Question: The broad question of Johnson et al. (1998) is will infants gazes only follow humans? The specific question of their study is will infants gaze follow an object of contingent behavior with or without a face and an object of non-contingent behavior with or without a face?
Alternatives: One alternative is that infants gaze will follow an object of contingent behavior with or without a face. Another alternative is that an infants gaze will not follow an object of contingent behavior with or without a face. Another alternative is that infants gaze will follow an object of non-contingent behavior with or without a face. Another alternative is that infants gaze will not follow an object of non-contingent behavior with or without a face. …show more content…
The infant would sit on the caretaker’s lap facing the actor/object directly in front of them. The setup was like a diamond, and 2 targets were placed at the left and right corners between the infant and actor/object. In the object conditions, the object was placed on a small table using a hidden turntable. Inside the object was a remote controlled and battery-operated light and beeper. The assistant would then have a brief interaction with the person or object, in which the person would answer the assistant. (e.g. “How are you? I’m fine, thanks. Bye bye.”) In the contingent object conditions, the object responded in beeps and flashed lights. In the non-contingent object condition, the object did not speak or move. In the contingent object conditions, the object beeped as a result of the infants’ expression and flashed its lights in response to movement. In the person condition, the beeps were replaced with natural responses and winks. In the non-contingent condition, infants were put together with infants from the contingent object condition so that each pair experienced the same rate of the object’s activity. The looking trial consisted of the actor/object turning toward a target, and in all of the conditions the trials began with a beep to grab attention, and then a 45 degree turn toward the target. The infants looking behavior was then videotaped and scored by a primary coder who …show more content…
The extent to which contingency or the presence of a face alone contributed to the looking behavior was then examined. The results concluded that the presence of a face and contingent behavior did not elicit more gaze-following than the other. In addition, whether a person had more of an advantage in the infants gaze-following as opposed to a contingent object with a face was examined. However, there was found to be no reliable difference between the person condition and the contingent object with a face condition. As a result, the additional cues provided by the person had no significant baring on the infants gaze-following
Alternatives: One alternative is that infants gaze will follow an object of contingent behavior with or without a face. Another alternative is that an infants gaze will not follow an object of contingent behavior with or without a face. Another alternative is that infants gaze will follow an object of non-contingent behavior with or without a face. Another alternative is that infants gaze will not follow an object of non-contingent behavior with or without a face. …show more content…
The infant would sit on the caretaker’s lap facing the actor/object directly in front of them. The setup was like a diamond, and 2 targets were placed at the left and right corners between the infant and actor/object. In the object conditions, the object was placed on a small table using a hidden turntable. Inside the object was a remote controlled and battery-operated light and beeper. The assistant would then have a brief interaction with the person or object, in which the person would answer the assistant. (e.g. “How are you? I’m fine, thanks. Bye bye.”) In the contingent object conditions, the object responded in beeps and flashed lights. In the non-contingent object condition, the object did not speak or move. In the contingent object conditions, the object beeped as a result of the infants’ expression and flashed its lights in response to movement. In the person condition, the beeps were replaced with natural responses and winks. In the non-contingent condition, infants were put together with infants from the contingent object condition so that each pair experienced the same rate of the object’s activity. The looking trial consisted of the actor/object turning toward a target, and in all of the conditions the trials began with a beep to grab attention, and then a 45 degree turn toward the target. The infants looking behavior was then videotaped and scored by a primary coder who …show more content…
The extent to which contingency or the presence of a face alone contributed to the looking behavior was then examined. The results concluded that the presence of a face and contingent behavior did not elicit more gaze-following than the other. In addition, whether a person had more of an advantage in the infants gaze-following as opposed to a contingent object with a face was examined. However, there was found to be no reliable difference between the person condition and the contingent object with a face condition. As a result, the additional cues provided by the person had no significant baring on the infants gaze-following