Experimenting with Babies
Page 7
The researchers knew that reaching for and grasping a moving object is a challenging task at all three ages, but less so for the older babies, and that handedness emerges over this developmental period. A previous study had also established that handedness is more likely to show up on difficult tasks than easy tasks. The researchers argue that the results of this study, in which the 8-month-olds showed a different hand-reaching preference compared to the other two groups, can be explained by the fact that at 8 months, the task is still difficult enough that a preference for the dominant hand is very pronounced. At 6 months, though the task is difficult, handedness has not yet fully developed, and at 10 months, though handedness has more fully developed, the task is comparatively easy and is not as pronounced.
CAVEATS
While many of the babies in the study reached for the toy, not all did. And of those who reached for it, not all were able to successfully grasp and hold it. And while the majority of the babies who showed a hand preference were right-handed, your own little slugger just might be a southpaw.
THE TAKEAWAY
Welcome to the world of the carrot and the stick. Expect to be dangling incentives in front of your kids for the next 18 years. From your child’s perspective, this is a task that demands a significant amount of hand-eye coordination and the ability to anticipate an object’s direction of movement, both skills that will help him rack up high scores on video games and win stuffed animals at carnival booths later in life. To help him further develop these skills, practice rolling and chasing balls across a floor or let him play with small mechanical toys with simple movement patterns.
29
I Want What You Want
Age range: 6–12 months
Experiment complexity: Simple
Research area: Social development
THE EXPERIMENT
Show your baby two similar toys. Then place the toys on a table or other surface and allow him to see you choose between the two toys. As you move your hand toward the first toy, use negative facial expressions to show that you’re not interested in it—such as by wrinkling your nose and shaking your head no. Then, as you move your hand toward the second toy, use positive facial expressions to show that you’re interested in it—such as a smile and raised eyebrows—and pick it up and play with it for a moment. Then return the toy to its original position and allow your child to choose one of the two toys himself.
THE HYPOTHESIS
Your baby will select the same toy you chose.
TWEAK IT
As in the experiment just described, show your baby two toys, but instead of reaching out and grasping one of the toys—a clearly goal-oriented action—merely touch the toy with the back of your hand, without any attempt to grasp or retrieve it. Then allow your baby to select one of the toys.
THE RESEARCH
In a 2008 study, a group of 7-month-olds watched an adult choose one of two toys and were then given the opportunity to choose one of the toys themselves. The researchers noted that 58 percent chose the same toy the adult chose; 35 percent chose the other toy; and 7 percent made no choice.
The researchers then modified the experiment. An adult expressed interest in one of the two toys and tried to grasp it, but it was out of reach. Babies who witnessed the adult unsuccessfully reach for the toy were even more likely to select that same toy than those who witnessed the adult successfully grasp the toy—66 percent chose the toy the adult reached for, while 34 percent chose the other toy.
The study found that babies will try to reproduce actions that they perceive to be goal oriented (such as choosing a toy). However, with actions that weren’t perceived to be goal oriented (such as when an adult merely touched the toy with the back of the hand, without grasping it), the babies showed no preference for the toy the adult touched.
This research suggests that babies as young as 7 months old are able to differentiate between goal-oriented actions and non-goal-oriented actions, and that they will base their own goals on the perceived goals of others.
THE TAKEAWAY
The scientific community has a highly technical term for the phenomenon you likely just observed in this experiment: Monkey see, monkey do. From a very early age, your child takes cues from your behavior, so make sure your own goals are goals that you would want your child to emulate. Remember: You’re a role model now. If you’d like to see just how much of an effect your goals and choices have, try repeating the experiment at the dinner table. When introducing a new food, let your child see you select the new food instead of a familiar food and see whether he follows your lead.
30
Be Still, My Face
Age range: 6–24 months
Experiment complexity: Moderate
Research area: Emotional development and social development
Note to parents: In the original experiment, babies were allowed to grow upset and cry briefly before being comforted. I recommend, however, that you end the experiment at the first sign of distress—or, if you’re uncomfortable with conducting the experiment yourself, you can view a recording of it online at www.experimentingwithbabies.com/stillface.html.
THE EXPERIMENT
Have your baby sit in a high chair or other safe place and spend a minute engaging with him: smile, sing, talk, and play. Then turn your head away briefly, and when you turn back, gaze at your baby with a neutral expression and do not engage with him.
THE HYPOTHESIS
Your baby may make some attempts to engage with you by smiling, babbling, reaching out to you, or rapping on a tray. But he will soon become puzzled and then unnerved by your lack of response, and he may begin to frown, yawn, look away, or cry. However, once you notice your baby becoming upset, if you begin interacting with him again, he will quickly become content.
THE RESEARCH
The “still face” experiment was first conducted in 1975 by Edward Tronick, who was researching behavioral and social development in infants. Test subjects consistently exhibited the behaviors predicted in the hypothesis. It is one of the most replicated findings in the field of developmental psychology.
This experiment demonstrates that at a young age, children have a rudimentary understanding of how social interaction works and that they are able to connect certain facial expressions with certain emotions. Subsequent studies based on the still face experiment have examined how children with conditions such as autism or hearing loss differ from their peers in the way they react to the experiment. For instance, in a 2000 study, children with autism were found to react to the still face experiment, but only when they were already familiar with the adult participant. And in a study of deaf infants, the still face experiment was shown to have a strong effect on babies with easygoing temperaments and a less significant effect on babies with difficult temperaments.
THE TAKEAWAY
A still face might be an asset at the poker table, but this experiment makes clear that your little research subject demands expressiveness. Your baby is an inherently social creature, and your facial expressions are key to his understanding your interactions with him. To help him further that understanding, make an effort to use appropriate facial expressions when you are interacting with him. For instance, it might be difficult for a young child to understand that an action such as hitting or biting has hurt you or one of his siblings. Use an expression such as a grimace or a wince to help communicate what it means to feel hurt. Similarly, when you praise your child, communicate how happy you are not only in your words but also in your expression. The still face experiment confirms that what’s true for adults is also true for babies: A smile can make all the difference.
31
The In-Plain-Sight Switcheroo
Age range: 6–24 months
Experiment complexity: Simple
Research area: Cognitive development
THE EXPERIMENT
Place two easy-to-reach containers (such as sma
ll cardboard boxes) in front of your baby. Show the baby a toy, and then place it in container A. Allow the baby to retrieve it from container A. Repeat the process several times, each time placing the toy in container A. Then place the toy in container B.
THE HYPOTHESIS
Babies younger than 1 year old will reach toward container A for the toy, even though they saw you put it in container B. By around their first birthday, babies will reach toward container B for the toy.
THE RESEARCH
The A-not-B error, also called the perseverative error, was observed in 1954 by Jean Piaget, a developmental psychologist who was studying how children come to understand object permanence. Since then, numerous other researchers have tried to tweak the experiment to determine why exactly babies make the error.
Some researchers believe that habituation—that is, repeated motor movement toward container A—causes the error, but a 1997 study suggests that more complex factors are at work. In that study, two groups of infants were tested using a version of the classic A-not-B test. They were prompted to remove the lid from an empty container A several times, then prompted to remove the lid from a container B. One group saw a toy being placed into container B before they were directed to remove the lid; the other group did not. If mere motor habituation were the cause of the A-not-B error, the results of both groups should have been the same because both were habituated to removing the lid from container A. However, the results showed that babies who saw a toy being placed in container B were less likely to make the error. The researchers acknowledge that questions remain about what exactly causes the error, but the results of their study show that motor habituation alone is an insufficient explanation.
THE TAKEAWAY
Don’t be so quick to laugh at your baby’s error, unless you’ve never been fooled by a magic trick. Magicians use more sophisticated versions of this experiment—arguably a very simple form of misdirection—to fool audiences into thinking that an object has disappeared or moved from one place to another in a seemingly impossible way. If slick sleight-of-hand can baffle even you, a full-grown adult, then surely your little one should get bonus points for eventually figuring out the trick.
32
The Goldilocks Effect
Age range: 7–9 months
Experiment complexity: Complex
Research area: Cognitive development
THE EXPERIMENT
For this experiment, you’ll need three rectangular pieces of cardboard, trifolded so they have a front and two sides and can stand up on a flat surface. Cover each cardboard “stand” with a distinctive color or pattern of wrapping paper, and place them side by side in front of your baby. Stand behind the display with three small toys. The toys should not resemble each other. Begin by slowly raising the first toy behind the first stand, so that it looks like the toy is peeking out at your baby. Then, lower it again. Repeat the procedure with the same toy and the same stand, keeping track of how much time elapses before your baby looks away.
On another day, repeat the experiment, but in this go-around, select a random toy and a random stand each time. Again, keep track of how much time elapses before your baby looks away.
Finally, on another day, repeat the experiment, but present the toys according to a simple sequence. For instance, you might present toy A in stand A, toy B in stand B, toy C in stand C, and then repeat the sequence. Again, keep track of how much time elapses before your baby looks away.
THE HYPOTHESIS
Your baby is likely to look longer when the toys are presented in the simple sequence than in the very predictable (first) or very unpredictable (second) trials.
THE RESEARCH
Researchers have long known that babies sometimes exhibit a “familiarity bias” and sometimes exhibit a “novelty bias.” In the case of the former, babies give more attention to a familiar thing than an unfamiliar thing; in the case of the latter, it’s the reverse. The results of this experiment suggest one way to predict which type of bias a baby is likely to demonstrate.
In a 2012 study, 7- and 8-month-old babies were shown sequences of short animations involving recognizable objects emerging out of boxes. The predictability of the sequences was varied across trials. The researchers found that sequences of moderate predictability held infants’ attention the longest, based on look-away times. The babies’ attention lagged when the sequences were too predictable or when the sequences were too unpredictable.
Toward the middle is the Goldilocks point (not too easy, not too hard) at which infants’ focus lasts longest. Because familiarity with a task or scenario tends to reduce its complexity, if two test stimuli are both boringly familiar, the baby will show a preference for the one closest to the Goldilocks point, which presents itself as a novelty bias. But if the two test stimuli are both unpredictable or complex, the baby will show a preference for the one closest to the Goldilocks point, which presents itself as a familiarity bias.
THE TAKEAWAY
Finding your baby’s sweet spot—that happy medium between “I’m bored” and “What the heck is going on here?”—can take a bit of practice. And even once you feel like you’ve nailed it down, expect things to shift rapidly as your baby develops. Because the limits of her attention are constantly in flux, don’t get discouraged if you find she’s easily distracted. She won’t be confused for long.
33
The Importance of an Audience
Age range: 7–11 months
Experiment complexity: Simple
Research area: Social development and language development
THE EXPERIMENT
Spend about 10 minutes with your baby in unstructured playtime. Act as you normally would, but keep track of the frequency of your baby’s vocalizations. Next, spend another 10 minutes playing, but this time, whenever your baby makes a vocalization, smile, move closer to your baby, and touch her. Again, keep track of the frequency of her vocalizations.
THE HYPOTHESIS
Your baby’s rate of vocalization will be higher during the second 10-minute period.
THE RESEARCH
A 2003 study compared the frequency of babies’ vocalizations during three back-to-back play sessions with their mothers. In the first and third play sessions, the mothers were instructed to interact as they normally would during playtime. In the second session, they were told to give positive social feedback after each of their babies’ vocalizations. The researchers found that not only was the frequency of the infants’ vocalizations higher during the middle session, but the sounds were more complex and had characteristics closer to mature speech—for instance, they were more fully voiced, and the number of syllables was greater.
This study shows that even at the babbling stage of language learning, the sounds that babies make are influenced by social feedback. The researchers point out that the changes in the babies’ vocalizations are not the result of mere imitative behavior because the mothers’ responses were nonverbal (smiling, moving closer to the infant, touching her), which calls into question theories of social learning that rely on imitation as the primary driver of developmental change.
THE TAKEAWAY
We’ve all been there: A severe case of laryngitis has threatened our ability to respond verbally with cutesy ripostes to our baby’s babbling. Don’t sweat it. Even nonverbal feedback, such as a flashy smile or a gentle touch can help your baby improve her language skills. Just don’t go full-out mime. That’s creepy.
34
A Gazy Connection
Age range: 9–10 months
Experiment complexity: Simple
Research area: Social development
THE EXPERIMENT
Recruit two friends to perform a brief scene in front of your baby. Have them stand side by side, facing your baby. Next, at the same time, they should turn to face each other, look into each other’s eyes, and greet one another. They should then remain in that pos
ition until your baby looks away. A little while later, have the friends repeat the exchange, but this time, they should turn to face away from each other. After greeting one another, they should again remain in that position until your baby looks away.
THE HYPOTHESIS
At 10 months old, your baby will likely look longer at the exchange in which the participants are looking away from each other. But at 9 months old, there will be no significant difference in looking times.