Infant Mental Health Journal, Vol. 6, No. I . Spring 1985

Infants’ Responses to Mothers’ Imitative Behaviors

TIFFANY FIELD, LISA GUY AND VIVIAN UMBEL

Mailman Center for Child Development University of Miami Medical School

ABSTRACT: Scveral investigators have suggested that young infants’ smiles and vocalizations following their mothers’ imitative behaviors might reflect infant recognition that the mother’s behavior is imitative or at least contingent. This study investigated whether infants smile and vocalize more frquently subsequent to maternal imitative than non-imitative behavior during both spontaneous and imitative fa-to-face in- teractions. Fourteen 3%-monthsld infants and their mothers were videotaped in these two face-to-face in- teraction situations. The infants vocalized more frequently during the imitative situation and infant vocalizations plus simultaneous smiling, and vocalizations occurred more often following maternal im- itative than non-imitative behavior. Although these data suggest that infant vocalizations and simultaneous smiles and vocalizations may reflect the infants’ recognition of maternal imitative behavior, they do not es- tablish definitively that it is the imitation per se vs. the contingency aspect that is recognized by the infant.

Mothers have been noted to imitate their infants with some frequency during early interactions (Field, 1977; Pawlby, 1977). With this experience, the infant soon might recognize the mother’s behavior as imitative or at least contingent. Although infants have been noted to spend more time looking at their mothers during interactions in which mothers have been instructed to imitate their infants (Field, 1977), it is not clear that increased infant looking behavior would reflect recognition of the mother’s im- itative behavior. On the other hand, Meltzoff (1985) has suggested that infants appear to enjoy being imitated and that their “enjoyment” might reflect recognition of the imitative behavior. Similarly, Watson (1967) has noted that smiles and vocalizations first occur in response to objects (human or inanimate) that provide a high level of contingency experience and are thought to reflect the infant’s recognition of con- tingency.

We would like to thank the mothers who participated in this study. This research was supported in part by an NIMH research scientist development award #I K02MH00331-01 to Tiffany Field. Reprint requests may be sent to the first author at The Mailman Center for Child Development, University of Miami Medical School, P.O. Box 016820. Miami. Florida 33101.

40 Michigan Association

for Infant Mental Health

Tiffany Field, Lisa Guy and Vivian Umbel 41

For the purpose of this study, we assumed that a greater incidence of smiling and/or vocalizing by the infant subsequent to mother’s imitative vs. nonimitative behaviors might reflect some degree of recognition by the infant that the mother’s behavior was imitative or at least contingent. In the context of spontaneous and imita- tion interactions we accordingly quantified the infants’ responses to both the imitative and non-imitative behaviors of their mothers.

METHOD

Subjects and Procedure

The subjects were 14 normal, 3%-month-old infants (8 males) and their middle-income mothers, who averaged 24 years of age and 13 years of education. The interactions were videotaped in a lab furnished like a living room. The infant was positioned in an upright infant seat on a table approximately 18” (46 cm) from the mother in an en face position (Field, 1977). A split screen generator enabled the videotaping of the in- fant’s body on one half of the screen, the mother’s face and torso on the other half and a time recording on the bottom of the screen. Each of the mother-infant dyads was videotaped for a total of 6 minutes including a 3-minute spontaneous situation in which the mother was asked to pretend that she was home playing with her infant, followed by a 3-minute imitation situation in which she was asked to imitate all of her infant’s behaviors.

The videotapes were coded for the frequency and duration of mother and infant smiles and vocalizations using a Cole-Palmer polygraph event recorder. When the polygraph tapes were coded subsequently, we calculated the percentage of interaction time that these behaviors occurred. As the mother’s behaviors were recorded on the polygraph event recorder, a distinction was made between her imitative and non-imitative smiling and vocalizing. To be considered imitative behavior, the form of her smiles and the pitch, form, and intonation of her sounds had to match closely that of her infant’s immediately preceding behavior (within a 2-second time frame). Because we were interested in whether the infant’s responses to the mother varied as a function of her imitative or non-imitative behaviors, we coded mother behaviors that followed an infant behavior to equate both types of maternal behavior on their being preceded by infant behavior and to attempt to determine whether it was the contingency (the non-imitative behavior) or the imitation (the im- itative behavior) to which the infant responded. The event recorder polygraph tapes then were coded for in- fant “responses” that occurred simultaneously with the mother’s behavior or immediately subsequent to the mother’s imitative and non-imitative smiles and vocalizations (within a 2-second time frame). These in- cluded infant smiling, vocalizing, smiling and vocalizing, smiling together (at the same time as the mother), vocalizing together, smiling and vocalizing together, or no response. Finally, we coded runs or chains of behavior in which at least three turns were taken by both the infant and mother in close temporal proximity (silent interval no greater than 2 seconds), similar to conversation turn-taking games (Kozak & Tronick, 1981).

The videotapes were coded by two psychology graduate students, who simultaneously viewed the tapes while separately coding infant and mother behaviors. Interobserver reliability was assessed on ap- proximately one-third of the interactions and calculated by Kappa (Bartko & Carpenter, 1976). Interobserver reliability coefficients averaged .82 for maternal and .91 for infant behaviors.

RESULTS

The data on percentages of time that the infant and mother behaviors occurred dur- ing the two different interaction situations were analyzed by t-tests for proportions. The infant response data were analyzed by repeated measures analyses of variance with interaction situation (spontaneous or imitation) and mother’s behavior (imitative or non-imitative) as repeated measures.

The infants smiled for approximately 6% of the spontaneous and 9% of the imita- tion interaction time 0, >.lo), which suggests that infant smiling did not differ across these situations. In contrast, the infants vocalized for a greater percentage of the imi-

42 Infant Mental Health Journal

Table 1 Percentages of Total infant Responses to Mothers’ imitative and Non-imitative Smiles and Vocalizations During Spontaneous and imitation Interactions

Spontaneous interaction Imitative interaction Mother smile Mother smile Effect

Infant response Non-imitative Imitative Non-imitative Imitative & p level

Smile Vocalize Smile and vocalize Smile together No response

Infant response Smile Vocalize Smile and vocalize Vocalize together Smile and vocalize

together No response

11% 8% 3 24 6 12 14 17 66 39

Mother vocalization Non-imitative Imitative

8 5 25 38 4 9 16 19

2 10

45 19

12% 9% 0 36 0 1s

I5 18 73 21

Mother vocalization Non-imitative Imitative

6 4 21 44 4 I 1

11 21

1 7 57 1 1

N

1 C

Ib

N

1 l C

N

lb

1’

N

N

1”

‘ p <.05. bp <.Ol. ‘p <.OOS. “p <.001. Eflects I = imitative behavior (repeated measures effect). I1 = imitative behavior during imitation

interaction (imitative behavior X imitation situation interaction erect).

tation than the spontaneous interaction time (24% vs. 1396, p <.05). For the mothers, smiling also did not differ across the two situations (1 1% vs. 13%. p >.lo). Unlike their infants, the mothers vocalized for a greater percentage of the spontaneous vs. the imitation interaction time (52% vs. 322, p <.01). For the mothers, approximately 29% of smiling during the spontaneous situation was imitative, while approximately 42% of smiling during the imitation situation was imitative (p <.01). Of the mothers’ vocalizations, approximately 9% were imitative during the spontaneous situation, while 61% were imitative during the imitation situation (p <.001). Thus, the mothers’ behaviors were more frequently imitative during the imitation interactions, as might be expected given their instructions to be imitative.

As can be seen in Table 1, a number of effects emerged for the infants’ responses to mothers’ imitative and non-imitative behaviors during the spontaneous and imitation interactions. In the top half of the table, infant responses are noted for mothers’ non- imitative and imitative smiles during each of the interaction situations. The numbers represent the percentage of the total number of infant responses to mothers’ smiles that were smiles, vocalizations, etc. For infant responses to mothers’ smiling: (1) There were no differences in infant smiling or in infant smiling together with the mother as a function of the mother’s imitative or non-imitative smiles or interaction situation; (2) Infant vocalizations and infant smiling plus vocalizations to mothers’ smiles occurred more frequently when the mothers were being imitative; and (3) “No response’’ by the infant occurred least frequently when the mother was being imitative during the imitation situation. For the infant responses to mother vocalizing: (1)

Tifany Field, Lisa Guy and Vivian Umbel 43

There were no differences across mother behaviors or interaction situations for infant smiling responses, for the infant and mother vocalizing together, or for smiling and vocalizing together; (2) Infant vocalizations and infant smiling plus vocalizations oc- curred more frequently as a response to the mother’s vocalizations when she was being imitative; and (3) “No response” by the infant occurred least frequently when the mother was being imitative.

DISCUSSION

The imitation interaction, as designed, facilitated the mothers’ imitative behavior. While infant smiling was not affected, the mothers’ smiles were more frequently im- itative during the imitation situation. That the mothers vocalized less often and the in- fants more often during the imitation situation is perhaps not surprising for two reasons. First, the mothers were limited to imitating their infants’ vocalizations. Because infant vocalizations occur infrequently, the mothers’ imitative vocalizations also would occur infrequently (Field, 1977). That the infant vocalized more during the imitation situation may simply relate to the mother talking less. The infants thus were “given more time to talk,” without having to talk “on top of’ their mothers’ vocalizations. Although concurrent vocalizations commonly occur, apparently infants are less likely to initiate vocalizations during their mothers’ vocalizations (Stern, Jaffe, Beebe, & Bennett, 1975).

Infant smiling did not appear to differ as a function of the mother being imitative. Because smiling did not occur more often in response to mothers’ imitative behaviors, it could not be considered an indicator of infant recognition of maternal imitation. Perhaps it was more difficult for the infant to perceive which smiles were imitative and which were non-imitative. In fact, the lowest interobserver reliabilities were achieved for mothers’ imitative and non-imitative smiles. Another possibility is that smiling behavior might “reflexively” elicit smiling, independent of the form it takes, as in the old saying that “smiling is contagious.” The fact that smiling together occurred equally often across types of mother behaviors and interaction situations lends s u p port to the notion that a smile response may be reflexive. Simultaneous infant smiles occurred more frequently than infant smile “responses” across all conditions, which suggests that reflexive-like smiles may occur more frequently or that the mother may sustain her smile until the infant smile occurs. The latter possibility seems less likely because a considerable proportion of the infant responses to the mothers’ smiles were designated “no responses,” in contrast to the relatively lower percentage of “no responses” to her vocalizations. Unfortunately, infant looking behavior was not recorded. Many of the “no responses” to mother smiling could have occurred simply when the infant was looking away from the mother.

In contrast, subsequent to mothers’ vocalizations, infant vocalizations or smiles and vocalizations were most likely to occur, particularly when they were preceded by imi- tative vocalizations. Mothers’ imitative vocalizations may be easier for the infant to discern than mothers’ imitative smiles because both the mothers’ and infants’ vocalizations can be heard by the infant, while the infant cannot see his own face to notice similarity between his own and his mother’s behavior. Imitative behavior also may be more arousing than non-imitative behavior and thus elicit higher energy behaviors such as vocalizations or smiles together with vocalizations vs. smiles alone.

44 Infant Mental Health Journal

Although heartrate acceleration (as a potential arousal indicator) seems to occur more frequently during infant vocalizations than during smiles (Stoller & Field, 1982), this index of arousal unfortunately is confounded by the muscle activity in- volved.

The infant responses that most often followed the mother’s imitative behaviors were infant “vocalize” and “smile and vocalize.” While an infant’s indiscriminate vocaliz- ing or smiling together with vocalizing to a maternal imitative smile or vocalization behavior seemingly would not facilitate a run of these behaviors or a game of mutual imitations in the same modality, it is interesting that these runs occurred more fre- quently during the imitation interactions (M = 4.6 runs vs. 1.5 runs, p <.05). Mothers’ repetition of behaviors may be reinforced as much by a contingent, “gleeful” response from her infant in either modality as by an apparently more pure “imitative” behavior.

Although these data suggest that infant vocalizations and simultaneous smiles and vocalizations may reflect the infant’s recognition of mother imitative behavior, they do not establish definitively that it is the imitation per se vs. the contingency aspect that is recognized by the infant. A future study that employed an interaction coaching paradigm in which the mother (using a “bug-in-the ear” soundpiece) is coached to give random imitative and non-imitative responses might provide more definitive data.

REFERENCES

Bartko, J. J., & Carpenter, W. T. (1976). On the methods of reliability. Journal of Nervour and Mental Direare. 163. 307-3 17.

Field, T. (1977). Effects of early separation, interactive deficits, and experimental manipulations on infant-mother face-to-face interaction. Child Development, 48, 763-77 I .

Kozak, N.. & Tronick, E. Z. (198 I). Infants take their turn in response to maternal turn raking signals. Paper presented at the meeting of the Society for Research in Child Development, Boston.

Meltzoff. A. N. (1985). The beginnings of social and cognitive development: Models of human nature. In T. Field & N. Fox (Eds.), Social perception in infunts. Norwood, NJ: Ablex.

Pawlby, S. (1977). Imitative interaction. In H. R. Schaffer (Ed.), Srudies in mother-infant interaction. London: Academic Press.

Stern, D. N., Jaffc, J., Beebe, B., & Bennett. S. L. (1975). Vocalizing in unison and in alternation: Two modes of communication within the mother-infant dyad. Annals of rhe New York Academy of Science. 263. 89-100.

Stroller, S., & Field, T. (1982). Alteration of mother and infant behavior and heart rate during a still-face perturbation of face-to-face interaction. In T. Field & A. Fogel (Eds.). Emotion and eurly interucriom. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.

Memory and “contingency analysis” in infant learning. Merrill-Palmer Quarterly. Watson, J. S. (1967). 13, 55-76.