Tamis-LeMonda-05-14-2021-7

280 CHAPTER 7

and 4-week-old infants to two types of touch stimulation: (1) self-stimulation , when the infant touches their own cheek with a finger and (2) other stimulation , when an experimenter’s finger touches the infant’s cheek. Infants were more likely to turn their heads and open their mouths, as though preparing to breast- feed, when an experimenter touched their cheeks (other stimulation) than when they touched their own cheeks (self-stimulation). Rochat inferred that infants’ early ability to differentiate self-touch from other touch is explained by the different sensory experiences associated with the two types of touches. When infants touch themselves, they experience a “double touch,” receiving tactile feedback on both finger and cheek as well as feedback from their moving arm. In contrast, touches by other people result in a “single touch” of a finger to cheek—the distinction that inspired the name of the experiment. Very young infants also recognize that movements such as kicking the legs are self-generated, offering further evidence for their sense of an ecological self. For example, Rochat documented that 3-month-old infants can distinguish between different views of their moving legs (Rochat & Goubet, 1995). To illus- trate, he presented infants with an “ego view” from a camera that was located behind the infant’s head and thus presented the scene from the infant’s view- point. The “observer view” was generated by a camera angle different from the infants’ perspective. Infants looked longer at the observer view than at the ego view, suggesting that they were intrigued by the novel, unexpected view of their moving legs ( FIGURE 7.25 ). Infants further display their sense of the ecological self through their reac- tions to contingency experiences , environmental effects that arise from one’s actions. Infants recognize, for example, when they have caused a mobile to move by kicking their legs (Rovee-Collier, 1989) or brought a picture into view by sucking on a nipple (Siqueland & Delucua, 1969). And, infants’ perceptions of contingency extends to social interactions—the interpersonal self—as illus- trated in a clever experiment conducted three decades ago. Infants in a control group communicated visually and vocally with their mothers in real time via a closed-circuit television, such that they experienced the same sort of real-time interactions characteristic of their everyday interac- tions. Infants in the experimental group, on the other hand, viewed videos of their mothers that had been recorded a few minutes earlier. Although the experimental videos showed mothers expressing positive behaviors toward their infants, mothers’ behaviors had no contingent connection to what infants were doing because of the time delay in the video playback. Infants in the experimental group were markedly distressed by the noncontingent videos, whereas infants in the control group enjoyed interacting “live” via the TVmoni- tors. The researchers concluded that infants were sensitive to the contingent timing of their mothers’ interactions (Murray & Trevarthen, 1985). CHECK YOUR UNDERSTANDING 7.22 1. Explain the single-touch and double-touch experiment. What does it reveal about infant understanding of self? 2. Explain contingency experiments and what they tell us about infant under- standing of the interpersonal self. The Objective Self LEARNING OBJECTIVE 7.23 Discuss evidence for infants’ understanding of an objective self. An infant’s objective or conceptual self does not emerge until somewhere around the second year. Michael Lewis and Jeanne Brooks-Gunn were the first to study infants’ objective self (Lewis & Brooks-Gunn, 1979) by dabbing rouge ✓ NOTE Not su e about this on ! Th c pti n says obs r er is a side view, but hen it doesn’t look like the art ms.

Observer view Ego view FIGURE 7.25 The “ego view” and the “observer view” of an infant’s moving legs. Infants viewed an image of their legs moving that was taken by a camera above their heads. The image therefore matched their own view. They were also shown an image of their legs moving from a side camera that did not match their view. Infants looked longer at the nonmatching side-camera perspec- tive of their moving legs relative to matching image, as though they found it to be “odd” and unexpected (After P. Rochat and R. Morgan. 1995. Dev Psychol 31: 626–636.)

Tamis-LeMonda Child Development: Context, Culture, and Cascades 1E Sinauer Associates/OUP Morales Studio TL1e_07.25 01-28-21 PROPERTY OF OXFORD

self-stimulation When an infant’s hand or finger touches its own cheek (creating a double-touch experience); self-stimulation is part of the single- touch and double-touch experiment other-stimulation When an experi- menter’s finger touches the infant’s cheek, creating a single-touch experience; other-stimulation is part of the single-touch and double-touch experiment contingency experiences Environ- mental effects that arise from infant actions such as a mobile moving in response to a swipe; infants’ reac- tions to contingency are thought to reflect the ecological self

UNIVERSITY PRESS