Prediction from early interaction
Messinger
Face-to-face
Self-regulation develops in the context of mutual regulatory parent-infant systems (face-to-face interactions)
the coordination of affective expression during face-to-face interactions facilitates the transition from mutual regulation to self-regulation.
Face-to-face synchrony infants’ first opportunity – to practice interpersonal coordination of biological
rhythms, – to experience the mutual regulation of positive arousal,– to build the lead-lag structure of an adult communication.
A close look at interaction
psy.miami.edu/faculty/dmessinger/
The fundamental question of socialization
“How young children begin to adopt parental rules, and how regulation of conduct shifts from external
to internal?” Kopp (1982)
From coordinated interactions at 3 months to self-regulation at 3 years control, self-control, self-regulation
- 12 to 18 months: children become capable of control, the awareness of social demands and the ability to initiate, maintain, and cease behavior, and to comply with caregivers’ request.
- by 24 months: they acquire self control, which further includes the ability to delay on request and begin to regulate behavior, even in the absence of external monitors
- by 36 months: they begin to be capable of self-regulation, or flexibility of control processes that meet changing situational demands.
WHY?
Face-to-face
The predilection of mothers to shift affective states to match those of their infants is related to increases in infants self-control and cognitive performance at two years
7
Face-to-face/still-face
More detail
Smiling and crying in SF at 2, 4, and 6 mos was unstable– Crying %s stable from 4 – 6 mos
No impact of chronicity of maternal depression on infant sf behavior
% of smiling and crying in SF does not predict mother rated internalizing and externalizing at 18 months
9
But
Tercile groups– Smiling predicts externalizing– Crying predicts internalizing
In fact – Smilers (68%) show less externalizing– Criers (67%) show more internalizing
Mother depression also independently predicts internalizing and externalizing
10
Prediction from the still-face
“Infants who failed to smile at 6 months in the still-face interaction showed more externalizing-type behaviors than did other toddlers.
Infants who failed to cry at 6 months showed fewer internalizing-type behaviors.”
TBCL – Internalizing: emotional instability, immaturity, shyness– Externalizing: oppositional and physical aggression
• Moore et al., 2001
11
Dynamic still-face effect
psy.miami.edu/faculty/dmessinger/
Gaze At Parent
Seconds
0 20 40 60 80 100 120
Fre
qu
en
cy
2468
1012141618
Smile
Seconds
0 20 40 60 80 100 120
Fre
qu
en
cy
0
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
Cry-Face
Seconds
0 20 40 60 80 100 120
Fre
qu
en
cy
0
2
4
6
8
10
Social Bids
Seconds
0 20 40 60 80 100 120
Fre
qu
en
cy
0
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
ObservedPredicted
Ekas, et al., 2012
Face-to-face reciprocity early self-regulatory mechanisms
3/9 months Infant difficult temperament
(1st year), maternal synchrony
(3 months) mutual synchrony
(9 months)
Self-control
2 years
(Feldman et al., 1999)
Developmental continuity through adolescence Participating in a synchronous exchange may sensitize
infants to the emotional resonance and empathy underlying human relationships across the life span.– “How do early relational patterns experienced in
infancy turn into stable personality orientations in adolescence and adult life?” (Feldman, 2007)
– (3 months to 13 years)
18
Adolescent’s capacity to engage in an empathetic exchange
Child self-regulated compliance across the toddler and preschool years mediated the relations between the lead-lag structure of early interactions and the adolescent's dialogical skills.
Direct associations were found between mother-infant synchrony and the capacity for empathy in adolescence.
• (Feldman, 07)
Feldman, 0720
Mediated associations
Mother-infant synchrony capacity for empathy in adolescence
21
Feldman, 2007
Mutual Responsive Orientation
“a positive, close, mutually binding, and cooperative relationship, which encompasses two components: responsiveness and shared positive affect”
Kochanska
22
How does MRO work?
Positive mood yields prosocial behavior Promotes responsive stance toward parent And committed compliance
– Eagerly working with parent– Potential pathway to internalization– Kochanska
Kochanska’s argument
Mutual positive expression in particular – rather than matching of affect in general - leads to children’s internalization of social norms and committed compliance to maternal directives
24
Organization of Conscience
Emotions and conduct– Emerge early– Show cross-situational consistency– Moderate longitudinal stability (.3-.6)
Precursors– Committed compliance: “An eager, willing stance
toward parental directives and demands”– Situational compliance: “Yield to parental
pressure”
Kolnik
The Evidence
200 mother-child dyads Concurrent and longitudinal links
Between MR relationships and a strong conscience (Kochanska, 1997; Kochanska, Forman, & Coy, 1999; Kochanska & Murray, 2000)
Farhat
Children’s Conscience and Self-Regulation (Kochanska & Aksan, 2006)
Conscience: an inner self-regulatory system Results from 3 large longitudinal studies
Conscience
Moral Emotions
Moral Conduct
Predictors of Conscience
Temperament
Socialization
Kolnik
Predictors of Conscience Temperament
– Fearfulness Underpinning of children’s guilt
– Effortful control Underpinning of children’s emerging ability to regulate their
conduct
Socialization of the family– Reciprocal, positive interactions necessary– Mutually responsive orientation (MRO)
Parent/child cooperativeness & responsiveness Shared dyadic positive affect
– Parental warm discipline v. parental power assertionKolnik
Through interaction, infants come to understand themselves as social beings who affect and are affected by others
psy.miami.edu/faculty/dmessinger/
Proposed mechanism
Young infants who act with the developing expectation of eliciting
positive affect in the parent develop to be young children who regulate themselves to please their
parents.
34
Parent-Infant Interaction
psy.miami.edu/faculty/dmessinger
Infant Smile, Mother Smile
37
Empathy Empathy ASD diagnosis ASD diagnosis Empathy Empathy ASD severity ASD severity
r = -.45*
McDonald & Messinger (JADD, 2012)McDonald & Messinger (JADD, 2012)
Morality is implicitly interactive
Acting with respect to the expectations of a generalized other—
norms—expecting one’s actions to affect others.
40
Overall Finding
“Children growing up with parents who are responsive to their needs and whose interactions are infused with happy
emotions adopt a willing, responsive stance toward parental influence and become eager
to embrace parental values and standards for behavior.”
– Kochanska, 2002
41
Which is better?
Messinger
Romero
Hane and Fox, 2006
Autism Risk and Early Parent-Child Interaction
Supported by evidence with diagnosed children:– Early Intervention (e.g., Lovaas 1987; Sallows & Graupner, 2005; Smith et al., 2000)
– Language growth (Siller & Sigman 2002, 2008).
Dawson (2008)
Different Structures of Parenting in the Context of Emergent Autism: 15 months
No ASD
Emergent ASD
StructuringEmotional
Supportive-ness
StructuringEmotional
Supportive-ness
r = .75***
r = .12ns
Sensitivity (e=3.03, 76%)
Responsiveness .95Respect for Autonomy .83Positive Regard .84Structuring .86
E.S. Structuring (e=2.87, 72%) (e=1.02, 25%)
Responsiveness .98Respect for Autonomy .96Positive Regard .98Structuring 1.00
Baker, et al., 2010
Sensitive StructuringExpressive Language Growth
www.psy.miami.edu/faculty/dmessinger
For toddlers who received an ASD diagnosis
Baker, et al., 2010
Sensitive Structuring
www.psy.miami.edu/faculty/dmessinger
Thinking about feelings: emotion focus in the parenting of children with early developmental risk Emotion—social skills
– Among kids with delay and without
Gangi
Baker & Crnic, 2009
Still-faceSecurity