Jean Dumas - Indirect Influence of Maternal Social Contacts on Mother-Child Interactions

Journal o f Abnormal Child Psychology, Vol. 14, No. 2, 1986, pp. 205-216

Indirect Influence of Maternal Social

Contacts on Mother-Child Interactions:

A Setting Event Analysis 1

Jean E. Dumas 2

University of Western Ontario

Fourteen mother-child dyads who had sought psychological help for severe interaction problems took part in a study that investigated the relationship between maternal social interactions with adults outside the family and mother-child interactions in the home. Social interactions outside the family were based on maternal self-reports; mother-child interactions in the home were based on direct observations and included both base-rate and sequential measures. Results indicated that mothers were significantly more aversive toward their children on days in which they had themselves experienced a high proportion ofaversive interactions with adults than on days in which they had not. This higher level of aversiveness was evident in their responses to both aversive and nonaversive child behavior and could not be attributed to any corresponding change in child behavior. Implications for research and clinical practice are discussed.

Children develop within a social system, usually the family, that is only a part of a larger network of social systems. In keeping with an ecological perspective that stems from the theoretical and applied work of researchers such as Barker (1968) and Bronfenbrenner (1979), it is now commonly ac-

Manuscript received in final form May 12, 1985. ~This work appeared first as a paper presented at the 92nd Annual Convention of the American Psychological Association, Toronto, August 1984. The research data reported in this article were generated by support from the National Institute of Mental Health, Crime and Delin- quency Section, Grant No. R01-1068-58, to Robert G. Wahler. His permission to use these data is gratefully acknowledged. 2Address all correspondence to Jean E. Dumas, Department of Psychology, University of Western Ontario, London, Ontario, Canada N6A 5C2.

205

0091-0627/86/0600-0205505.00/0 9 1986 Plenum Publishing Corporation

2:06 Dumas

cepted that a proper understanding of the socialization process requires a comprehensive analysis of interactions both within and between these systems (e.g., Hartup, 1978; Lamb, 1977; McCall, 1977; Rutter, 1983).

This ecological perspective has influenced research in two complemen- tary directions. At the two-person or dyadic level, it has led to the direct observation of family members as they interact with one another in pairs, with the aim not only of better understanding the process of reciprocal influence in family functioning (Burgess & Conger, 1978; Lobitz & Johnson, 1975; Mash & Johnston, 1982) but also of modifying it when it can be con- sidered deviant (Barkley, 1981; Patterson, 1980; Wahler, 1980). Recent work has made increasing use of complex sequential analyses of social interaction in an attempt to disentangle this influence process (Dumas, 1984a; Dumas & Wahler, 1985; Patterson, 1976; Reid, Taplin, & Lorber, 1981; Snyder, 1977; Wahler & Dumas, in press a). This methodology provides a significant im- provement over more traditional methods of analysis, which typically measure differences in specific behaviors within individuals and use these differences to draw conclusions about the nature of the relationship between individuals, thus centering "on the actions of individuals who are engaged in social interaction, not on social interaction per se" (Hartup, 1979, p. 27).

At the multiperson level, the ecological perspective has led to an increased awareness of the importance of second-order effects (Bronfenbren- ner, 1979) or indirect influences in the development and maintenance of normal and deviant interaction patterns. In other words, it has led to the recognition that interactions between two individuals (e.g., parent-child) can be influenced indirectly by the relationships that each of them has with other members of the environment, whether these persons are part of the immediate family (e.g., spouse, sibling) or not (e.g., relative, friend, peer). This process of indirect influence is described by Bronfenbrenner (1979) in the form of a hypothesis:

The capacity of a dyad to function effectively as a context of development depends on the existence and nature of other dyadic relationships with third parties. The developmental potential of the original dyad is enhanced to the extent that each of these external dyads involves mutually positive feelings and the third parties are sup- portive of the developmental activities carried on in the original dyad. Conversely, the developmental potential of the dyad is impaired to the extent that each of the external dyads involves mutual antagonism or the third parties discourage or interfere with the developmental activities carried on in the original dyad. (p. 77)

This hypothesis seems particularly appropriate to account for findings such as Pederson's (cited in Lamb, 1979) that parents who are more critical toward one another tend to express more negative affect toward their infants, or Hetherington's (1979) that divorced mothers are better able to deal effectively with their young children when their former spouse accepts their approach to discipline and generally supports them in the task of child rearing.

Indirect Influence 207

However, although this hypothesis makes intuitive sense, the process of indirect influence it proposes is not readily apparent.

We have suggested elsewhere (Dumas, 1984b; Wahler & Dumas, in press b) that this process of indirect influence may be understood with reference to the concept of "setting event" (Kantor, 1959). A setting event may be de- fined as a set of enviromental circumstances that influence which of a variety of potential stimulus-response relationships will occur. Given a family dyad, for example, certain environmental circumstances may act to "set up" a member of the dyad to act toward the other in a specific manner. Of major importance in the socialization context is how interactions between two adults can moderate later interactions between adult and child. In two recent studies, Wahler (1980) and Wahler and Dumas (in press a) showed that, on days in which highly disadvantaged mothers of oppositional children reported having engaged in aversive interactions with other adults prior to an observation of their interactions with their children at home, they were more likely to act aversively toward them during the observation than on days in which they had not engaged in such interactions. However, both studies were limited, the first one because it did not use sequential measures of mother-child interaction and the second one because its results were based on six dyads only.

The present study was conducted to investigate further the nature of the relationship described in these studies. Using mother-child dyads who experienced serious relationship problems, it focused both on sequential measures of interaction within the dyads and on maternal self-reports of interaction with adults outside the family. Following Bronfenbrenner's (1979) hypothesis, it was predicted that mothers would be more aversive toward their children on days in which they had first experienced high levels of aversive interactions with adults in their community than on days in which they had not; it was predicted further that this aversive response tendency would not be attributable to a greater likelihood that their children would then respond to them with increased aversiveness.

METHOD

Design

Fourteen mother-child dyads were selected from a sample of 52 dyads that had been referred to a therapeutic program for child management problems. AI! data reported here were obtained prior to any therapeutic intervention. Dyads were selected because the mothers reported frequent aversive interchanges, not only with their children but also with adults outside their immediate families. These reports were based on an index of maternal corn-

208 Dumas

munity contacts (known as "insularity"). This index was obtained, together with scores on six measures of mother-child interactions, in the course of home-based observations. From a total of 156 observations, the insularity measure was used to select two subsets of observations: those preceded by aversive maternal community contacts and those not preceded by such contacts. The measures of mother-child interaction were then compared between these two subsets.

Subjects

All participants had sought psychological help for child behavior problems by contacting the Child Behavior Institute of the University of Ten- nessee. Results of a semistructured interview (Wahler & Cormier, 1970) indicated that one family had referred themselves for treatment while all others had been referred by schools and social agencies (e.g., Department of Human Services, courts). Referral problems were similar for each family. All children were described as coercive and oppositional at home and/or school, while their mothers described themselves as having considerable dif- ficulty enforcing rules and instructions and as often yelling, screaming, or striking their child.

The same interview provided the following sociodemographic data. At time of referral, mothers ranged in age from 25 to 35 years (M = 28.86, SD = 4.28). Eight of their children were boys and six were girls. They ranged in age from 4 to 10 years (M = 6.36, SD = 2.06). Six families had yearly incomes below $6,000, 7 families below $13,000, and one family below $25,000. Seven mothers had not completed high school, six had done so, and one had started a college education. Eight mothers were married or had been cohabiting with a common-law spouse for 2 years or more, while six mothers were single parents.

Measurement Procedures

Dyadic Interactions. Biweekly home observation sessions were established during an initial interview with each mother. They were chosen at times of day when she was most likely to have interaction problems with her referred child. All observations were conducted by undergraduate students who had successfully completed a 2-week training course on the use of the Stan- dardized Observation Codes (Wahler, House, & Stambaugh, 1976). This coding system provides a comprehensive (24 codes) picture of interactions between the target child and other family members. During each observation session, which lasts 30 minutes, the observer is signaled through ear-


phones to observe for 10 seconds and then record code occurrences for the following 5 seconds on purpose-made forms. A total of 120 intervals of code occurrences is thus possible for each observation.

Nine of these codes were used in this study. They were grouped into four behavior clusters, which provided overall measures of mother and child nonaversive and aversive behavior as follows: (a) Mother Nonaversive represented all intervals in which either of two specific codes reflecting the mother's nonaversive child-directed behaviors were scored: Nonaversive In- struction was scored for any instance of discrete instruction directed to the child; Nonaversive Social Attention was scored for any instance of neutral or positive physical or verbal behavior directed to the child. (b) Mother A vet- sire represented all intervals in which either of two specific codes reflecting the mother's aversive child-directed behaviors were scored: Aversive Instruc- tion was scored for any instance of discrete instruction accompanied by aggressive physical or verbal behavior; Aversive Social Attention was scored for any instance of aggressive physical or verbal behavior. (c) Child Nonaver- sive represented all intervals in which either of two specific codes reflecting the child's nonaversive mother-directed behaviors were scored: Compliance was scored for any instance of compliance with a discrete instruction given by the mother; Social Approach was scored for any instance of physical or verbal contact with the mother initiated by the child and not involving any aversive behavior. (d) Child Aversive represented all intervals in which any of the three specific codes reflecting the child's aversive mother-directed behaviors were scored. Opposition was scored for any instance of noncompliance with a discrete instruction; Aversive Opposition was scored for any instance of noncompliance with a discrete instruction accompanied by physical aggression and/or verbal protest; Rule Violation was scored for any instance of violation of an established household rule.

Insularity Index. Following each observation session, the observer also conducted a brief structured interview with the mother. The interview for- mat, called the Community Interaction Checklist (Wahler, Leske, & Rogers, 1979), prompted maternal recall of all her adult social contacts outside the family in the preceding 24 hours. Each mother was asked to recall these contacts within the framework of several categories. Two categories were rele- vant to the purpose of the present s tudy- namely, the identity of the contact person (e.g., friend, relative, helping agency representative) and the valence of the contact for the mother (from + 3 = very positive, through 0 = neutral, to - 3 = very aversive). On the basis of these data, a mother had to satisfy at least one of two conditions to be described as "insular": (a) to report, on average, at least twice as many of her daily contacts with relatives and/or helping agency representatives as with friends, or (b) to report, on average, at least a third of all her daily contacts as neutral or aversive (score of 0 to

210 Dumas

- 3). As required by the participant selection criteria, each mother was insular. The average pattern of extrafamily social contacts reported by the 14 mothers was as follows: number of daily contacts (M = 3.88, SD = 1.59, range: 2-7), percentage of daily contacts with relatives or helping agents (M = .45, SD = .26, range: .08-.77), percentage of daily contacts with friends (M = .38, SD = .26, range: .05-.86), and percentage of daily contacts rated neutral or aversive (M = .52, SD = .30, range: .08-.94). This pattern is very similar to insular patterns obtained with other samples (e.g., Wahler, 1980; Wahler & Dumas, in press a).

Measurement Reliability

Dyadic Interactions. Extensive data assessing the reliability of the Stan- dardized Observation Codes have been reported elsewhere (Dumas, 1984a). They were based on analyses conducted with all 52 families from which the 14 dyads who took part in this study were selected. Briefly stated, measures of session reliability, which were based on intraclass correlation coefficients (Guilford & Fruchter, 1978; Winer, 1971), were calculated for all base-rate probabilities; they ranged from .79 to .99. Measures of interval-by-interval reliability, which were based on the statistic kappa (Hartmann, 1977; Hubert, 1977), were calculated for all conditional probabilities; they ranged from .34 to .86.

Insularity Index. An intraclass correlation coefficient was also computed to evaluate the reliability of the Community Interaction Checklist. This measure was obtained by applying the insularity decision rules described above to the data gathered on each of the last five occasions on which the checklist was administered during preintervention. Thus, each occasion received either a noninsular or an insular score. The resulting data matrix was subjected to a repeated-measures analysis of variance. The reliability of the insularity index was found to be equal to .82 (F(51,208) = 5.54, p < .0001).

Data Analyses

Two types of measures were derived from the observational data: (a) Base-rateprobabilities of nonaversive and aversive mother and child behaviors were computed. This was done by grouping all observations for each dyad separately, adding the number of observation intervals in which each behavior cluster had been scored, and dividing the results by the total number of intervals. These probabilities were then averaged across dyads. (b) Conditional probabilities were computed to establish how mothers and children responded to each other's behavior. This was done by counting the number of observa-


tion intervals in which a behavior cluster of interest (e.g., Mother Aversive) had been scored, but only if it had been preceded by another behavior cluster of interest (e.g., Child Aversive) in either of the previous two observation intervals (i.e., 30 seconds) and dividing the result by the base-rate probability of the second behavior cluster. These probabilities were also Obtained for each dyad separately and averaged across dyads.

RESULTS

Base-Rate and Conditional Probabilities

Base-rate and conditional probability measures of mother and child behaviors were computed on three sets of observations: (a) all observations (n = 156); (b) all observations preceded by maternal self-report of positive contacts on the Community Interaction Checklist, i.e., less than a third of all contacts rated as neutral or aversive (n = 76); and (c) all observations preceded by maternal self-report of aversive contacts on the checklist, i.e., more than two-thirds of all contacts rated as neutral or aversive (n = 61). These results are presented in Table I, where comparison is made between the two contact conditions. As there were no difference between these conditions for the base-rate and conditional measures of nonaversive behavior, only the measures of aversive behavior are reported here. Comparisons in- dicate that the probabilities of child behavior did not differ under the two contact conditions. The children were not more likely to act in an aversive

Table I. Base-Rate and Conditional Probability Measures of Mother and Child Aversive Behaviors Under Three Observations Conditions

Conditions

Observations preceded by

Positive Aversive All maternal maternal

Behaviors observations contacts contacts t(135)

Mother aversive .046 .034 .062 - 1.85" Mother aversive/

child nonave~sive .090 .065 .122 - 1.83" Mother aversive/

child aversive .113 .079 .159 -2 .35 ~

Child aversive .125 .133 .116 .79 Child aversive/

mother nonaversive .208 .222 .190 .85 Child aversive/

mother aversive .454 .454 .455 - .02

~p < .05. bp < .01.

212 Dumas

manner under either condition, whether their behavior was measured as a base rate or was conditional upon a maternal antecedent. However, the probabilities of mother behavior were found to differ systematically. Mothers were more likey to act in an aversive manner toward their children when they had experienced a large proportion of aversive contacts with adults in their community prior to an observation than when they had not. As their conditional probabilities indicated, this response tendency applied irrespective of the child behavior antecedent. In other words, the mothers were more likely to respond aversively to both aversive and nonaversive child behavior when they had themselves experienced high levels of aversive interactions before an observation.

Observed Dependencies in Maternal A versiveness

Given this response tendency, the base-rate and conditional probability measures of maternal aversiveness computed on all observations were compared to the same measures computed only on the observations preceded by

"fable II. Diagrams of Observed Dependencies in Mother Aversive Behaviors Given Positive or Aversive Community Contacts as Antecedents*

given .062 Aversive

~ contacts Mother aversive . .046

given Positive z = 1.14 contacts .034

given .122 Aversive

aversive/ ~ contacts Motherchild nonaversive ~ .090

\ given Positive z = 1 .93b~ contacts .065

given .159 Aversive

/ / / contacts Mother aversive/ .113

child aversive ~ .

\ given Positive z = - 2.49" contacts .079

"Probabilities to the left of the diagrams are based on all observations; probabilities to the right of the diagram are based only on observations preceded by aversive or positive maternal community contacts.

bp < .05. cp < .01.


positive or aversive contacts. This was done, with the help of a z statistic (Allison & Liker, 1982), to test for the presence of dependencies in the mothers' aversiveness toward their children on the prevailing valence of their prior contacts. Results are reported in Table II. This table shows that in five out of six comparisons the probabilities of maternal aversiveness were significantly related to the valence of their contacts; while aversive contacts had a facilitating effect upon such aversiveness, positive contacts had an inhibitory effect upon it. In line with the previous analysis, these comparisons indicated that this facilitating or inhibitory effect occurred irrespective of the child behavior antecedent.

DISCUSSION

The results indicated that mothers who manifested severe interaction problems with their children tended to behave more aversively toward them on days in which they reported to have themselves engaged in a high proportion of aversive social contacts with adults in their community. Specifically, it would appear that aversive social contacts exercised a facilitating effect upon maternal aversiveness, while positive social contacts exercised an inhibitory effect upon it, this irrespective of the behavior exhibited by the child in the course of interaction.

Although these findings support the predictions at the origin of this study and, in so doing, emphasize the usefulness of the concept of setting event or second-order effect, they should be interpreted with caution. The relationships described here are correlational in nature and therefore do not demonstrate that aversive social contacts play a causal role in aversive mother-child interactions. (One could in fact argue that the causal chain might have its source in the mother herself, who may somehow affect, from day to day, the valence of all her interactions with others.) Similarly, the results are based on group averages, which may mask the fact that these relationships may not always apply to individual dyads. Finally, the findings are limited by methodological issues that were not addressed here. Future studies will need to consider the possibility that sequential data of the type used in this study may be autocorrelated (Gardner & Hartmann, 1984) and that the degree of autocorrelation may vary within and across dyads. Given these reser- vations, however, the results raise some major issues that must be discussed briefly.

Why do insular, distressed mothers behave more aversively toward their children when they themselves report having experienced high proportions of aversive social contacts? Because mothers were asked to recall their adult social contacts after each observation session, it could be argued that aversive child interactions evoked an angry mood in mothers on some days, which

214 Dumas

in turn biased their recall of their earlier adult interactions. It would appear that this is unlikely, however, since no changes in child aversiveness were observed under the three conditions. Rather, a setting event analysis suggests that, when insular, distressed mothers respond to any one of their aversive partners (e.g., child, spouse, relative, social agency representative), their responses are influenced not only by that person but also by many other persons with whom they commonly have aversive interchanges (Wahler & Dumas, in press b). In other words, when responding to their children, these mothers may in fact be responding to both the children's behavioral cues and a broader pattern of cues that includes those provided by other social agents in other settings. If this is correct, their daily variations in their responses to their children may reflect not only the valence of the latter's behavior but also the aversive or positive nature of many of the contextual stimuli to which they are exposed. Under such circumstances, the finding of high levels of aversive and indiscriminate or inconsistent behavior in insular mothers reported here and elsewhere (Dumas & Wahler, 1985) makes sense. Indeed, it would be difficult to expect an insular mother to interact with her child in a nonaversive and consistent fashion if her behavior is under the control of environmental events that bear little contingent relationship to the child's behavior.

Although they remain tentative at this stage, these results should encourage further research in this area if we are to understand better the role of indirect influences in the development and maintenance of normal or pathological behavior processes in children. Among other things, research should attempt to develop and use better measurements of both adult social contacts (e.g., use of multiple measures) and dyadic interactions (e.g., use of response chain analyses) than the measurements used in this study. The results should also encourage clinicians who seek to help distressed families to pay close attention not only to relationships within the family but also to the wider environmental context that provides the setting in which these relationships take place. The fact that child behavior did not covary with maternal aversiveness suggests that, in some family referrals at least, a parent may need more help than a child. If this help is to modify a parent's pattern of social contacts, psychologists will probably need to join forces with other professionals (e.g., social workers, physicians, and psychiatrists) and community leaders in an interdisciplinary attempt to provide comprehensive services to distressed families.

REFERENCES

Allison, P. D., & Liker, J. K. (1982). Analyzing sequential categorical data on dyadic interaction: A comment on Gottman. Psychological Bulletin, 91, 393-403.


Barker, R. G. (1968). Ecologicalpsychology. Stanford: Stanford University Press. Barkley, R. A. (1981). The use of psychopharmacology to study reciprocal influences in parent-

child interaction. Journal of Abnormal Child Psychology, 9, 303-310. Broufenbrenner, U. (1979). The ecology of human development. Cambridge, Massachusetts:

Harvard University Press. Burgess, R. L., & Conger, R. D. (1978). Family interaction in abusive, neglectful and normal

families. Child Development, 49, 1163-1173. Dumas, J. E. (1984a). Interactional correlates of treatment outcome in behavioral parent train-

ing. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 52, 946-954. Dumas, J. E. (1984b). Indiscriminate mothering: Empirical findings and theoretical specula-

tions. Advances in Behaviour Research and Therapy, 6, 13-27. Dumas, J. E., & Wahler, R. G. (1985). Indiscriminate mothering as a contextual factor in

aggressive-oppositional child behavior: "Damned if you do, damned if you don't." Journal of Abnormal Child Psychology, 13, 1-17.

Gardner, W., & Hartmann, D. P. (1984). On Markov dependence in the analysis of social interaction. Behavioral Assessment, 6, 229-236.

Guilford, J. P., & Fruchter, B. (1978). Fundamental statistics in psychology and education (6th ed.). New York: McGraw-Hill.

Hartmann, D. P. (1977). Considerations in the choice of interobserver reliability estimates. Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis, 10, 103-116.

Hartup, W. W. (1978). Perspectives on child and family interaction: Past, present, and future. In R. M. Lerner & G. B. Spanier (Eds.), Child influences on marital and family interaction. A life-span perspective (pp. 23-46). New York: Academic Press.

Hartup, W. W. (1979). Levels of analysis in the study of social interaction: A historical perspective. In M. E. Lamb, S. J. Suomi, & G. R. Stephenson (Eds.), Social interaction analysis: Methodological issues (pp. 11-32). Madison: University of Wisconsin Press.

Hetherington, E. M. (1979). Divorce: A child's perspective. American Psychologist, 34, 851-858. Hubert, L. (1977). Kappa revisited. Psychological Bulletin, 84, 289-297. Kantor, J. R. (1959). Interbehavioral psychology. Granville, Ohio: Principia Press. Lamb, M. E. (1977). Father-infant and mother-infant interaction in the first year of life. Child

Development, 48, 167-181. Lamb, M. E. (1979). The effects of the social context on dyadic social interaction. In M. E.

Lamb, S. J. Suomi, & G. R. Stephenson (Eds.), Socialinteraction analysis: Methodological issues (pp. 253-268). Madison: University of Wisconsin Press.

Lobitz, W. C., & Johnson, S. M. (1975). Parental manipulation of the behavior of normal and deviant children. Child Development, 46, 719-726.

Mash, E. J., & Johnston, C. (1982). A comparison of the mother-child interactions of younger and older hyperactive and normal children. Child Development, 53, 1371-1381.

McCall, R. B. (1977). Challenges to a science of developmental psychology. Child Develop- ment, 48, 333-344.

Patterson, G. R. (1976). The aggressive child: Victim and architect of a coercive system. In E. J. Mash, L. A. Hamerlynck, & L. C. Handy (Eds.), Behavior modification and families. 1. Theory and research (pp. 267-316). New York: Brunner/Mazel.

Patterson, G. R. (1980). Mothers: The unacknowledged victims. Monographs of the Society for Research in Child Development, 45(5, Serial No. 186).

Reid, J. B., Taplin, P. S., & Lorber, R. (1981). A social interactional approach to the treatment of abusive families. In R. B. Stuart (Ed.), Violent behavior: Social learning ap- proaches to prediction, management, and treatment (pp. 83-101). New York: Brunner/Mazel.

Rutter, M. (1983). Stress, coping, and development: Some issues and some questions. In N. Garmezy & M. Rutter (Eds.), Stress, coping, and development in children (pp. 1-41). New York: McGraw-Hill.

Snyder, J. J. (1977). A reinforcement analysis of intervention in problem and nonproblem children. Journal of Abnormal Psychology, 86, 528-535.

Wahler, R. G. (1980). The insular mother: Her problems in parent-child treatment. Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis, 13, 207-219.

216 Dumas

Wahler, R. G., & Cormier, W. H. (1970). The ecological interview: A first step in out-patient child behavior therapy. Journal of Behavior Therapy and Experimental Psychiatry, 1, 293-303.

Wahler, R. G., & Dumas, J. E. (in press a). Stimulus class determinants of mother-child coercive interchanges in multidistressed families: Assessment and intervention. In J. D. Bur- chard & S. Burchard (Eds.), The prevention of delinquent behavior. Beverley Hills, CA: Sage.

Wahler, R. G., & Dumas, J. E. (in press b). Family factors in childhood psychopathology: Toward a coercion-neglect model. In T. Jacob (Ed.), Family interaction and psychopathology. New York: Plenum Press.

Wahler, R. G., House, A. E., & Stambaugh, E. E. (1976). Ecological assessment of child problem behavior. A clinical package for home, school, and institutional settings. New York: Pergamon Press.

Wahler, R. G., Leske, G., & Rogers, E. S. (1979). The insular family: A deviance support system for oppositional children. In L. A. Hamerlynck (Ed,), Behavioral systems for the developmentally disabled: 1. School and family environments (pp. 102-127). New York: Brunner/Mazel.

Winer, B. J. (1971). Statistical principles in experimental design. New York: McGraw-Hill.

Documents

Jean Dumas - Indirect Influence of Maternal Social Contacts on Mother-Child Interactions