

Middle SES(n 21)

Upper SES(n 21)

M SD M SD M SDOverall social interactionsa

Social interactions during the day 16.84 8.99 16.78 8.85 12.80 5.54Number of interaction bouts per hour 3.54 1.52 3.55 1.50 3.08 1.64Length of interaction bouts in minutes 1.43 0.44 1.62 0.81 2.16 0.69

Social interactions with different partnersb

Mother 65.75 24.99 75.92 27.09 75.12 30.08Father 8.69 16.61 8.77 18.61 19.15 28.24Siblings 1.06 2.77 3.75 6.72 0.65 2.99Relatives 17.39 17.71 9.87 17.08 3.94 17.38Nonrelatives 7.43 19.55 1.69 6.02 1.20 4.09

Note. SES socioeconomic status.a Mean percentage of intervals that an infant was observed awake.b Mean percentage of observed social interactions.


8/2/2019 Crying 3

8/10

mothers, fathers, siblings, or nonrelatives. Infants in lowerSES families had more social interactions with relativesthan did infants in upper SES families, t(38.82) 2.45, p .05, with no differences between infants in upper and mid-dle SES families or between infants in the lower and middleSES groups.

In summary, infants in the lower SES families differedfrom those in the upper SES group: They interacted morewith nonparental kin than infants in the upper group did.

Discussion

The results reported here make clear that the infantsindeed behaved differently and had different social experi-ences, depending on their socioeconomic background. Eventhough infants in each SES group were equally engaged insocial interactions overall (i.e., social interactions spannedsimilar numbers of intervals), the number and types ofsocial partners varied systematically, depending on the so-cioeconomic context.

Even though many SES differences were identified, ourresults do not support the notion that social deprivationcharacterizes lower SES contexts: Infants in all three groupsreceived the same amount of social stimulation. In fact, theprincipal difference between SES groups was evident not inthe amount of social stimulation but in the variety of peoplethe infants interacted with, how long the interactions lasted,and the structure of the sleep-wake cycles. Bouts of socialinteraction with infants in upper SES families lasted longerbut were less frequent than those in the middle- and lowerSES contexts, and upper SES infants took fewer but longernaps. These findings are consistent with those obtained inLareaus (2003) ethnographic study of social class and race

in the United States, even though Lareau studied olderchildren. Lareau described distinct differences in the par-enting strategies and daily routines of upper-middle-class(similar to our upper SES category) as opposed to lower-and working-class (similar to our middle SES category)parents regardless of ethnicity. Upper-middle-class parentstended to give their children very structured daily schedules,whereas lower- and working-class parents placed more em-phasis on providing comfort, food, and shelter. Lareau ob-served that children in lower- and working-class familieshad much more free time to engage in activities of theirchoosing and spent time with extended kin daily. It isinteresting that, even as early as 3- to 4-months of age,infants in different SES contexts experienced interactionsand sleep-wake cycles structured much like the patterns thatLareau described. Unfortunately, we are unable to discernfrom our data whether the caregivers were intentionallystructuring the infants days. Such parental intentions meritthe attention of researchers in the future.

Extended kin played strikingly different roles in the dif-ferent SES groups as well. We are unable to determinewhether the high involvement by extended kin in the lowerSES context was due to the higher availability of extendedkin, a higher sense of responsibility of extended kin, or both.These possible associations could be identified if caregivingideologies of nonparental kin were examined in samples

varying more with respect to the presence of extended kinwithin each SES context. Nonetheless, the between-groupdifferences in extended kin involvement with infants havenotable implications. Namely, because researchers havetended to focus on motherinfant interactions, the extentand nature of social experiences may have been previously

misrepresented, especially on the part of infants in lowerSES families who have the broadest social networks.Among low-income African American single fathers, forexample, stress associated with parenting may be mitigatedby caregiving support received from kinship and nonkinshipmembers (Hamer & Marchioro, 2002). From a cultural-contextual, adaptive-resilient perspective, our results wouldsupport the notion that having broad social and kin networksis valued and important for success in low-SES nicheswhere economic resources are not reliable and familiesoften depend on friends and kin to help them. Of course,these patterns of multiple caregiving during infancy alsoraise many questions beyond the scope of this study. Forexample, these results prompt us to ask what impact mul-

tiple caregiving systems might have on parentchild rela-tionships and later development? Furthermore, we cannotassume that a wide range of social partners either fosters orharms infant socioemotional development; more studies areneeded to clarify how extensive multiple caregiving systemsaffect parentchild attachment patterns.

Several SES differences in infant behavior were alsoapparent. Infants in upper SES families engaged in moreself-play but vocalized less than did infants in middle- andlower SES families. This was not predicted because previ-ous researchers have shown that infants and children fromupper SES families tend to vocalize more than infants andchildren in lower SES contexts. For example, Feiring and

Lewis (1981) reported that 3-month-old infants in upper-middle-class families vocalized more than their middle-class counterparts. However, Feiring and Lewiss studyonly involved European Americans, and observations wererestricted to motherinfant dyads. Our findings are also notconsistent with those obtained in studies of older children;Hart and Risley (1995) reported that preschool-age childrenfrom upper SES families had larger vocabularies and talkedmore frequently than children from lower SES familiesregardless of ethnicity. Many researchers have tended tofocus on vocal interactions with mothers or when mothersare present (Feiring & Lewis, 1981; Hoff, 2003; Richman,Miller, & LeVine, 1992). Perhaps our findings differ fromtheirs because we recorded all vocalizations and socialinteractions throughout the day, not only those to or in thepresence of mothers.

Similarly, whereas other researchers have suggested thatchildren are spoken to more often in upper SES contextsthan are children in lower SES contexts (Hart & Risley,1995; Hoff, 2003), we found that infants in all threegroups were vocalized to at similar levels, although therewere some SES differences in styles of social interac-tions. Specifically, infants in upper SES families receivedmore verbal affection than did infants in middle- andlower SES families.

Fussing and crying infants in upper SES African Amer-


8/2/2019 Crying 3

9/10

ican families elicited soothing more often than did infants inmiddle- and lower SES families, even though infants in thelower SES contexts fussed more than infants in the othergroups. This result has implications for possible variationsin socioemotional development because maternal responsiv-ity to fussing and crying is a predictor of motherinfant

attachment quality among African American and EuropeanAmerican infants (Bakersman-Kranenburg et al., 2004).Bakersman-Kranenburg and colleagues (2004) suggestedthat SES influences attachment security because povertyappears to impede maternal sensitivity. The elevated levelsof infant fussing may be related to different patterns ofcaregiver responsiveness to fussing and crying. Alterna-tively, the higher levels of fussing may be related to stressin the household or stress during pregnancy because stressand anxiety during some stages of pregnancy have beenassociated with elevated levels of infant crying (St. James-Roberts & Conroy, 2005). Further studies of infants inlow-SES contexts, infant crying, and stress during preg-

nancy are needed to assess this interpretation of our results.Even with the small sample sizes, SES was clearly apredictive variable with medium to large effects on manyaspects of infant behavior and experience. Overall, it isapparent that the everyday experiences and behavior ofAfrican American infants from different SES backgroundswere quite different, suggesting that SES has a powerfuleffect on behavior and perhaps development from a veryyoung age. In most cases, significant SES effects involveddifferences between infants in the upper as opposed to themiddle- and lower SES groups, suggesting the need tofurther focus on intraethnic group variability. In addition,distinct SES differences in infants social networks suggestthat researchers should avoid focusing too narrowly onmotherinfant interactions because they may not fully rep-resent the everyday experiences of infants in lower SEScontexts where extended kin often play prominent roles.Lastly, although many socioeconomic differences were ap-parent, these results do not replicate findings from studies ofSES among European Americans, suggesting that SES ef-fects may be mediated by cultural and ethnic backgrounds.It is clear that more studies of non-European Americanfamilies from a full range of SES backgrounds are needed inorder to understand both the relationship between SES andethnicity and the influence of SES on infant experience andbehavior.

Of course, this study had several limitations. First, our

sample size was small. We encourage researchers to con-duct further studies with larger sample sizes examiningminority group families from a broad range of SES back-grounds because this would certainly help scholars disen-tangle the influences of ethnicity and SES on infant care anddevelopment. Even though we view our focusing on oneethnic group as a strength (Ogbu, 1981), it is important toemphasize that strong conclusions are not warranted. Thispoint is underscored by the heterogeneous nature of oursample. Lastly, our ability to draw conclusions with respectto later development was limited by a cross-sectional de-sign. We hope that our results will stimulate longitudinal

research on the effects of early experience in diverse ethnicand socioeconomic contexts, however.

References

Ainsworth, M. D., Blehar, M., Waters, E., & Wall, S. (1978).Patterns of attachment. Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.

Bakersman-Kranenburg, M. J., van IJzendoorn, M. H., &Kroonenberg, P. M. (2004). Differences in attachment securitybetween African-American and white children: Ethnicity orsocio-economic status? Infant Behavior & Development, 27,417433.

Bartz, K. W., & Levine, B. S. (1978). Child rearing by Blackparents: A description and comparison to Anglo and Chicanoparents. Journal of Marriage and the Family, 40, 709720.

Belsky, J., Gilstrap, B., & Rovine, M. (1984). The PennsylvaniaInfant and Family Development Project 1: Stability and changein mother-infant and father-infant interaction in a family settingat one, three, and nine months. Child Development, 55, 692705.

Brody, G. H., & Flor, D. L. (1997). Maternal psychological func-tioning, family processes, and child adjustment in rural, single-parent, African American families. Developmental Psychology,

33, 10001011.Caldera, Y. M., & Lindsay, E. W. (2006). Coparenting, mother-

infant interaction, and infant-parent attachment relationships intwo-parent families. Journal of Family Psychology, 20, 275283.

Cohen, J. (1988). Statistical power analysis for the behavioralsciences (2nd ed.). New York: Academic Press.

Cowan, P. A. (1997). Beyond meta-analysis: A plea for a familysystems view of attachment. Child Development, 68, 601603.

de Wolff, M. S., & van IJzendoorn, M. H. (1997). Sensitivity andattachment: A meta-analysis on parental antecedents of infantattachment. Child Development, 68, 571591.

Early, D. M., & Burchinal, M. R. (2001). Early childhood care:Relations with family characteristics and preferred care charac-teristics. Early Childhood Research Quarterly, 16, 475497.

Entwisle, D. R., & Astone, N. M. (1994). Some critical guidelinesfor measuring youths race/ethnicity and socioeconomic status.Child Development, 65, 15211540.

Feiring, C., & Lewis, M. (1981). Middle class differences inmother-child interaction and the childs cognitive develop-ment. In T. Field, A. Sostek, P. Vietze, & P. H. Leiderman(Eds.), Culture and early interactions (pp. 6391). Hillsdale,NJ: Erlbaum.

Fracasso, M. P., Lamb, M. E., Scholmerich, A., & Leyendecker, B.(1997). The ecology of mother-infant interaction in Euro-American and immigrant Central American families living in theUnited States. International Journal of Behavioral Development,20, 207217.

Fraley, R. C. (2002). Attachment stability from infancy to adult-hood: Meta-analysis and dynamic modeling of developmentalmechanisms. Personality and Social Psychology Review, 6, 123151.

Gottfried, A. W. (1984). Home environment and early cognitivedevelopment: Integration, meta-analyses, and conclusions. InA. W. Gottfried (Ed.), Home environment and early cognitivedevelopment: Longitudinal research (pp. 329342). New York:Academic Press.

Graham, S. (1992). Most of the subjects were White and middleclass: Trends in published research on African Americans inselected APA journals, 19701989. American Psychologist, 47,629639.

Hamer, J., & Marchioro, K. (2002). Becoming custodial dads:Exploring low-income and working-class African American fa-thers. Journal of Marriage and the Family, 64, 116129.


8/2/2019 Crying 3

10/10

Harkness, S., & Super, C. M. (1992). Childcare in Kenya. In M. E.Lamb, K. J. Sternberg, C. P. Hwang, & A. G. Broberg (Eds.),Childcare in context: Cross-cultural perspectives (pp. 419 476).Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.

Hart, B., & Risley, T. R. (1995). Meaningful differences in theeveryday experience of young American children. Baltimore:Brookes Publishing.

Heath, S. B. (1989). Oral and literate traditions among BlackAmericans living in poverty. American Psychologist, 44, 367373.

Hewlett, B. S., & Lamb, M. E. (Eds.). (2005). Huntergathererchildhoods. Somerset, NJ: Transactions/Aldine.

Hewlett, B. S., Lamb, M. E., Shannon, D., Leyendecker, B., &Scholmerich, A. (1998). Culture and infancy among CentralAfrican foragers and farmers. Developmental Psychology, 334,653661.

Hoff, E. (2003). Causes and consequences of SES-related differ-ences in parent-child speech. In M. C. Bornstein & R. H. Bradley(Eds.), Socioeconomic status, parenting, and child development(pp. 147160). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.

Jackson, J. F. (1993). Multiple caregiving among African Ameri-

cans and infant attachment: The need for an emic approach.Human Development, 36, 87102.

Lamb, M. E., Bornstein, M. H., & Teti, D. M. (2002). Develop-ment in infancy. Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.

Lareau, A. (2003). Unequal childhoods. Berkeley: University ofCalifornia Press.

Leyendecker, B., Lamb, M. E., Scholmerich, A., & Fracasso, M. P.(1995). The social worlds of 8-month-old and 12-month-oldinfants: Early experiences in two subcultural contexts. SocialDevelopment, 4, 194208.

Leyendecker, B., Lamb, M. E., Scholmerich, A., & Fricke, D. M.(1997). Contexts as moderators of observed interactions: A studyof Costa Rican mothers and infants from differing socio-economic backgrounds. International Journal of Behavioral De-

velopment, 21, 1534.Low, B. (2005). Families: An evolutionary anthropological per-

spective. In J. L. Roopnarine & U. Gielen (Eds.), Families inglobal perspectives (pp. 1432). Boston: Allyn & Bacon.

Magnusson, K. A., & Duncan, C. J. (2002). Parents in poverty. In

M. H. Bornstein (Ed.), Handbook of parenting: Vol. 4. Appliedparenting (2nd ed., pp. 95121). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.

Ogbu, J. U. (1981). Origins of human competence: A cultural-ecological perspective. Child Development, 52, 413429.

Quintana, S. M., Aboud, F. E., Chao, R. K., Contrera-Grau, J.,Cross, W. E. J., Hudley, C., et al. (2006). Race, ethnicity, andculture in child development: Contemporary research and future

directions. Child Development, 77, 11291141.Richman, A. L., Miller, P. M., & LeVine, R. A. (1992). Cultural

and educational variations in maternal responsiveness. Develop-mental Psychology, 28, 614621.

Rogoff, B., Mistry, J., Goncu, A., & Mosier, C. (1991). Culturalvariation in the role relations of toddlers and their families. InM. H. Bornstein (Ed.), Cultural approaches to parenting (pp.173184). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.

Roopnarine, J. L., Fouts, H. N., Lamb, M. E., & Lewis-Elligan,T. E. (2005). Mothers and fathers behaviors toward their 3- to4-month-old infants in lower, middle, and upper socioeconomicAfrican American families. Developmental Psychology, 41, 723732.

St. James-Roberts, I., & Conroy, S. (2005). Do pregnancy andchildbirth adversities predict infant crying and colic? Findings

and recommendations. Neuroscience and Biobehavioral Re-views, 29, 313320.

Super, C., & Harkness, S. (1982). The infants niche in ruralKenya and metropolitan America. In L. L. Adler (Ed.), Cross-cultural research at issue (pp. 4755). New York: AcademicPress.

Super, C., & Harkness, S. (1997). The cultural structuring of childdevelopment. In J. Berry, P. Dasen, & T. S. Saraswathi (Eds.),Handbook of cross-cultural psychology: Basic processes andhuman development (pp. 139). Needham, MA: Allyn & Bacon.

Thornton, M. C., Chatters, L. M., Taylor, R. J., & Allen, W. R.(1990). Sociodemographic and environmental correlates of racialsocialization by Black parents. Child Development, 61, 401409.

Uttal, L. (1999). Using kin for child care: Embedment in thesocioeconomic networks of extended families. Journal of Mar-riage and the Family, 61, 845857.

Received May 27, 2006Revision received March 14, 2007

Accepted March 15, 2007


Documents

Crying 3