Attentiveness of mothers and fathers to their baby's cries

INFANT BEHAVlOR AND DEVELOPMENT 8, 385393 (1985)

Attentiveness of Mothers and Fathers to Their Baby’s Cries*

EVELYN DONATE-BARTFIELD AND RICHARD H. PASSMAN University of Wisconsin-Milwaukee

Thirty-two mother-fother-infont triods porticipoted in o study to examine whether parents’ responsiveness to their own infant’s distress was affected by the infant’s birth order and gender. After seporating from their lo- to 1 l-month-old baby, one parent from each family (16 mothers ond 16 fothers) was selected to hear cries that were attributed to the child. Consistent with previous findings regarding physiological reactions to crying and observations of caretaking behavior, first- time parents gave quicker and more frequent attention to their infonts than did multiparous parents. Speedy intervention was related to the amount of caretaking responsibilities thot parents reported they assumed and to the age at which parents believed that their infant first recognized them. The results demonstrate the importance of caretaking for promoting porentol sensitivity to infant signals.

parity sex differences distress parent-infant interaction

The quality of parent-child interactions has been related to numerous factors, including the security of an infant’s attachment to the parent (see Lamb, 1982). Despite much similarity in mothers’ and fathers’ interactive patterns toward their infants, mothers’ interactions more often involve caretaking, whereas fathers are apt to play with their baby (e.g., Parke & Sawin, 1980). Even in families in which the father had been involved at least temporarily as the primary caretaker, the mother was still more likely to care for the infant when all members of the family were together (Lamb, Frodi, Hwang, Frodi, & Stein- berg, 1982). Nevertheless, fathers have been observed to attend to their infants in a responsible and sensitive manner (Parke & Sawin, 1980).

One aspect of caretaking is the parent’s responsiveness to the infant’s cries. When mothers and fathers heard the recorded distress of an unfamiliar infant, their physiological reactivity was not distinguishable (Boukydis & Burgess, 1982; Frodi, Lamb, Leavitt, & Donovan, 1978). However, the source of the cry should be considered: When listening to the taped sound of their

* This research is based in part on a thesis submitted to the Department of Psychology, University of Wisconsin-Milwaukee, in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of Master of Science. Portions of this article were presented at the annual meeting of the Midwestern Psychological Association, Chicago, IL, May 1984. The authors gratefully acknowledge the help of Vincent J. Adesso and Marilyn Miller for their suggestions and for their critical readings of a previous version of the manuscript. We also thank Theresa Ortiz, Lenore Lilly, David Chapman, Richard Lauerman, Maureen Longeway, and Kathleen Longeway for their assistance in conduct- ing the research.

Correspondence and requests for reprints should be sent to Richard H. Passman, Depart- ment of Psychology, P.O. Box 413, University of Wisconsin-Milwaukee, Milwaukee. WI 53201.

386 DONATE-BARTFIELD AND PASSMAN

own infant’s cries (which mothers distinguished more accurately from an unfamiliar child’s cry than did fathers), mothers’ arousal differed from fathers’ (Wiesenfeld, Malatesta, & DeLoach, 1981). Such differential physiological sensitivity is of interest because of its potential for predicting patterns of actual parent-infant interaction within a less tightly controlled situation. Yet, the degree of correspondence between physiological and behavioral responsiveness to cries is unknown. No active parenting response was required in these studies beyond attending passively to what the parents had been informed was a prerecorded cry. The present study, therefore, was designed to apply previous findings from physiological research to examine the direct behavioral ministrations of parents toward their own infant.

In earlier research, maternal responses to separation were examined by il- luminating a light to inform the mother that her child was crying (Moss, 1974) or by inducing the infant to cry as the mother watched her child on a video monitor (Corter & Bow, 1976). The infant’s sex was found to influence the mother’s retrieving of her baby from a nearby room. Some procedural consid- erations, however, may limit conclusions drawn from these studies. Because Corter and Bow (1976) specifically informed the mothers that the purpose of the experiment was to investigate infants’ reactions to separation, mothers may have responded according to differing expectations regarding the likeli- hood of crying. Because induced cries may vary across infants in terms of type, latency, or intensity, the differential retrieval may have reflected differences in the cry patterns that were provoked. Being able to view their infants as they cried may also have affected maternal vigilance by allowing the mothers to judge visually the urgency of the distress; furthermore, such visual contact may have supplanted the mothers’ needs for other forms of contact with their infants. Although Moss’s (1974) procedure may have achieved control over these difficulties, Moss purposely did not present the actual sound of a cry, which may be basic in releasing the maternal response (Bowlby, 1958).

Other factors such as the parents’ parity status, their prior experiences in caretaking, and the child’s irritability at home may also be relevant considera- tions. Boukydis and Burgess (1982) noted that primiparous parents were more aroused by an unfamiliar infant’s cry than were multiparous parents; however, when cries from the parents’ own infant were investigated, preliminary findings seem to demonstrate opposite effects (Wiesenfeld & Malatesta, 1982). First-born infants also receive more attention and caretaking time from their mothers (Jacobs & Moss, 1976; Kilbride, Johnson, & Streissguth, 1977; Lewis & Kreitzberg, 1979) and more verbalizations from their fathers (Lewis & Kreitz- berg, 1979) than do later-borns. Because the quality of such interactions appears to be related to parents’ sensitivity to their infant (Lamb & Easterbrooks, 1981), parental responsiveness may be affected more by the direct involvement in caretaking than by the mere amount of time spent with the baby. The amount of crying (Lamb & Easterbrooks, 1981) and the aversiveness of the cry (Wie- senfeld & Malatesta, 1982) may also influence parental responsivity to the infant’s signals. Even historical factors such as the mother’s perception of being

ATTENTIVENESS 387

recognized by her baby may affect her feelings toward her infant (Robson & Moss, 1970). These findings suggest that parents’ behavioral interventions fol- lowing distress should be examined relative to their gender, parity, and routine experiences with the child.

One purpose of the present research was to investigate parents’ sensitivity to their infants’ distress. Responding promptly and contingently is a com- ponent of parental sensitivity that may have far-reaching effects on the child’s relationship to the parent (Lamb, 1982: Lamb Rr Easterbrooks, 1981). A controlled procedure, which combines and extends aspects of previous behavioral and physiological techniques (e.g., Corter & Bow, 1976; Moss, 1974; Wiesen- feld et al., 1981), can allow comparisons of mothers’ and fathers’ behavioral interactions with their infants. Parents were led to believe that a standard taped cry, broadcast over an intercom and masked by white noise to render it less readily identifiable, was actually their own baby’s cry in a distant room. Because cries were identical for all parents, differences attributable to loud- ness, tone, noxiousness, and other idiosyncratic features of individual infants’ cries werd eliminated in order to test the specific effects of parents’ gender and parity.

ME’I’HOD

Subjects

A total of 38 mother-father-infants triads came to the research facilities. The final sample consisted of 16 female and 16 male lo- and 1 l-month-old infants and both of their parents. (Because of a failure in the experimental manipulation with 3 mothers and 3 fathers, 6 of the original families were disqualified.) These families had been recruited by telephone from birth records appearing in local newspapers. From the pool of the 32 families (64 parents), one parent in each family was randomly selected to act as the subject, with the same number of mothers and fathers participating. In addition, equal numbers of first-time and multiparous parents participated.

Parents were married a mean of 6.2 years (range = 1.5 to 14.0 years) and were white and predominantly middle class. The mean age was 29.8 years (range = 22 to 38 years) for participating mothers, 30.4 years (25 to 41) for participating fathers, 11.4 months (10.3 to 11.8 months) for infant daughters, and 11.3 months (10.1 to 11.8) for sons.

Setting

The study was conducted in two rooms connected by an L-shaped hallway, 7.0 x 1.1 m by 4.9 x 1 .l m. A 2.9 x 4.2 m playroom was used for the child and the nonparticipating parent, while the subject-parent remained in a 2.7 x 2.8 m waiting room. At the entrance to the playroom was a narrow passageway (3.3 x 1.1 m) that extended to the hallway. The playroom was pleasantly decorated and contained four chairs, a small end table, and six attractive toys. Three


intercom transmitters were prominently hung on the playroom walls, and con- spicuous wiring helped give the impression that the room was wired to broadcast sounds. Masking tape on the floor marked off a grid of l-m squares to suggest that the child’s behavior was being studied.

The parents’ waiting room contained two chairs, a desk, and several magazines. An intercom speaker, 1 m above the desk, was set only to receive sounds. Outside the waiting room, a double row of tape on the floor led to the playroom (to assist parents in finding it).

The door to the passageway in front of the playroom was connected by wires to a timer located in a control room. When activated, the timer ran until the door was opened by the parent. This system enabled measurement of the parents’ latencies to enter the playroom. A parallel system connected to the waiting room door allowed timing of the parents’ hesitation before they opened the door to the waiting room. A tape recorder in the control room broadcast directly to the intercom receiver in the waiting room. (Only the waiting room was wired to receive sound; speakers in the playroom were sham, neither trans- mitting nor receiving.)

A prerecorded tape presented 10 min of random white noise recorded over the cries of a l-year-old child. The white noise, approximately 10 dBa louder than the average intensity of the cry, masked the cry to help make any distinct features less recognizable to the parents. When measured from the desk chair about 1 m from the speaker, the white noise generally registered 55 dBa. As a control for parents’ spontaneously returning to the playroom before hearing the crying, the cry began 1 min after the white noise started and continued for the remaining 9 min.

Procedure

Each father-mother-infant triad was brought to the playroom, where the parents were told that their interactions with their infant and their baby’s responses to an unfamiliar adult would be observed. Parents were then asked to leave so that their child could be alone with that adult. One parent, who was always designated as the first to depart, was not aware that he or she had been preselected to serve as the actual subject for the study. This parent was escorted to the waiting room and was led to believe that the infant was now alone because the other parent had gone to a different waiting room. Once seated near the intercom, the subject-parent was told:

We wanted to keep you apart from your husband (wife) so that he (she) would be able to fill auf a questionnaire independently. This intercom on the wall is connected to the playroom we were just in so that you can hear how things are coming along. Unfortunately, the room that (spouse’s name) is going into right now does not have this kind of intercom, so he (she) won’t be able to hear your child. As soon as I get back to the playroom, I’ll turn on the intercom.

ATTENTIVENESS 389

We’ll be observing your child for a while, but, if you want, it is okay for you to go back to the playroom anytime to check on your child, even before your spouse finishes the questionnaire. You won’t be interrupting anything by coming back. The tape on the floor will show you the way back.

The escort then left and immediately went to the control room to activate the timing system and the tape recorder. Thereafter, the escort waited in the passageway between the playroom entrance and the hallway for the parent to return. After the tape recorder presented 1 min of “static,” the cry was broadcast for 9 additional min.

Nonparticipating parents did not leave the playroom but instead remained with their infant and the stranger until the subject-parents reentered the playroom (or 10 min elapsed). Several observations of the infant’s interactions with the parent and with the unfamiliar adult were recorded but are not perti- nent to the present report. When the subjects returned, they were intercepted by the escort in the passageway (3 m before they could see their quiescent infant with their spouse in the playroom), and the credibility of the manipulation was checked. When they saw the escort, most subjects explained to her that they had returned because they had heard crying. If they did not spontaneously indicate the belief that they had been listening to their own baby, the escort asked them to describe what they heard, what they thought happened, why they returned, and whether it was their child who had been crying. Subjects also rated the aversiveness of the cry on a lo-point scale ranging from 1 (did not mind listening) to 10 (very uncomfortable listening to the cry). Data from parents who stated that the cry was not their baby’s were excluded and replaced by data from a corresponding number of additional mothers and fathers. The procedures were then fully explained and justified.

Measures

The time from the onset of the tape recording until the parent opened the playroom door was recorded. A maximum of 600 s was assigned to any parent who did not open the door during the IO-min session.’

In addition to demographic information, the subject-parent’s responses to the questionnaire provided estimates of the amount of time typically spent interacting with the infant, the percentage of the caretaking duties that the

’ In addition to the assessment of the parents’ latency to reach the playroom door, the amount of time was measured that parents stayed in the waiting room before opening its door. Pilot data indicated that parents might hesitate to interrupt what they believed was an ongoing study in the playroom; their concern for their infant, therefore, might be reflected in the speed at which they left the waiting room (even if they remained in the hallway without opening the playroom door). However, the latencies to open the waiting room door and the playroom door corre- lated highly, r(30) = .963, p< .Ol, and the pattern of findings relating to the waiting room largely replicated the results with the playroom door. Consequently, most data from the waiting room door are not included in this report.


parent ordinarily performs relative to the nonparticipating parent, the amount of time the baby cries daily, and the age at which the infant first seemed to recognize the parent.

RESULTS

A 2 (sex of parent) x 2 (sex of infant) x 2 (first-born or later born infant) analysis of variance (ANOVA) of the parents’ latencies to open the playroom door yielded a significant main effect for birth order, F (1, 24) = 4.83, p c .05. First- time parents attended to their infants faster (M= 289.8 s) than did parents of later borns (M=426.9 s). Eight parents never opened the door; a frequency analysis revealed that parents were more likely to investigate the crying when the infant was their first born (N= 15) iather than later born (N= 9), x2 (1, N = 32) =4.17, p< .05 (Yates’s correction). Although the ANOVA revealed no reliable effects involving the parents’ or infants’ sex, six of the eight parents who failed to open the door were fathers. (Even though their actual latencies would have been greater if the sessidn had continued for more than 10 min, these eight parents were assigned scores of 600 s.) Because of the truncated session and the curtailed and uneven distribution of scores, the difference between the proportions of mothers (87.5%) and fathers (62.5%) who opened the door was tested; a one-tailed test yielded marginally significant results, z = 1.63, p =

.052. Overall, parents rated the crying as moderately aversive (M= 6.2 on the

lo-point scale). A 2 (sex of parent) x2 (sex of child) x2 (birth position) ANOVA revealed no significant effects, indicating that these factors did not differentially affect the perceived aversiveness of the cry. Although parents’ latency to open the playroom door appeared related to their perceptions of the unpleasantness of the cry, this finding did not achieve statistical significance, r (30) = - 241, p > .05. The data were nevertheless suggestive: The more aversive parents reported the cry to be, the faster they tended to return.*

The participating parents’ estimates of the time they customarily spend with their infant were examined in a 2 (sex of parent) x 2 (sex of infant) x 2 (birth position) ANOVA. Mothers reported spending significantly more time (79.0 hours) with their infants during a typical week then did fathers (42.3 hours), F (1,24) = 31.53, pC .OOl. No other main or interactive effects were reliable. A similar pattern of results was obtained when participating parents estimated the amount of the infant’s total caretaking responsibilities that they performed relative to their spouse. Mothers reported that they performed most of the caretaking (75.2%), compared to the fathers’ reports of 30.1070, F (1,24) = 38.93, p C .OOl. Of particular interest was the association between reported caretaking responsibilities and the speed of responding to the crying within the experimental session: The greater the proportion of caretaking duties that they

’ Beyond numerous anecdotal reports, evidence that the parents seemed to be responding to a cry that they thought was distressing is indicated in the significant relationship between the reported aversiveness of the cry and the latency for parents to open the wuifing room door, r (30) = - .306, p< .OS: The more unpleasant the parents found the cry, the less they hesitated before leaving the waiting room.

ATTENTIVENESS 391

assumed relative to their spouse, the faster the parents investigated the cry, r (30) = - .400, p < .05. On the other hand, although the absolute amount of time that the parents spend with their baby was highly related to the degree to which they assumed caretaking responsibilities, r(30) = .665, p c .Ol, the sheer amount of time with their infant was not significantly related to their latency to open the door, r (30) = - .156, p> .lO.

A 2 x 2 x 2 ANOVA of parents’ estimates of the typical duration of daily crying demonstrated that parents of later-born infants perceived them to cry more (M= 63.1 min) than did parents of first-borns (M= 33.8 min), F(1,24) = 6.48, p< .Ol. Duration of crying did not, however, correlate reliably with parents’ latencies to open the playroom door, r (30) = .048, p> .lO. The ANOVA for duration of crying revealed no other significant effects.

Parents also indicated the age at which their infant first appeared to recognize them. A 2 x 2 x 2 ANOVA yielded one significant finding: Mothers thought that their babies recognized them earlier (Af= 1.6 months of age) than did fathers (M=3.6 months), F(1,24)= 13.71, p< .OOl. Furthermore, the younger the infant was perceived to be able to recognize the parent, the more quickly that parent opened the playroom door, r (30) = .370, pc .05.

DISCUSSION

Mothers and fathers investigated the cries from their first-born infants more quickly and frequently than from their later-borns even though they did not perceive the cries as being differentially aversive. These findings are consistent with reports that mothers generally give more attention and caretaking to their first-borns (Jacobs & Moss, 1976; Kilbride et al., 1977) and demonstrate that fathers likewise exhibit a differential responsiveness to cries that is related to parity (cf. Lewis & Kreitzberg’s, 1979, observations of paternal vocalizations). Furthermore, previous research regarding parity and parents’ physiological reactions to unfamiliar infants’ crying (Boukydis & Burgess, 1982) is sup- ported by the present observations of parents’ actual behavior toward what appeared to be their own child. First-time parents, therefore, not only may be more physiologically aroused by cries than are parents of more than one child but also act upon the cries faster and more reliably. Because responding contingently and consistently to infant signals is considered to be a primary com- ponent of parental sensitivity (Lamb & Easterbrooks, 1981), it is likely that this aspect of caretaking (as well as the quantity of attention and caretaking time, Jacobs & Moss, 1976; Kilbride et al.,, 1977) is superior for first-borns than for later-borns.

The parents’ reports supplement the experimental findings. Mothers and fathers perceived their later-born infants as crying significantly more than their first-borns. (It is of interest, however, that the parents did not consider the standard taped cries purportedly from their first- or later-borns to differ in aversiveness.) Although the distinction in frequency of crying may reflect real temperamental differences in infants’ fussiness, the parents’ selective inatten- tiveness during the session suggests that parents allow their later-boms to fuss


for a relatively long time at home before they respond. It appears that later- born infants may be in a disadvantageous position relative to their older sib- lings. Perhaps because they must vie with the other children in the household for their parents’ limited attention, their crying arouses the parents less (Bouk- ydis & Burgess, 1982), and, when they do receive attention, it is less frequent, less sensitive, and slower. First-time parents may be attempting to compensate for their inexperience in parenting through their vigilance to their infant’s signals. According to Lamb and Easterbrooks’s (1981) hypothesis, their parents’ delayed responsiveness may somewhat hinder later-born infants’ learning that there is a connection between the signals they emit and their parents’ actions. Consequently, this pattern of events may hamper the formation of secure, Type B attachments (Lamb, 1982) in later-borns compared to first-borns. Fur- ther research on the components of sensitive caretaking (Lamb & Easterbrooks, 1981) is needed, however, to determine the relative effects of contingency, con- sistency, and appropriateness of parental responding. For instance, Wiesenfeld and Malatesta’s (1982) tentative findings suggest that parents’ sensitivity to their infant may be enhanced by their previous experiences in raising children.

Although their latencies to investigate the crying did not differ, fewer fathers than mothers tended to intervene to help terminate the crying. In addition, fathers perceived the age at which their infant was first able to recognize them as being older than did mothers; according to Robson and Moss (1970), such recognition augments parents’ positive feelings toward their baby. Fathers also were reported to spend less total time with their infant and to be less responsible for taking care of the baby than were mothers (cf. Lamb, 1982; Parke & Sawin, 1980). These results, taken as a whole, provide some support for Wiesenfeld et al’s (1981) contention (which was based on differences between mothers’ and fathers’ cardiac patterns and their differential ability to recognize their own infant’s cries) that mothers react more actively than fathers to the sounds of their own infants’ cries because of mothers’ more extensive experiences in soothing and caring for their children. Likewise, the findings support Lamb and Easterbrooks’s (1981) suggestion that fathers’ sensitivity to their infant’s signals is directly related to the extent of their involvement in caretaking interactions. The significant associations of the speed of responding by both parents with the relative amount of caretaking responsibilities and with the infants’ age at first recognition of the parents provide additional support for this assertion. Because sheer time spent with the baby was not reliably related to speed of responding to cries, the importance of caretaking per se is underscored in terms of its relation to parental sensitivity and early recognition by the infant (Lamb & Easterbrooks, 1981; Robson &Moss, 1970). Having responsibility for caretaking and simply spending time with the infant are qualitatively different activities for parents. It is through repeated experiences in caretaking that parents learn to interpret sensitively their infant’s signals (cf. Lamb, 1982).

Differences in procedures may account for the finding, which contrasts with some earlier ones (Cotter & Bow, 1976; Moss, 1974), that parents re-

ATTENTIVENESS 393

sponded similarly to their sons and daughters. As in Moss’s research, the parents believed that their child was in distress; however, they were also able to hear crying. Unlike the Corter and Bow study, parents were not aware that retrieval was the target measure, and they were unable to ascertain visually the circumstances surrounding the distress. The parents’ only signal was the cry, which was controlled to be identical for boys and girls. These results suggest that parents in the previous studies may have been reacting to idiosyncratic features in the cry itself (e.g., boys may cry with greater urgency or aversiveness than girls) rather than directly to their son versus daughter.

REFERENCES

Boukydis. C. F., & Burgess, R. L. (1982). Adult physiological response to infant cries: Effects of temperament of infant, parental status, and gender. Child Developmenr, 53, 1291-1298.

Bowlby. J. (1958). The nature of the child’s tie to his mother. International Journul of fsycho- analysis, 39, 350-373.

Corter, C., & Bow, J. (1976). The mother’s response to separation as a function of her infant’s sex and vocal distress. Child Development, 47, 872-876.

Frodi, A. M., Lamb, M. E., Leavitt, L. A., & Donovan, W. L. (1978). Fathers’ and mothers’ responses to infant smiles and cries. In/on{ Behavior and Development, 1, 187-198.

Jacobs, B. S., & Moss, H. A. (1976). Birth order and sex of sibling as determinants of mother- infant interaction. Child Developmenr, 47, 315-322.

Kilbride, H. W., Johnson, D. L., & Streissguth, A. P. (1977). Social class, birth order, and new- born. experience. Child Development, 48, 1686-1688.

Lamb, M. E. (1982). Parent-infant interaction, attachment, and socioemotional development in the infant. In R. N. Emde & R. J. Harmon (Eds.), The developmenf of ormchmenr ond affiliative sysrems: Neurological and psychobiological aspects (pp. 192-211). New York: Plenum.

Lamb, M. E., & Easterbrooks, M. A. (1981). Individual differences in parental sensitivity: Origins, components, and consequences. In M. E. Lamb & L. Sherrod (Eds.), Infunf sociul cognition: Empiricul and rheorericalconsiderutions (pp. 127-153). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.

Lamb, M. E., Frodi, A. M.. Hwang, C. P., Frodi, M., & Steinberg, J. (1982). Mother- and father- infant interaction involving play and holding in traditional and nontraditional Swedish families. Developmenial Psychology, 18. 215-221.

Lewis, M., & Kreitzberg, V. S. (1979). Effects of birth order and spacing on mother-infant interactions. Developmental Psychology, 15. 617-625.

Moss, H. A. (1974). Communication in mother-infant interaction. In L. Krames, P. Pliner, &T. Ahoway (Eds.), Advances in the study of communicarion and affect Vol. I. Non-verbal communiculion (pp. 171-191). New York: Plenum.

Parke, R. D.. & Sawin, D. B. (1980). The family in early infancy: Social interactional and atti- tudinal analyses. In F. A. Pedersen (Ed.), The father-infanf relufionship (pp. 44-70). New York: Praeger.

Robson, K. S., &Moss, H. A. (1970). Patterns and determinants of maternal attachment. Journal of Pediatrics. 77, 976-985.

Wiesenfeld, A. R., & Malatesta, C. Z. (1982). Infant distress: Variables affecting responses of caregivers and others. In L. W. Hoffman, R. Gandelman, & H. R. Schiffman (Eds.), Parenting: Its causes and consequences (pp. 123-139). Hillsdale. NJ: Erlbaum.

Wiesenfeld, A. R., Malatesta, C. Z., & DeLoach, L. L. (1981). Differential parental response to familiar and unfamiliar infant distress signals. Infunf Behavior and Development, 4, 281- 295.

31 July 1984; Revised 19 March 1985 n

Documents

Attentiveness of mothers and fathers to their baby's cries