Mutual Touch during Mother―Infant Face-to-Face Still-Face Interactions: Influences of Interaction Period and Infant Birth Status

Mutual Touch during Mother―Infant Face-to-Face Still-Face Interactions: Influences of Interaction Period and Infant Birth Status

Mutual Touch during Mother―Infant Face-to-Face Still-Face Interactions: Influences of Interaction Period and Infant Birth Status

Mutual Touch during Mother―Infant Face-to-Face Still-Face Interactions: Influences of Interaction Period and Infant Birth Statuss

| Ajouter

Référence bibliographique [17274]

Mantis, Irene, Stack, Dale M., Ng, Laura, Serbin, Lisa A. et Schwartzman, Alex E. 2014. «Mutual Touch during Mother―Infant Face-to-Face Still-Face Interactions: Influences of Interaction Period and Infant Birth Status ». Infant Behavior & Development, vol. 37, no 3, p. 258-267.

Fiche synthèse

1. Objectifs


Intentions :
«The present study’s rationale was to examine mutual touch in order to achieve a more comprehensive understanding of the communicative roles of touch during early mother–infant social exchanges. The objectives were to document […] whether the qualitative (types) and quantitative (duration) aspects of touch employed by mothers and their infants varied across the normal periods of the SF [still-face] procedure (given that the first normal period of the SF procedure is the baseline preceding the perturbation period, where the mother is emotionally unavailable); and, […] how these were associated with risk status.» (p. 259)

Questions/Hypothèses :
«Given the two aforementioned objectives, it was hypothesized that “mutual touch” and “one-sided touch plus movement” would dominate interactions, in comparison to “one-sided touch” and no touching. Further, it was anticipated that results would provide a better understanding as to whether mothers’ and infants’ mutual touching episodes change (i.e., whether they increase or decrease) following a SF perturbation (i.e., maternal emotional unavailability in the SF period). […] Given that the SF period can be more challenging for preterm infants, it was hypothesized to culminate in affecting the amount of mutual touch engaged in during the reunion-normal period.» (p. 260)

2. Méthode


Échantillon/Matériau :
«The final sample consisted of three groups of 5½-month-old fullterm (n = 40) infants, VLBW [very low birth weight] / preterm (n = 40) infants, and infants at psychosocial risk (n = 41) and their mothers drawn from a longitudinal project. […] Mothers and their infants were recruited from birth records from a major community hospital in the Montreal (Quebec, Canada) area.» (p. 260)

Instruments :
- Questionnaire
- Grille d’observation

Type de traitement des données :
Analyse statistique

3. Résumé


«In line with what was hypothesized, the amount of touch was found to be consistently high across both normal periods of the mother–infant interaction. Specifically, mutual touch and one-sided touch plus movement were found to dominate interactions, in comparison to one-sided touch and no touch. […] This finding further supports the accumulating evidence that touch is an important form of interaction and a central communicative channel within mother–infant face-to-face still-face interactions. […] In line with expectations, mothers and their fullterm infants engaged in similar amounts of mutual touch in both the normal and reunion-normal periods of the SF procedure while mothers and their VLBW/preterm infants engaged in higher levels of mutual touch in the normal period compared to the reunion-normal period. Thus, the SF period did not appear to reduce the amount of mutual touch mothers and their fullterm infants engaged in, while it did for mothers and their VLBW/preterm infants. […] Mothers and their infants at psychosocial risk engaged in significantly more mutual touch than one-sided touch and no touch, collapsed across periods. In addition, similar to fullterm infant–mother dyads, mothers and their infants at psychosocial risk used similar amounts of mutual touch across both the normal and reunion-normal interaction periods.» (p. 264-265)