Peek-a-What? Infants’ Response to the Still-Face Task After Normal and Interrupted Peek-a-Boo

Still-face redux: Infant responses to a classic and modified still-face paradigm in proximal and distal care cultures

Literature on infant emotion is dominated by research conducted in Western, industrialized societies where early socialization is characterized by face-to-face, vocal communication with caregivers. There is a dearth of knowledge of infant emotion in the context of social interaction outside of the visual and vocal modalities. In a three-population cross-cultural comparison, we used the still-face task to measure variation in behavior among infants from proximal care (practicing high levels of physical contact) communities in Bolivia and distal care (emphasizing vocal and visual interaction) communities in the U.S. and Fiji. In a modified version of the face-to-face still-face (FFSF), Study 1, infants in the U.S. and Fiji displayed the typical behavioral response to the still-face episode: increased negative affect and decreased social engagement, whereas infants in Bolivia showed no change. For tactile behavior, infants in Bolivia showed an increase in tactile self-stimulation from the interaction episode to the still-face episode, whereas U.S. infants showed no change. In Study 2, we created a novel body-to-body version of the still-face paradigm ("still-body") with infants in US and Bolivia, to mimic the near-constant physical contact Bolivian infants experience. The U.S. and Bolivian infant response was similar to Study 1: US infants showed decreased positive affect and increased negative affect and decreased social engagement from the interaction to the still-body episode and Bolivian infants showed no change. Notably, there were overall differences in infant behaviors between the two paradigms (FFSF and Still-Body). Infants in Bolivia and the U.S. showed increased positive facial affect during the FFSF paradigm in comparison with the Still-Body paradigm. Our results demonstrate the need for more globally representative developmental research and a broader approach to infant emotion and communication.

Commentary: The real (?) effect of smartphone use on parenting - a commentary on Modecki et al. (2020)

A recent publication by Modecki and colleagues asserts that 'more [smart]phone use was associated with higher parenting quality'. Modecki and colleagues make their generalistic concluding statement in contradiction to an increasingly conflicting research corpus, and we suggest that a more cautious interpretation of their data would be beneficial. This study used a cross-sectional convenience sample; however elsewhere, research questions the ability of participants to accurately estimate their own smartphone use. Further, one-sided reports of two-sided attachment relationships may be unreliable. A useful addition to the paper would have been the inclusion and stratification of demographic information about the children whose parents were surveyed. With Modecki and colleagues seeking to describe the 'real effect' of smartphones on parenting, the age, stage and needs of the children studied remained largely silent. Modecki and colleagues wisely encourage us to ask more nuanced questions in our research. We wholly agree, but also urge researchers to be more nuanced in our research designs and understanding of its implications for all within the parent:child relationship.

Planning my actions to accommodate yours: joint action development during early childhood

The planning and adjusting of one's actions in relation to an action partner is fundamental to smooth joint action. During their first years of life, children gradually become more engaged in joint actions. Here, we investigated whether and at what age children take their partner into account in their action plans to accommodate the other's actions. We focused on children's proactive planning (without prior experience) and flexible adjustment of action plans over time. In a behavioural study, we tested 96 children from four age groups (2½, 3, 3½ and 5 years) in a joint cup-stacking task. Children passed cups to their partner who had only one hand available (alternating over time) to build a tower. Children's response choices were assessed (i.e. passing the cup on the free or occupied side to their partner). The study yielded two major findings. At all ages, children proactively planned their actions in a way that accommodated their partner's actions. However, only by 3½ years did children start to flexibly integrate their partner into their action plans. Even at age 5, children only showed minimal adjustments to their action partner. Candidate processes underlying these developmental changes (e.g. inhibitory control, cognitive flexibility, perspective taking) are discussed.