Social Communication Flashcards
Proto-conversation
Vocal exchange between a parent and an infant.
Gratier (2003) suggests this convo type matches adult conversations pauses and rhythm.
If are taking an active role, should react negatively when signals stop.
Imitation
Copying behaviours that are not spontaneous or innate.
Meltzoff and Moore (1977) - Parent pulled tongue. Imitated by infant.
Emotional Contagion
One person’s emotions and behaviours directly trigger similar emotions and behaviours in others.
E.g. when twin cries and other starts crying.
Field (1982) - Facial expressions by mothers then copied by infants.
Social Referencing
Infants use the affective displays of adults to regulate their behaviours towards environmental objects, persons, and situations
Nagy & Molnar (2004)
- 45 newborns observed experimenter protruding tongue.
- 1 min modelling, 2 min wait for imitation. Waited to see if infant would initiate interaction. Restarted if no protrusion.
- 78% of newborns imitated in response to modelling
- 38% initiated tongue protrusion.
- Termed as provocations only if stuck it out 2mins after experimenter.
- HR monitored.
- Imitation had a higher HR compared to provocation, suggesting a different underlying mechanism. However, cannot be explained by arousal as HR pattern not aroused.
Provocations
The intention to communicate. Different to imitation.
Nagy et al. (2005)
- Finger extension movements in newborns 9-96hrs old.
- Finger movements increased gradually over time as if learning.
- Suggests that they are able to imitate index finger extension movements which is strong evidence for intentional imitation.
Problems
- Looking to see if possible
- Only small increase
- Under conscious control?
Still Face Paradigm
Observing infant’s reaction to disrupted proto-conversations
Tronick et al. (1978)
- Engagement, SF for 2-3 mins then re-engagement
- Classic SF response. Attempt to re-engage by pointing. Followed by gaze aversion, a response to stress.
- Have an annoyed reaction to a break in conversation as they intend to communication.
Criticism
- Could be due to emotional contagion?
- Used to mothers reacting to them
- Better way would be to substitute SF with an active, but non-contingent face.
Murray and Trevarthen (1985)
- SF response
- Still have SF response in the non-contingent replay of footage condition.
Braarud & Stormark (2006)
- SF response
- Live video, replay parent, live video again, live parent.
- SF response is a negative response due to a break in the contingency of social reaction.
D’Entremont & Moore (1997)
- Study into whether or not 5 month olds show the SF response when SF is happy.
- Still show gaze aversion in happy condition
Field et al. (2005)
Infants of depressed mothers show depressed SF response. React less negatively as they expect this form of communication from mother.
What are the suggested reasons for the SF paradigm and what are the criticisms of this?
- SF is not a reaction to a facial expression, but contingency in social interaction.
- Suggested that infants reacting to the violation of expectation as proto conversations are scaffolded from birth and the SF paradigm comes as a surprise.
- Field et al. (2005) is evidence
Criticism
- Looking into whether new-borns still show the SF response as this would show that social contingency is innate and not learnt. It is usually measured in 3-month olds.
Bertin & Striano (2006)
- How SF develops over time.
- 18m, 1.5m and 3m. Showed SF for 60s.
- 3m = Decreases in gaze and smiling during SF. Increased when engaged again.
- 1.5 = Decreases in gaze during SF. Recovery not significant. Decreases and increases in smiling. Haven’t learned how to get back into a conversation.
- Can explain proto-conversation findings by developmental increases in keeping with social scaffolding of responses.
Criticism
- Newborns don’t smile until later age
- 60s not long enough?
- Smiles an unfair measure
