Do Four Month Olds Recognize Social Intimacy Control Study
Creators: name: Thomas, Ashley J.
name: Rhorer, Hayley Willms
Publisher: name: Open Science Framework
Year: 2023
Subjects: subject: Social and Behavioral Sciences
subject: Developmental Psychology
subject: Psychology
subject: FOS: Psychology
subject: Social Psychology

description: This pre-registration document has been approved by all researchers involved in the project as of Title Infants recognize cues of social intimacy a control study Start Date 01/18/2023 Logic and Hypothesis In a previous study we found that infants ages 4-6 months, 8-10 months, and 16-18 months looked first toward a person who had previously shared food with a puppet after the puppet expressed distress, as opposed to a person who had passed a ball back and forth with the same puppet. We also found that infants looked first toward a puppet who had engaged in a non-food interaction, which implied saliva sharing, after their social partner expressed distress, compared to a puppet who had engaged in a perceptually similar action that did not imply saliva sharing. In the current studies, we aim to rule out the possibility that this anticipatory look was due to overall higher interest in the social partner who had engaged in saliva sharing. We hypothesize that infants look at the saliva-sharing person specifically when anticipating responses to the distress of a thick relation. If this is right, then: in the newly designed control event for the study involving ball-passing and food-sharing, infants should show a null result or the reverse pattern in the control condition (looking more to the ball passer or forehead toucher). Sample Size We will use a preferential stopping rule (appropriate with Bayes Factors). We will test until we have a Bayes Factor of at least 8, or no more than 35 babies. Participants Infants who are between the ages of 4 months, 0 days and 6 months, 15 days. Infants will be recruited via facebook and twitter ads. Demographic questions, including zip code, ethnicity, and income, will be collected but will be optional. Methods and Design Infants will see two paradigms (in a single visit). Because we have already replicated the main result once, we will show infants the control conditions in both paradigms. We will counterbalance the order that infants see the two paradigms. General Procedure Trial Structure: Familiarization Paradigm 1; Anticipatory Look Test Paradigm 1; Visual Preference Test Paradigm 1; 2 minute filler; Familiarization Paradigm 2; Anticipatory look Paradigm 2; Visual Preference Test Paradigm 2 In the ball/food paradigm, there are two familiarization events. In the ball event, a woman passes a ball back and forth with a puppet. In the food-sharing event, a woman takes a bite of an orange slice, feeds the puppet the same orange slice, and then takes another bite of the orange slice. Next comes the test event which shows the puppet flanked by the two women. Then, in the test events, they will either see the puppet say, "Ball, I want the ball.” and the two women turn toward the puppet. In the mouth/forehead paradigm, there are two familiarization events. In the mouth to mouth event, a woman puts her finger in her mouth, puts her finger in a puppet’s mouth and then puts her finger in her mouth. In the forehead familiarization event, the same woman appears with another puppet. She touches her forehead, touches the puppet’s forehead and then touches her own forehead. Then comes the test event. In the control test event, they see the woman, flanked by the two puppets, say, “WHOOP WHOOP” and then the two puppets turn toward the woman.. Counterbalancing Half of the participants will see the mouth/forehead paradigm first, and half will see the ball/food paradigm first. Half of the infants will see videos where woman 1 feeds the puppet and woman 2 plays ball with the puppet; and half of the infants will see videos where woman 2 feeds the puppet and woman 1 plays ball with the puppet. The women will always be on the same side of the screen. Thus, for half of the infants the hypothesized anticipatory look will be on the right side and for half of the infants the hypothesized anticipatory look will be on the left side for the two control conditions. Likewise, half of the infants will see videos where the purple puppet engages in the mouth to mouth interaction and half will see videos where the green puppet engages in the mouth to mouth interaction. Primary DV The primary dependent measures will be the first look during the pause in the anticipatory look test, as well as the proportion of time infants spend looking at either person/puppet during this pause. A first look is coded after all movement in the video stops. Usually, infants look in the center of the screen before the pause, in cases where they are already looking to one side or another, a first look is coded as their first look if their gaze continues in that direction for .4 seconds or longer. Secondary analysis will be done to see whether infants preferentially look at one of the women/puppets in the visual preference tests that follow the anticipatory looking tests. Primary analysis All looking will be coded offline, by a researcher blind to which side the food-sharer is on, after the experiment is done. To analyze infants’ first looks, we will perform one-sided Bayesian binomial tests. For the food/ball paradigm we will use a one-sided binomial test to ask whether infants do not look at the food-sharer first. In the mouth/forehead paradigm, we will use a one-sided binomial test to ask whether infants do not look at the puppet who had engaged in the mouth to mouth interaction first. To analyze the proportion of time infants spend looking at the characters during the pause we will use Bayesian one-sample t-tests. For the food/ball paradigm we will use a one-sided test to ask whether infants do not look at the food-sharer first. I In the mouth to mouth paradigm, we will use a one-sided binomial test to ask whether infants do not look at the puppet who had engaged in the mouth to mouth interaction first. Secondary analysis In both paradigms we will also perform a secondary analysis to ask whether infants look more at either actress (in the food/ball paradigm) or either puppet (in the mouth/forehead paradigm) during preference tests that follow the anticipatory look test. We will perform Bayesian two-sided one-sample t-tests. Interpretation of possible outcomes We hypothesize that infants’ first look will not be toward the food sharer (they will look first/longer at the ball passer or they will be at chance) which would mean that their first look toward the food sharer is not just due to saliency. Likewise, we hypothesize infants’ first looks will not be toward the puppet who had engaged in the mouth-to-mouth Exclusion criteria Participant exclusion: Decisions about whether a participant is excluded will be determined before their anticipatory looks are coded. Participants will be excluded based on the following criteria: Fussiness, as determined by the experimenter or caregiver, that ends the study prior to the test trial. Parental interference (and other distractions in the home environment; e.g., siblings): directs participant’s attention to/away from the screen during test, interferes with baby’s attention (by saying something during the experiment or doing something that is excessively distracting like trying to put a pacifier in the infant’s mouth). Technical failure (e.g with the video recording or with the stimuli presentation) Major lag such that the sound does not match up with video or if the video is too blurry to code where the infant is looking. Inattentive: if infants fail to look at each video during the familiarization for less than 15 seconds of accumulated time or if infants fail to look at the test events during the pause. Exclusion decisions Participants will be excluded and replaced as the experiment is actively running if they meet any of the above criteria, either determined live at the time of the study or when reviewed after the experiment. Other analysis details Researchers will view videos of the test sessions to check for exclusionary criteria or to collect reliability data. To check for reliability, we will select a subset of videotaped test sessions for a reliability coder to re-code (10%). The coder will be unaware of the events seen by infants.