Still-face TaskThe paradigm was ada

Still-face Task
The paradigm was adapted from Striano and Stahl (2005) and involved two interruptive situations (adopting a neutral face and ignoring the child). The main purpose of this task was to measure children’s social responsiveness when confronted with an interruption of communication. Infants were seated on a highchair facing the experimenter at a distance of about 45 cm. Once infants were seated, two identical plastic objects (10 cm of height)wereunobtrusivelyplacedtotheinfant’sleftandrightside ata distanceofabout70 cm.Theprocedurealwaysstartedoff and finished with a normal interaction (NI), while in between the NI and the two different SF phases were alternated in a randomized order. The five phases lasted for 30 s each. In the NI phase children were involved in a natural dyadic interaction. To render thecommunicationsituationasnaturalaspossible,experimenters were free to react intuitively to children’s social interaction bids by talking, singing or laughing. In the SF face-to-face condition, the experimenter adopted a neutral facial expression and looked at the infant’s face without any affect. During the SF ignore phase,

The emerging self


the experimenter ensured that the infant held eye contact, then adoptedaneutralfacialexpressionandturnedtothesideofoneof thetwoobjects(thesideoftheobjectswascounterbalancedacross children). Thus, the infant was ignored during the whole phase. No smiling or gazing back at the infant or touching the infant occurred. Thus, the two SF variants did not differ in the facial expression (neutral) and were both characterized by the absence of communicative bids.
Based on the coding scheme by Striano and Stahl (2005), infants’ behaviors were coded using the INTERACT® software. Percent duration of time that infants engaged in a particular behavior was used as dependent measure. The dependent measures included the amount of smiling (raised cheeks, upward turned lips), gazes at experimenter and reengagement behaviors. Reengagement behaviors involved movements (arm or leg movements or pick-me-up gestures accompanied by looks directed at the experimenter) and communicating (e.g., babbling, squeaking,laughingorwhining)whilegazingattheexperimenter. In order to analyze whether a SF effect was manifested, smiling, gaze and reengagement behaviors were averaged across the three NIepisodesandthencomparedtotheaveragedurationofsmiling, gaze and reengaging behavior across the two SF episodes.
Note that according to the literature competent children should,onaverage,showimportantdifferencesintheirgaze,smile and behavior when comparing the SF phase with the NI phase. More specifically, the SF effect involves a decrease in smiling and gazing behavior, as well as an increase of reengagement behaviors displayed toward the interaction partner during SF (interrupted) compared to NI episodes.
Thus, for subsequent correlational analyses, difference scores were computed for all three behaviors: the duration of each behavior during NI was subtracted by the duration during SF phases. Based on these difference scores, the following competence levels were defined: for smiling and gazing, a subject was classified as competent (and assigned a competence score of 1) if the difference scores in smiling and gazing behavior between the averaged NI and SF episodes was greater than zero, that is, the child spent less time smiling or gazing respectively, during SF phases than during NI. A child who received a negative value or a score of zero was classified as incompetent (and was assigned a competence score of 0). For reengagement behavior the rationale was different. Note that responsivity to social interaction cues is characterized by an increase of reengagement behaviors after the interruption of an ongoing interaction and a decrease of such behaviors once NI was re-established. Therefore, a competence score of 1 was assigned if the amount of reengagement behaviors during the SF phases was greater than during NI. Note that all scores around 0 and below were assigned a 0. In order to be assigned a score of 1 instead of 0, the differences between the NI and the SF effect had to be significantly different from zero.

Results (Indonesian) 1:

Masih-wajah tugasParadigma ini diadaptasi dari Striano dan Stahl (2005) dan terlibat dua situasi interruptive (mengadopsi wajah netral dan mengabaikan anak). Tujuan utama dari tugas ini adalah untuk mengukur respon sosial anak-anak ketika berhadapan dengan gangguan komunikasi. Bayi duduk pada kursi tinggi menghadapi bergerak pada jarak sekitar 45 cm. Setelah bayi duduk, dua benda identik (10 cm tinggi) plastik wereunobtrusivelyplacedtotheinfant'sleftandrightside ata distanceofabout70 cm. Theprocedurealwaysstartedoff dan selesai dengan interaksi yang normal (NI), sementara di antara NI dan dua yang berbeda fase SF yang berganti dalam urutan acak. Bahwa lima fase berlangsung selama 30 s masing-masing. Di NI fase anak yang terlibat dalam interaksi dyadic alami. Untuk membuat thecommunicationsituationasnaturalaspossible, peneliti adalah gratis untuk bereaksi secara intuitif untuk anak-anak interaksi sosial tawaran oleh berbicara, bernyanyi atau tertawa. Dalam kondisi tatap muka SF, bergerak mengadopsi sebuah ekspresi wajah yang netral dan memandang wajah bayi tanpa mempengaruhi apapun. Selama SF mengabaikan fase,Diri munculthe experimenter ensured that the infant held eye contact, then adoptedaneutralfacialexpressionandturnedtothesideofoneof thetwoobjects(thesideoftheobjectswascounterbalancedacross children). Thus, the infant was ignored during the whole phase. No smiling or gazing back at the infant or touching the infant occurred. Thus, the two SF variants did not differ in the facial expression (neutral) and were both characterized by the absence of communicative bids.Based on the coding scheme by Striano and Stahl (2005), infants’ behaviors were coded using the INTERACT® software. Percent duration of time that infants engaged in a particular behavior was used as dependent measure. The dependent measures included the amount of smiling (raised cheeks, upward turned lips), gazes at experimenter and reengagement behaviors. Reengagement behaviors involved movements (arm or leg movements or pick-me-up gestures accompanied by looks directed at the experimenter) and communicating (e.g., babbling, squeaking,laughingorwhining)whilegazingattheexperimenter. In order to analyze whether a SF effect was manifested, smiling, gaze and reengagement behaviors were averaged across the three NIepisodesandthencomparedtotheaveragedurationofsmiling, gaze and reengaging behavior across the two SF episodes.Perhatikan bahwa menurut literatur anak-anak yang kompeten harus, onaverage, showimportantdifferencesintheirgaze, senyum dan perilaku ketika membandingkan fase SF tahap NI. Lebih khusus lagi, efek SF melibatkan penurunan tersenyum dan memandang perilaku, serta peningkatan perilaku reengagement ditampilkan terhadap mitra interaksi selama SF (terganggu) dibandingkan dengan NI episode.Thus, for subsequent correlational analyses, difference scores were computed for all three behaviors: the duration of each behavior during NI was subtracted by the duration during SF phases. Based on these difference scores, the following competence levels were defined: for smiling and gazing, a subject was classified as competent (and assigned a competence score of 1) if the difference scores in smiling and gazing behavior between the averaged NI and SF episodes was greater than zero, that is, the child spent less time smiling or gazing respectively, during SF phases than during NI. A child who received a negative value or a score of zero was classified as incompetent (and was assigned a competence score of 0). For reengagement behavior the rationale was different. Note that responsivity to social interaction cues is characterized by an increase of reengagement behaviors after the interruption of an ongoing interaction and a decrease of such behaviors once NI was re-established. Therefore, a competence score of 1 was assigned if the amount of reengagement behaviors during the SF phases was greater than during NI. Note that all scores around 0 and below were assigned a 0. In order to be assigned a score of 1 instead of 0, the differences between the NI and the SF effect had to be significantly different from zero.