国际学术会议海报(poster)模板(英文)9

Reactions to nonverbal events
smile and gaze
urban Nso 24
Contingent reactions by modality
80 70
contingency rate in %
b
80
a
Mothers and Los rural Nsofrom 26Berlin 73.1% 38.5% Angeles responded about10 4 8 times more often with a distal than with a proximal modality 6 (the ratios for the mothers of 4 all other samples were 2 around 2)
non-distress vocalizations 48%
other 38%
Berlin Los Angeles Beijing
38 20 17 36
gaze 10%
smile 4%
Delhi
Reactions to non-distress vocalizations
neutral vocalizations of low or middle intensity
SAMPLES
Child N Girls 47.4% 61.9% 64.7% 47.1% 57.7% Firstborn** * 73.7% 71.4% 100.0% 40.0% 26.9%
12
Hale Waihona Puke Baidu
Mother Age*** 34.0a (3.0) 34.5a (3.0) 27.9b (2.8) 29.0b (3.4) 30.2 (6.2) 29.0b (8.4) Education* ** 15.2a (3.4) 17.0a (1.6) 15.2a/b (3.0) 15.5a (1.4) 12.9b (1.8) 6.6c (1.9)
Contingency toward infant signals in mother-infant dyads from Culture & different cultural environments development
Joscha Kärtner & Heidi Keller
Percentages of child events
THEORETICAL BACKGROUND • To react contingently toward a baby’s signals is part of the universal intuitive parenting repertoire (Papoušek & Papoušek, 1991). In two recent studies vocalizing was the dominant modality followed by touching (Hsu & Fogel, 2003; VanEgeren et al., 2001) • Furthermore, there are culture-specific modulations: • Gusii mothers from rural Kenya predominantly reacted by holding and touching whereas Boston middle-class mothers reacted primarily by looking and vocalizing (Richman et al., 1992) • Japanese mothers reacted more by touching as compared to Euro-American mothers who used facial expressions and vocalizing more often (Fogel et al.,1988) Our study addresses the general occurrence of contingent responsiveness as well as the specificity of reactions using a multicultural design with mothers who differ with respect to their interactional preferences: • Mothers with an independent model of parenting (Berlin and Los Angeles) should use distal modalities more often, • Mothers with an interdependent model of parenting (rural Nso) should use proximal modalities more often, and • Mothers with an autonomous relational model of parenting (Beijing, Delhi, urban Nso) should use both distal and proximal modalities equally often PROCEDURE • Families were visited at home • 10 minutes free play interaction between the caretaker and her 3-month old baby was videotaped METHODS – modalities for contingent responsiveness: 1.Body contact (holding) 2.Body stimulation (touching) 3.Gaze (looking) 4.Smile 5.Facial expression (raised eyebrows, mouth open) 6.Vocalization (talking) 7.Object stimulation (toys) 8.Acoustical stimulation (flipping, rattling)