Opportunity versus disposition as predictors of infants’ and mothers’ verbal and action...

Infant Behavior & Development 27 (2004) 303–314

Opportunity versus disposition as predictors of infants’and mothers’ verbal and action imitation

Valerie Flynna, Elise Frank Masurb,∗, Doreen L. Eichorstb

a Department of Psychology, Aurora University, 347 S. Gladstone, Aurora, IL 60506, USAb Department of Psychology, Northern Illinois University, DeKalb, IL 60115, USA

Received 16 April 2003; received in revised form 21 November 2003; accepted 4 December 2003

Abstract

Intrapersonal versus interpersonal factors were examined as predictors of verbal and action imitation during freeplay interactions by 20 mothers and their infants at ages 10, 13, 17, and 21 months. Participants’ conversationalutterances and object play indicated their intrapersonal dispositions to engage in those behaviors spontaneously andprovided measures of interpersonal opportunities for partner imitation. Analyses of predictive relations, includingpartial correlations controlling for the influence of partner modeling of imitation as well as the factors of dispositionand opportunity alternately, yielded relative consistency across verbal and action domains, but distinctive patternsby partner. Infants’ imitation was more strongly predicted by disposition than by opportunity. In contrast, mothers’imitation was more strongly predicted by opportunity, although mothers’ disposition also predicted their verbalimitation late in the second year. These results highlight the need to consider both dispositional and interpersonalinfluences on children’s and mothers’ imitation.© 2004 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.

Keywords: Imitation; Verbal production; Play; Mother–infant interaction

1. Introduction

Infants’ imitation of both words and actions during dyadic interactions has long been considered asignificant aspect of their development in social, cognitive, and language domains. Normal infants andtheir mothers engage in mutual interpersonal imitation from the first year of life (Pawlby, 1977; Uzgiris,

∗ Corresponding author. Tel.: +1 815 753 7081; fax: +1 815 753 8088.E-mail address:[email protected] (E.F. Masur).

0163-6383/$ – see front matter © 2004 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.doi:10.1016/j.infbeh.2003.12.003

304 V. Flynn et al. / Infant Behavior & Development 27 (2004) 303–314

1984), and children’s social imitation remains a powerful facilitator of their peer interactions throughthe third year (Eckerman & Didow, 1996). Infants’ imitation of actions on objects has been consideredboth an indicator of their present cognitive and memory capacities and a means by which new behavioralcompetence can be acquired (e.g.,Meltzoff, 1996; Tomasello, Kruger, & Ratner, 1993). Likewise, infants’verbal imitation has been proposed as a possible facilitator, as well as a correlate, of language development(Bloom, Hood, & Lightbown, 1974; Snow, 1981). Vocabulary acquisition, a key developmental indicatorduring the second year, is predicted by individual differences in infants’ and also their mothers’ rates ofverbal imitation (e.g.,Masur & Eichorst, 2002; Snow, 1989; Tamis-LeMonda, Bornstein, & Baumwell,2001). For these reasons, some intervention programs for children with cognitive or language disabilitiesor autism encourage imitation by children, mothers, or other adults (Escalona, Field, Nadel, & Lundy,2002; Hart & Risley, 1980; Scherer & Olswang, 1984). To promote imitation, however, it would beimportant to determine the factors that influence infants’ and mothers’ verbal and action imitation. Thepresent investigation is addressed to this question.

Identification of such factors might also help explain the striking individual differences in imitativenessdescribed in the literature. Several studies document considerable individual and dyadic variation in thefrequency with which imitation occurs (e.g.,Bloom et al., 1974; Folger & Chapman, 1978; Masur &Rodemaker, 1999). For example,Bloom et al. (1974)found imitated words appearing in from 4% to 42% ofspeech samples from different children aged 16–25 months. Similarly, describing vocal, verbal, and actionimitation at three times during the second year,Masur and Rodemaker (1999)reported that at each age theratio of most to least imitative individual frequently exceeded 10:1 for both infants and mothers. Moreover,their findings of considerable stability over time in mothers’ and infants’ verbal imitation, but instabilityin their object-related action imitation, point up the distinction between action and verbal behavior.

Despite the importance of imitation and the great variation in infants’ and mothers’ imitation rates, theorigins of individual differences in imitativeness have not so far been a focus of research. The presentstudy is designed to remedy that omission by examining two competing possible influences on individ-ual differences in imitativeness, one interpersonal and the other intrapersonal. Of the many aspects ofthe interpersonal context, which might play a role in accounting for imitation, one possibility is part-ners’ requests or solicitations.Tamis-LeMonda and Bornstein (1991)found that maternal solicitationor encouragement of their infants’ symbolic play increased significantly from ages 13 to 20 months.However,Masur and Rodemaker’s (1999)investigation of mothers’ solicitations for imitation revealedthat they accounted for only a minority, 17–27%, of infants’ increasing imitation of actions on objects atany age, and infants’ solicitations of their mothers’ object-related action imitation accounted for an evensmaller proportion, 0–14%, of the mothers’ rising imitation rates. The findings for verbal imitation, whichclimbed even more dramatically, were even stronger: mothers’ verbal solicitations were extremely rare,and infants’ were nonexistent. Thus, solicitations are an untenable explanation for individual differencesin imitativeness.

But a clearly plausible interpersonal contextual possibility is partner modeling. Imitation by the partnermight serve as the exemplar of appropriate interactive behavior. Several studies have reported significantrelations between verbal imitation rates of infants and their mothers (e.g.,Broome & Uzgiris, 1985; Folger& Chapman, 1978; Masur, 1987; Masur & Rodemaker, 1999; Snow, 1989). However, imitation of actionson objects has failed to demonstrate the same correspondence between partners (Masur, 1987; Masur &Rodemaker, 1999). These findings suggest that factors other than partner imitation may be important, atleast in the action domain. They also provide warning that partner modeling in the verbal domain mustbe taken into account in considering other influences on mothers’ and infants’ imitation.

V. Flynn et al. / Infant Behavior & Development 27 (2004) 303–314 305

In the present study, we investigate a crucial, but previously neglected, interpersonal contextual can-didate for explanation of differences in imitativeness–opportunity. Because imitation is dependent on apartner’s presentation of imitable behaviors, average developmental growth in mothers’ and in infants’imitation may be due to their taking advantage of increasing opportunities available over time. Simi-larly, variation in imitativeness at any one time may simply reflect differential opportunities provided bypartners for behavioral matching. To test these predictions, we examine developmental changes in oppor-tunities provided by partners for imitation over time and relations between imitation and opportunitiesavailable at each age.

An alternative possibility is that differences in maternal and child imitation instead result from and arebest predicted by internal, individual rather than external, interpersonal factors. If individual dispositionmotivates imitation, then infants and mothers who engage in more spontaneous object-related play wouldalso be more likely to imitate actions on objects than those less involved in object play. Similarly, morehighly verbal and conversationally interactive mothers and infants would also be more likely to produceverbal imitations than those who are less talkative. Thus, imitation within either the action or verbaldomain would be best understood as a reflection of an individual’s propensity to participate in that kindof behavior independently.

The present study is designed to test competing hypotheses about interpersonal versus intrapersonal in-fluences on individual differences in rates of imitation. It does so by examining infants’ and mothers’ actionand verbal imitation in relation to their partners’ versus their own performance of object-related play andprovision of conversational speech. Participants’ play and verbal productions provide opportunities forpartner matching and simultaneously demonstrate individuals’ dispositions to engage in such behaviorsspontaneously. Developmental changes in these productions providing opportunity and signaling disposi-tion are traced in a longitudinal sample observed during dyadic free play interactions at the end of the firstyear and at the beginning, middle, and end of the second year—times chosen to reflect infants’ normativecommunicative milestones of conventional gestures, first words, vocabulary acceleration, and two-wordspeech. More important, this study investigates whether infants’ and mothers’ frequencies of verbal andaction imitation are best predicted by an internal, dispositional factor—individual propensity to engagein spontaneous object play or verbal behavior—or by an interpersonal contextual one—opportunity forbehavioral matching provided by the partner.

2. Method

2.1. Participants

Ten female and 10 male infants and their mothers were recruited through birth announcements inlocal newspapers to participate in a naturalistic study of “infants’ reactions to the people and objects intheir environment”. Families resided in the area surrounding a large midwestern state university, and allwere native English speakers. Nineteen dyads were of European American descent, and one was AfricanAmerican. Twelve infants were firstborns, and eight were laterborns; all appeared physically normal andhealthy. Naturalistic observations made in the infants’ homes took place at 10 (M = 10.48, S.D. = 0.06),13 (M = 13.49, S.D. = 0.05), 17 (M = 17.62, S.D. = 0.06), and 21 (M = 21.61, S.D. = 0.04) months ofage. Seventeen of the children were present at all ages, and three entered at 13 months as replacementsfor those not continuing.


2.2. Procedure

Mother–infant interactions were videotaped during free play with toys, as well as two other contextsnot analyzed here. Context order was counterbalanced, with free play occurring either first or second. Themothers were asked to play with their children and the toys as if they had 10 or 15 min of free time; toysprovided included stacking boxes, shape-sorter canister with blocks, a small blanket, a ball, a pitcher, anda set of plates, cups, and forks. Sessions lasted an average of 14.14 min. However, to allow participantstime to adjust, all coding started at the beginning of the 3rd minute; to equalize session length acrossparticipants as much as possible, coding continued until the beginning of the 11th minute.

2.3. Measures

2.3.1. Object-related action opportunitiesBoth mothers’ and children’s interactive behaviors were coded for actions performed upon objects that

provided an opportunity for their partners to imitate. The intention was to capture reasonable rather thanoptimal opportunities for imitation. Consequently, the majority of actions were viewed as opportunities,with the following exceptions: (1) random, unintentional actions such as accidental dropping or throwingof an object or fumbling with an object, common among younger infants; (2) mouthing of objects byinfants; (3) moving objects to make space or bring desired objects within reach; (4) setting objects down,unless stacking one on another; (5) holding, or holding and looking at, objects; (6) accepting objectshanded by the partner, although active grabbing would be counted; and (7) repetitive actions not allowinga pause for imitation, such as rapid stacking or dropping of blocks.

To code for opportunities, two coders viewed videotapes while using computer software allowing forautomatic pausing at preset 10-s intervals. At the end of each interval, coders recorded the numbers ofimitable actions on objects provided by each partner. Mothers’ and children’s totals across all intervalswere utilized for the analyses reported here. Interobserver agreement was established between the twoobservers using four randomly chosen sessions at each age. Kappas, based on agreement on the number ofimitable actions within a 10-s interval, were 0.94 for mothers and 0.91 for infants; subsequent checks onmaintaining reliability, calculated on every 10th session, averaged 0.92 for mothers and 0.90 for infants.

2.3.2. Verbal opportunitiesFor mothers, two coders viewed the videotapes in real time while using computer software, which

allowed them to enter a code into the computer at the end of each maternal utterance that provided anopportunity for child imitation. Utterances composed of standard words and/or conventional vocaliza-tions (e.g.,uh-oh, yucky) were included, while laughs and fake coughs were excluded. As with actionopportunities, because the goal was to count reasonable opportunities to imitate, the primary criterionwas a sufficient pause between utterances to allow the partner an opportunity to imitate. Utterances occur-ring in rapid succession, even when expressing complete and distinct thoughts, were counted as a singleopportunity. Thus, the numbers of opportunities provided by mothers were likely to be somewhat lowerthan would have been obtained through counting total utterances. Total counts of maternal opportunitiesare utilized in these analyses. Agreement between the coders in identifying maternal verbal opportunitieswithin 3 s of each other, calculated by the computer on the same four randomly chosen sessions at eachage was 87%; correlation between the coders’ scores was 0.95.


Verbal opportunities provided by infants were obtained from transcripts of the videotaped sessionspreviously made by pairs of assistants following a transcription manual (available from the second au-thor). Because children were in the early stages of language acquisition and exhibited limited languageproduction, virtually every child utterance provided an opportunity for imitation. Thus, each child ut-terance containing a standard word or conventional vocalization was counted as an opportunity, withthe exception of a repetitive string of single words (e.g.,quack, quack, quackor go, go, go), which wasconsidered a single opportunity.

2.3.3. Imitation scoresAll instances of discrete, non-facial imitation by mothers and children were identified by researchers

viewing complete videotapes of the free play sessions following standards described byMasur and Rode-maker (1999). Imitative episodes, beginning with the modeled sound or behavior and concluding withthe last repetition, were marked on the session transcripts; and the initial imitator for each episode wasrecorded. Interrater reliability between the primary coder and each of two assistants in identifying imita-tive episodes in eight randomly chosen sessions—a boy and a girl at each age—calculated as the numberidentified by both divided by the number identified by either, averaged 93% and 88%. Identified episodeswere then classified by the modeled behavior as object-related actions, actions without objects, verbal-izations plus conventional vocalizations, or other vocalizations. Interrater coding agreement between theprimary coder and each of two assistants on the same eight transcripts averaged 100% and 98%; Cohen’skappas were 1.00 and 0.96. For these analyses, only episodes involving imitation of object-related actionsand of verbalizations plus conventional vocalizations which occurred from the beginning of the 3rd tothe beginning of the 11th minute of the sessions were considered. To eliminate any influence of repetitivegames, the numbers of imitative episodes during which mothers and children were the initial imitatorsconstituted their imitation scores.

2.4. Analyses

In analyses of variance including 10-month-olds, mean age-group scores were utilized for participantsnot present at that time. Mauchly’s test of sphericity assessed assumptions of homogeneity and covariancein repeated measures analyses; degrees of freedom were adjusted by Greenhouse–Geisser epsilons whereindicated. For five sessions, which ended just prior to the start of the 11th minute, participants’ opportu-nity counts and imitation scores were adjusted by prorating (multiplied by full session time divided byindividual session time). In calculating proportions of opportunities imitated (imitation score divided bypartner opportunities), 0.01 was added to the opportunity score to avoid the possibility of dividing byzero. Correlational analyses were based on 17 participants at 10 months and 20 participants at 13, 17,and 21 months.

3. Results

3.1. Developmental course of object and verbal opportunities provided to partners

The developmental course of mothers’ and children’s action and verbal productions providing opportu-nities for partners’ imitation were each assessed with 2 (gender)× 2 (partner)× 4 (age) mixed ANOVAs


Table 1Means and ranges (and S.D.s) of object and verbal opportunities by partner

Partner Ages in months

10 13 17 21

Object-play opportunities

InfantsGirls 36.95 (10.72) 42.28 (11.20) 42.94 (12.39) 49.10 (12.58)Boys 36.79 (18.49) 39.72 (11.03) 50.88 (7.64) 57.41 (9.96)

M 36.87 41.00 46.91 53.26Range 10–72 22–59 19–61 29–78

Mothers ofGirls 30.83 (13.71) 34.54 (9.67) 28.26 (10.98) 27.60 (11.88)Boys 41.83 (11.76) 39.46 (14.21) 30.79 (10.58) 23.60 (10.16)

M 36.33 37.00 29.53 25.60Range 14–62 6–59 6–54 6–49

Verbal opportunities

InfantsGirls 0.20 (0.42) 2.80 (4.59) 18.20 (18.97) 21.80 (16.47)Boys 1.80 (4.34) 0.86 (1.57) 12.20 (17.17) 30.00 (29.74)

M 1.00 1.65 15.20 25.90Range 0–14 0–14 0–57 0–99

Mothers ofGirls 60.41 (17.87) 65.12 (13.04) 85.22 (22.58) 78.80 (18.85)Boys 64.27 (18.86) 70.50 (18.55) 72.41 (12.13) 64.19 (20.75)

M 62.34 67.81 78.82 71.50Range 31–91 35–98 53–115 38–106

with repeated measures on the last two factors. The analysis for action opportunities yielded a main effectfor partner,F(1,18) = 20.09,P < 0.001, with children (M = 44.51) providing more opportunities at eachage than mothers (M = 32.12), and interactions for partner by age,F(3,54) = 15.32,P< 0.001, and genderby partner by age,F(3,54) = 2.95,P= 0.04. AsTable 1shows, children’s object play rose markedly withage, and this increase was more pronounced for boys than for girls starting at 17 months. Mothers’ objectopportunities followed the opposite pattern, however, declining after 13 months, and more so to boys thanto girls.

The comparable ANOVA for verbal opportunities revealed main effects for partner,F(1,18) = 367.80,P < 0.001, and age,F(2,32) = 10.48,P < 0.005, and interactions for partner by age,F(2,37) = 7.01,P < 0.005, and gender by partner by age,F(2,37) = 3.61,P < 0.05. As might be expected, the verbalopportunities mothers provided vastly outstripped their children’s at all ages. Maternal verbal productionrose gradually from 10 to 17 months, then declined slightly, while children’s expanded dramatically from13 to 17 months and increased again from 17 to 21 months. Starting at 17 months, mothers providedgreater verbal opportunities to daughters than to sons. Similarly, at 17 months girls’ provision of verbal


opportunities exceeded boys’. The gender difference at 21 months favoring boys appears due to onehighly verbal boy, since verbal production by the remaining boys (M = 22.3) was comparable to girls’.

These overall developmental trends in object play and verbal production masked striking individualdifferences among mothers and children, as displayed inTable 1. Analyses of stability across each timeinterval in object opportunities provided to partners revealed significant stability in mothers’ productionfrom 10 to 13 and 17 to 21 months (r = 0.76 and 0.68, respectively,P < 0.01; allPs one-tailed) andin children’s from 10 to 13 months (r = 0.38,P < 0.05). Mothers’ provision of verbal opportunitiesdemonstrated significant stability from 10 to 13 and 13 to 17 months (r = 0.48 and 0.45, respectively,P<0.05) and a trend from 17 to 21 months (r = 0.35,P < 0.10). The verbal opportunities children providedwere too infrequent to evaluate at 10 and 13 months, but they did show stability from 17 to 21 months (r= 0.49,P < 0.05).

3.2. Influences of opportunity and disposition on action and verbal imitation

The key analyses address the question of whether participants’ action and verbal imitation can beattributed more directly to differential opportunities provided by their partners or to their own individualdispositions to engage in object play or conversation. This question is approached in two ways, first byevaluating patterns of developmental change in the extent to which mothers and children take advantageof the imitable opportunities provided by their partners. Similarity across time intervals in the propor-tions of opportunities provided that are imitated would indicate that average increases or decreases inimitation rates from one age to the next can be accounted for simply by rises or declines in opportunitiesavailable. The second, correlational, approach addresses the question by examining whether mothers’ andchildren’s action and verbal imitation at each age are more strongly related to opportunity, as measuredby productions provided by partners, or to disposition, as indexed by one’s own spontaneous productionrates.

3.2.1. Object-related action imitationA 2 (gender)× 2 (partner)× 4 (age) mixed ANOVA with repeated measures on the last two factors

for proportions of partner play opportunities imitated found a significant main effect for partner,F(1,18)= 30.79,P < 0.001, with children imitating their partners’ opportunities at a rate more than double thatof mothers. There was also a significant main effect for age,F(3,54) = 4.87,P = 0.005, and a partnerby age interaction,F(3,54) = 3.64,P < 0.02. Although, as described above, the object play opportunitiesprovided by children expanded over time and mothers’ object-related action imitation also increased (M= 0.90 at 10 months, 1.45 at 13 months, 1.60 at 17 months, and 2.20 at 21 months), the proportions ofopportunities mothers utilized remained quite stable over the course of the year, changing only from 3% at10 months to 4% at 21 months, suggesting that average developmental trends in maternal object imitationwere influenced by changes in opportunities available for imitation. In contrast, across two of the threetime intervals children took increasing advantage of the object play opportunities their mothers provided.Although the object play opportunities mothers provided remained steady from 10 to 13 months, childrenimitated an increasing proportion of them (M = 7.1% at 10 months and 8.8% at 13 months), resulting ingrowing imitation (M = 1.90 at 10 months and 3.25 at 13 months). Similarly, the proportion of objectopportunities children imitated expanded greatly from 8.6% at 17 months to 15% at 21 months, resultingin more imitation at 21 (M = 3.35) than at 17 months (M = 2.3) despite a decline in maternal object playopportunities during that interval.


Table 2Predictive correlations to infants’ and mothers’ imitation from opportunities and disposition (and partial correlations controllingfor partner modeling and each factor alternately)

Partner Ages in months

10 13 17 21

Infants’ object imitationOpportunity (controlling for

disposition and modeling)0.01 (0.13) 0.41∗ (0.48∗) −0.06 (0.05) −0.10 (0.23)

Disposition (controlling foropportunity and modeling)

0.54∗ (0.56∗) 0.18 (0.29) 0.06 (0.06) −0.10 (−0.17)

Mothers’ object imitationOpportunity (controlling for

disposition and modeling)0.25 (0.35) 0.30 (0.29) −0.02 (−0.02) 0.39∗ (0.41∗)


0.41∗ (0.46∗) −0.06 (−0.02) −0.07 (−0.06) −0.18 (−0.22)

Infants’ verbal imitationOpportunity (controlling for

disposition and modeling)– – 0.52∗ (0.09) 0.38∗ (0.16)


– – 0.82∗∗∗ (0.62∗∗) 0.85∗∗∗ (0.66∗∗)

Mothers’ verbal imitationOpportunity (controlling for

disposition and modeling)– – 0.92∗∗∗ (0.88∗∗∗) 0.88∗∗∗ (0.74∗∗∗)


– – 0.36 (−0.30) 0.52∗ (0.42∗)

∗ P < 0.05, one-tailed.∗∗ P < 0.05, one-tailed.

∗∗∗ P < 0.01, one-tailed.

Correlations at each age to determine relations between action imitation and both opportunity anddisposition revealed a mixed pattern (seeTable 2). At 10 months, both mothers’ and children’s object-related action imitation was associated with their own dispositions to engage in object play rather thanwith opportunities provided by their partners (r = 0.41 for mothers and 0.54 for children,P < 0.05 and<0.01; allPs one-tailed). Furthermore, these relations held even when partial correlations controlling forpartners’ imitation rates, or modeling, and partners’ provision of imitable opportunities were computed(r = 0.46 for mothers and 0.56 for children,P < 0.05 and <0.01). However, children’s imitation at 13months and mothers’ imitation at 21 months were related to the frequencies of opportunities providedby their partners (r = 0.41 for children and 0.39 for mothers,P < 0.05). These relations also continuedto hold when partner modeling and one’s own disposition were controlled (r = 0.48 for children and0.41 for mothers,P< 0.05). Because neither concurrent opportunities nor disposition predicted mothers’action imitation at 13 and 17 months or children’s imitation at 17 and 21 months, we explored whetheropportunities or dispositions from the preceding time of measurement might. Only mothers’ imitation at13 months was predicted by prior behavior–children’s opportunities at 10 months (r = 0.53,P < 0.05);this predictive relation held even when mothers’ dispositions and children’s modeling at 10 months werealso controlled (r = 0.70,P < 0.01).


3.2.2. Verbal imitationBecause verbal imitation was so infrequent at 10 and 13 months, the comparable ANOVA for propor-

tions of verbal opportunities imitated included only 17 and 21 months. The analysis revealed a significanteffect for partner,F(1,18) = 32.74,P < 0.001. In contrast to object imitation where children took greateradvantage of opportunities than did mothers, in the verbal domain mothers imitated a considerably largerproportion (M = 26.8%) of their children’s less frequent verbal productions than children attempted oftheir partners’ more numerous productions (M = 3.2%). A significant effect for age,F(1,18) = 5.55,P =0.03, was moderated by a partner by age interaction,F(1,18) = 6.58,P < 0.02. The decline in children’simitation from 3.25 at 17 months to 2.30 at 21 months appeared to reflect slight decreases in both theopportunities provided by their mothers and in the proportions of mothers’ verbal productions childrenchose to imitate, from 3.6% at 17 months to 2.9% at 21 months. Mothers, in contrast, more than keptpace with their children’s increase in verbal production from 17 to 21 months, increasing the proportionsof children’s verbal productions they imitated from 21.2% to 32.4%, resulting in a doubling of maternalverbal imitations from 4.2 to 9.0.

Correlational analyses for verbal imitation at 17 and 21 months revealed different associations formothers and children (seeTable 2). Mothers’ imitation rates at 17 months were predicted by the oppor-tunities their children provided (r = 0.92,P < 0.001; allPs one-tailed), and this relation remained highlysignificant when children’s modeling of imitation and mothers’ disposition to produce speech were bothcontrolled (r = 0.88,P < 0.001). At 21 months, mothers’ imitation was predicted by both opportunitiesand disposition (r = 0.88 and 0.52, respectively,P< 0.001 and <0.05). Each relation remained significantwhen the other and children’s modeling were controlled (r = 0.74,P< 0.001, for opportunities;r = 0.42,P< 0.05, for disposition). Children’s verbal imitation was predicted by both maternal opportunities and theirown verbal disposition at 17 (r = 0.52 and 0.82, respectively;P< 0.05 and <0.001) and at 21 months (r =0.38 and 0.85, respectively,P< 0.05 and <0.001). However, opportunities no longer predicted children’simitation when modeling and disposition were adjusted for. Instead, children’s dispositions continued topredict their imitation rates at 17 (r = 0.62,P < 0.01) and 21 months (r = 0.66,P < 0.01) when bothmaternal modeling and maternal opportunities were controlled.

4. Discussion

Infants’ imitation serves as an indicator, and perhaps a facilitator, of their social, cognitive, and languageskills (Masur & Eichorst, 2002; Meltzoff, 1996; Tomasello et al., 1993; Uzgiris, 1984). Mothers’ verbalimitation has also been linked to infants’ lexical development (Scherer & Olswang, 1984; Tamis-LeMondaet al., 2001). If imitation is indeed facilitative, it would be valuable to determine the factors influencing themarked differences in infants’ and mothers’ rates of action and verbal imitation (Folger & Chapman, 1978;Masur & Rodemaker, 1999). This study investigated two possible contenders—one internal, disposition,and the other interpersonal, opportunity—while controlling for a third, partner modeling of imitation.

Infants’ and mothers’ performance of object play and production of conversational utterances demon-strate their dispositions to engage in those behaviors spontaneously and also provide opportunities for theirpartners to imitate actions and speech. Before assessing their roles in influencing action and verbal imita-tion, we first traced their developmental course. These analyses revealed differences between the actionand verbal domains and between mothers and infants. For object-related actions, children’s productionrose strongly with age, while mothers’ declined. The observed decline in the object opportunities mothers


provided is in keeping with a report byTamis-LeMonda and Bornstein (1991)of a decrease in maternalplay during dyadic interactions across the second year. The mothers’ growing restraint may reflect theirrecognition of and response to the greater involvement of their increasingly competent children.

The pattern in the verbal realm was quite different. Mothers, not surprisingly, carried the conversationalinteractions at all ages, but children manifested a dramatic increase in verbal production over time,especially from 13 to 17 months when the verbal opportunities they provided grew more than nine-fold.As children’s language became more productive near the middle of the second year, mothers began toproduce correspondingly fewer verbal opportunities. As with object play, it appears that mothers aresensitive to the expanding abilities of their toddlers and allow them more of the conversational space. Itwas also the case that mothers of girls provided more opportunities for verbal imitation than did mothersof boys, a gender difference not predicted but consistent with some earlier reports (e.g.,Cherry & Lewis,1978).

The central issue for the study, however, concerned the role of opportunity versus disposition inaccounting for the broad range of individual differences in infants’ and mothers’ rates of action and verbalimitation. Our investigation of this issue proceeded along two complementary lines—an assessment ofthe average developmental picture revealed by the proportions of opportunities imitated over time and anexamination of opportunity versus dispositional predictors for imitation rates at each age. These analysesyielded relative consistency across action and verbal domains, but distinctive patterns by partner.

For mothers, imitation was more closely related to opportunity than disposition. The proportions ofinfants’ action opportunities imitated by the mothers remained quite steady over time, suggesting that therise in maternal imitation could be explained by the increasing imitable opportunities resulting from theirchildren’s developing object involvement and competence. Congruent with this, mothers’ imitation ratesfor two of the four time periods also demonstrated significant associations to their children’s concurrent orprevious opportunity levels. Only at 10 months, when the infants’ object play was less frequent and chil-dren’s play is typically characterized by less sophisticated undifferentiated exploration and manipulation(Belsky & Most, 1981), were mothers’ imitation rates predicted by their own dispositions. Opportunityplayed a role in mothers’ imitation in the verbal domain as well. The partial correlations demonstratedthat mothers’ imitation at 17 and 21 months was predicted by the opportunities their children provided,even when maternal disposition and infant modeling were controlled. At 17 months, opportunity wasthe only independent predictor, while at 21 months both mothers’ verbal disposition and their children’sprovision of opportunities showed independent associations.

For infants, in contrast, disposition rather than opportunities provided by their mothers proved to bethe stronger predictor of imitation. For action, while the object-play opportunities mothers providedchanged little from 10 to 13 months and even declined slightly from 17 to 21 months, the proportionsof opportunities infants took advantage of, and consequently their imitation rates, expanded during bothintervals. In the verbal domain, the role of disposition in accounting for infants’ imitation at the middleand end of the second year was again clear, especially in the partial correlational analyses. With modelingand the alternative factor controlled, disposition emerged as a stronger predictor than opportunity andremained significant.

Both the correspondence of infants’ matching with their own dispositions and the relation of mothers’matching to their partners’ opportunities highlight the significance of children’s advancing competence.The pattern for infants underscores the necessity for researchers to take infants’ spontaneous play andlanguage into account when investigating their imitation. Moreover, the influence of infant characteristicson mothers’ behaviors reinforces the value of considering the “direction of effects” (Bell, 1968), an issue


long recognized but sometimes still omitted from discussions of aspects of maternal style, including imi-tativeness. Mothers’ reliance on the play and language opportunities provided to them indicates awarenessof and sensitivity to their children’s performance, capacities which could be fostered to promote greaterimitation.

The occasional associations of infants’ imitation rates with the opportunities provided by their mothersdemonstrated some degree of sensitivity by infants to their partners’ behavior as well. This was evidentin the zero-order correlations for children’s verbal imitation at both 17 and 21 months. The role ofopportunity was even more pronounced in children’s imitation of object play at the beginning of thesecond year, a crucial transition time when children’s attention to the unique properties of particularobjects is accelerating and their capacity for symbolic play is just emerging (Belsky & Most, 1981;Tamis-LeMonda & Bornstein, 1991). At 13 months, the imitable opportunities mothers provided predictedinfants’ imitation rates even when disposition and partner modeling were controlled. For those with agoal of promoting infants’ imitation, the stronger influence of disposition than opportunity might appeara less optimistic outcome since encouraging mothers to provide greater opportunities seems easier thanaffecting infants’ disposition. For that reason, the times when infants’ imitation is indeed related to theopportunities provided by their mothers are worth emphasizing.

Acknowledgments

This research was supported by grant HD37587 from the National Institute of Child Health and HumanDevelopment to the second author. Some preliminary findings were presented at the meeting of the Societyfor Research in Child Development, Tampa, FL, April 2003. The authors thank all those involved in theproject, especially the participating mothers and infants.

References

Bell, R. Q. (1968). A reinterpretation of the direction of effects in studies of socialization.Psychological Review, 75, 81–95.Belsky, J., & Most, R. K. (1981). From exploration to play: A cross-sectional study of infant free play behavior.Developmental

Psychology, 17, 630–639.Bloom, L., Hood, L., & Lightbown, P. (1974). Imitation in language development: If, when, and why.Cognitive Psychology, 76,

380–420.Broome, S., & Uzgiris, I. C. (1985, April).Imitation inmother–child conversations. Paper presented at the meeting of the Society

for Research in Child Development, Toronto.Cherry, L., & Lewis, M. (1978). Differential socialization of girls and boys: Implications for sex differences in language

development. In N. Waterson & C. Snow (Eds.),The development of communication(pp. 189–297). New York: Wiley.Eckerman, C. O., & Didow, S. M. (1996). Nonverbal imitation and toddlers’ mastery of verbal means of achieving coordinated

action.Developmental Psychology, 32, 141–152.Escalona, A., Field, T., Nadel, J., & Lundy, B. (2002). Brief report: Imitation effects on children with autism.Journal of Autism

and Developmental Disorder, 32, 141–144.Folger, J. P., & Chapman, R. S. (1978). A pragmatic analysis of spontaneous imitation.Journal of Child Language, 5, 25–38.Hart, B., & Risley, T. R. (1980). In vivo language intervention: Unanticipated general effects.Journal of Applied Behavior

Analysis, 13, 407–432.Masur, E. F. (1987). Imitative interchanges in a social context: Mother–infant matching behavior at the beginning of the second

year.Merrill–Palmer Quarterly, 33, 453–472.


Masur, E. F., & Eichorst, D. L. (2002). Infants’ spontaneous imitation of novel versus familiar words: Relations to observationaland maternal report measures of their lexicons.Merrill–Palmer Quarterly, 48, 405–426.

Masur, E. F., & Rodemaker, J. E. (1999). Mothers’ and infants’ spontaneous vocal, verbal, and action imitation during the secondyear.Merrill–Palmer Quarterly, 45, 392–412.

Meltzoff, A. N. (1996). The human infant as imitative generalist: A 20-year progress report on infant imitation with implicationsfor comparative psychology. In C. M. Heyes & B. G. Galef Jr. (Eds.),Social learning in animals: The roots of culture(pp.347–370). New York: Academic.

Pawlby, S. J. (1977). Imitation interaction. In H. R. Schaffer (Ed.),Studies in mother–infant interaction. New York: Academic.Scherer, N. J., & Olswang, L. B. (1984). Role of mothers’ expansions in stimulating children’s language production.Journal of

Speech and Hearing Research, 27, 383–394.Snow, C. E. (1981). The uses of imitation.Journal of Child Language, 8, 205–212.Snow, C. E. (1989). Imitativeness: A trait or a skill? In G. E. Speidel & K. E. Nelson (Eds.),The many faces of imitation in

language learning(pp. 73–90). New York: Springer-Verlag.Tamis-LeMonda, C. S., & Bornstein, M. H. (1991). Individual variation, correspondence, stability and change in mother–toddler

play. Infant Behavior and Development, 14, 143–162.Tamis-LeMonda, C. S., Bornstein, M. H., & Baumwell, L. (2001). Maternal responsiveness and children’s achievement of

language milestones.Child Development, 72, 748–767.Tomasello, M., Kruger, A. C., & Ratner, H. H. (1993). Cultural learning.Behavioral and Brain Sciences, 16, 495–552.Uzgiris, I. C. (1984). Imitation in infancy: Its interpersonal aspects. In M. Perlmutter (Ed.),The Minnesota symposium on child

psychology: Vol. 17. Parent–child interactions and parent–child relations in child development(pp. 1–32). Hillsdale, NJ:Erlbaum.

Opportunity versus disposition as predictors of infants’ and mothers’ verbal and action...

Documents

Transcript of Opportunity versus disposition as predictors of infants’ and mothers’ verbal and action...