Adaptations to interactional measure coding

The interactional measure of mind-mindedness has been used predominantly with infants up to the age of 12 months. Adaptations to the coding scheme were

necessary to take into account the fact that the children in the play sessions were older (between 2½ and 10 years). The child’s use of language and greater

comprehension necessitated these amendments. Children are generally able to talk fluently and are increasingly able to communicate their mental states at around the age of 3 years (Bretherton & Beeghly, 1982). The interactional measure, if used in the first year of life, would require far more interpretation on the part of the mother to identify appropriate mind-related comments. Ainsworth et al. (1974) noted that in the

83

second year of life, it is appropriate for a mother to respond to an infant’s signals in terms of a compromise between what the child wants and what will be best for the child in the long term. An important point to note is that an appropriate response from the mother does not always mean that she complies with the child’s wishes. This was taken into account when deciding which comments were appropriate and which comments were non-attuned in the adapted coding scheme.

In order to help clarify which comments were mind-related and which were not, as well as which comments were appropriate and which were non-attuned, the adapted coding scheme below was used as an addition to the original measure of mind- mindedness previously described.

Comments that may or may not be mind-related

i. Comments without completion

Sentences without a verbal completion to make the comment specific were coded as mind-related comments only if the referent of the mother’s comment was clear. This occurred, for example, if mothers referred to a previous comment (what had been said before) or to a previous activity (what had occurred before). To count as a mind-related comment, what mothers were referring to with their comments had to be clear. For example:

 ,VDZ\RXJRRQWKDWELJVZLQJ'R\RXUHPHPEHU" (while mother and child were playing with a toy swing)

 :KDW¶VWKLVWKLQJ" 'R\RXNQRZ"

 0D\EHLW¶VDELWEURNHQ":KDWGR\RXWKLQN"

 :KDWGR\RXQHHGWRGRWRPDNHLWJRIXUWKHURXW"'R\RXWKLQN"(while mother and child were playing with a toy swing)

 Child:6KHPLJKWILW Mother:'R\RXWKLQN"

If the referent was not clear, then it was QRW coded as mind-related. The non-specific use of “think” was in accordance with Meins and Fernyhough (p. 8, 2010). For example:

 ,NQRZZKDWZH¶YHJRWKHUH'R\RXWKLQN"

 'R\RXWKLQN":KDWHOVHGRWKH\KDYHLQDSLFQLF"

84 ii. Want

“Want” was coded as mind-related if it referred to wishes or desires. For example:

 :KDWGR\RXZDQWWRSOD\ZLWK"

 'R\RXZDQWPHWRKHOS\RX"

“Want” was sometimes used in the same way as “need”when instructions were being given and in this case was considered not to be referring to mental

processes/desires of the child and was QRW coded as mind-related. For example:

 ,WKLQN\RXZDQWDELWJRLQJGRZQ.

 6R\RXZDQWWRGRWKLVRQH (when mother was giving instructions for building a toy).

“You want” was sometimes used as a general phrase in the same way as “one wants” and was thought not to be referring to mental processes of the child and was

QRW coded as mind-related. For example:

 /RRN\RXFDQPDNHDQ\WKLQJ\RXZDQW (when mother was talking about how you could make any shape you wanted to make with a magnetic toy).

iii. Try

If the mother used “try”relating to a mental state requiring the child to have intention or to be involved in problem solving then this was coded as a mind-related

comment. For example:

 6RDUH\RXWU\LQJWRPDNHWKHKRXVH"

If the mother used “try” as a command or referred to the child’s effort, this was QRW coded as mind-related. For example:

 :K\GRQ¶W\RXWU\WKLVRQH"

 'LG\RXWU\WKDWEXWWRQ"

 <RXWU\DQGSXWWKDWRQWKHHQGRIWKHUH iv. Pretend

“Pretend”was considered to relate directly to the child’s mental state and so was coded as a mind-related comment. For example:

85

“Let’s pretend” or “we pretend” were not considered to relate directly to the child unequivocally as it was thought that the mother may have been concentrating on her own mental state rather than the child’s and so this was QRW coded as mind- related. For example:

 /HW¶VSUHWHQGLW¶VUHDOO\ZDUP

 6KDOOZHSUHWHQGWKH\¶UHKHUH" v. Validations

Mothers validated their child’s thinking or problem solving using mind-related comments when the child performed an action which required thought or which addressed or solved a problem. For example:

 7KDW¶VDJRRGLGHD  <RX¶UHVRFOHYHU  :HOOZRUNHGRXW  *RRGSHUVHYHUDQFH  *RRGWKLQNLQJ 

vi. Comments for older age range

Some mind-related comments were more likely to be included in mothers’ speech to preschool and primary school children than to infants. For example:

 $UH\RXVXUH"

 <RXFKRRVHWKHRQHVWRSXWLQ(when mother suggested child selects toys for an activity).  :KDWGR\RXVXSSRVHKH¶VJRWRQKLVKHDG"  <RXPLJKWZRUNRXWFHUWDLQWKLQJVWKDWZHFRXOGQ¶WZRUNRXW  'RHVWKDWUHPLQG\RXRIDQ\WKLQJ"  +DYH\RXGHFLGHGLIWKH\¶UHJRLQJWRJRIRUZDUGVRUEDFNZDUGV"  <RXPLJKWKDYHWRLPDJLQHWKDWWKHUH¶VDQHQJLQHLQVLGHKHUH  8QOHVV\RXFDQILJXUHLWRXW  6RZKDWLVWKLVGR\RXUHFNRQ"  ,QHHGWRXVHDGLIIHUHQWFRORXUGR\RXPLQG"

Comments that are not mind-related

i. Commands

Comments which used words such as “want” or “would you like to” may sometimes have been commands and were embedded in control activities (what the mother

86

wanted) rather than references to the child’s mental states and therefore were QRW coded as mind-related. These control activities usually involved the mother

positioning the child in relation to the camera or when the mother was concerned that the toys might be broken. For example:

 'R\RXZDQWWRVLWGRZQWKHQ"(while the mother was trying to get her child to sit in front of the camera).

 <RXGRQ¶WZDQWWREUHDNLWLW¶VQRWRXUWR\(while the mother was trying to stop her child doing something which might have resulted in damaging a toy). An exception to this occurred when an alternative was offered. This was coded as mind-related because the child was given a choice and it was not solely a

command. For example:

 'R\RXZDQWWRVLWGRZQRUQRW"



ii. You’re/that’s right

Comments such as “you’re right” or “that’s right” were QRW coded as mind-related because they could be viewed as positive feedback or reinforcement for a behaviour. For example:

 7KDW¶VULJKWLW¶VDEUXVKLVQ¶WLW"

 <HDK\RX¶UHULJKW



iii. Incomplete comments

If a sentence or comment was unfinished and the referent was not known, this meant they were open to interpretation and were QRW coded as mind-related. For example:

 'R\RXZDQWWRKDYHDJRDW"

 :KDWHOVHGR\RXZDQWWR"

 1RZGR\RXZDQWWRGR"



iv. The use of “we”

Comments which referred to both mother and child by using “we” were QRW coded as mind-related comments. This is because the comments were not necessarily about the child. For example:

 :HGRQ¶WZDQWWREUHDNLWWKRXJK

87 v. “Need”

If a mother referred to “need” this was QRW coded as mind-related because it referred to a physical state or an action rather than to a mental state. For example:

 'R\RXQHHGWRJRWRWKHWRLOHW"

 'R\RXQHHGWRSXWVRPHPLONLQ"

 $QGZK\GR\RXQHHGWRFORVHLW"

 'R\RXQHHGWRVSLQLWIDVWHURUVORZHU"(in relation to making a swing go further out).

vi. “You know” as a stock phrase

If the mother said “you know” in a sentence as a stock phrase and this did not refer to whether a child had knowledge of something, then this was QRWcoded as mind- related. For example:

 <RXVHH,¶PQRWYHU\JRRGDWJHWWLQJWKHVHRQ\RXNQRZ

 ,UHFNRQ\RX¶UHULJKW\RXNQRZEHFDXVH,GRQ¶WNQRZZKDWHOVHWKDWFRXOGEHIRU



vii. Repeating child’s speech

If the mother repeated the child’s speech containing a mental state term, this was not thought to be an example of a mother spontaneously considering her child’s internal state and so was QRW coded as mind-related. For example:

 Mother: $QGZKRGLG\RXSOD\ZLWKWRGD\" Child: 'RQ¶WNQRZ Mother: 'RQ¶WNQRZ  Child: ,ZDQWWRFRPHRQWRR Mother: <RXZDQWWRFRPHRQWRR"  Child: ,ZDQWWRGRDWUDLQWUDFN Mother: <RXZDQWWRGRDWUDLQWUDFNRN 

viii. Role play

Mothers and children sometimes took on toys’ roles while playing and mothers occasionally made mind-related comments about the toys while doing so. When a mother indirectly asked her child what s/he wanted to do, by asking what a toy wanted to do, this was QRWcoded as mind-related as it was too open to

interpretation and was not clearly directed at the child. For example, when a mother and child pretended they were Playmobil people and took on characters’ personas, and the mother asked her child’s Playmobil toy:

88

 'R\RXZDQWWRJHWVRPHHJJVIURPWKHKHQVRYHUKHUH"

 ,¶OOEHWKHODG\DQG\RXEHWKHSHUVRQ³+HOOR:RXOG\RXOLNH\RXUFDUWREH

VHUYLFHG"´

Classifying mind-related comments as appropriate/non-attuned

i. Solo/collaborative play

Due to the age of the children, it was not expected that the mother would always focus on what the child was doing to the exclusion of being involved in the play session herself. Mothers sometimes chose to play with toys themselves rather than being involved in collaborative play. This was not thought to imply that the mother was by definition non-attuned to her child. While deciding on whether the comment was appropriate, it was important to have a sense of how the mother and the child reacted to and listened to each other. When the mother asked the child whether they wanted to become involved in a new activity and the child was already actively playing, this was coded as appropriate or non-attuned depending on the particular instance. Examples of appropriate and non-attuned mind-related instances are given below.

$SSURSULDWHPLQGUHODWHGFRPPHQWV

If the mother was playing with one toy, while her child was playing with another toy, if she asked the child a question about her toy, this was coded as appropriate. For example:

 'R\RXWKLQNWKDWZRUNV"while building train track while child was playing with something else).

 /RRNLPDJLQHLI\RXZHUHDWWKHSDUNZKLFKRQHZRXOG\RXJRRQ"

If the mother asked her child to come back to the toy they were both constructing as the child had moved on to play with another toy rather than helping to finish what they had started, this was coded as appropriate. For example:

 µ+HK>FKLOG¶VQDPH@KHOSRXW>&KLOG¶VQDPH@\RXZDQWHGWKLVRQH



1RQDWWXQHGPLQGUHODWHGFRPPHQWV

If a mother appeared to have her own agenda for play, rather than taking into account her child’s wishes, then this was coded as non-attuned. For example, when a child was actively engaged in playing with a toy and it appeared the mother may want to play with another toy:

89

 Mother: 6KDOOZHGRVRPHWKLQJHOVH" Child: 1R

Mother: 'RQ¶W\RXZDQWWRWU\WKHSX]]OHV" Child: 1R

ii. Child’s level of involvement

If the child did not look too involved in playing with the current toy, then if the mother asked if they wanted to do something else, this was coded as appropriate. For example:

 :DQWWRGRVRPHPRUHSOD\JURXQG" (while child was playing with another toy without focus).

iii. Previous knowledge of child

The mother had previous information about the child and this meant that comments could be coded as appropriate because of this level of knowledge. The mother might know that her child would be upset if s/he did not get to play with other toys. So, if the mother suggested that the child wanted to become involved in a new activity when already actively engaged in playing with something else, this was coded as appropriate given prior knowledge. For example:

 7KHUHDUHORWVRIWR\VKHUHDQG\RXPLJKWEHVDGLI\RXGRQ¶WJHWWRSOD\ZLWKDOO

RIWKHP'R\RXZDQWWRFDUU\RQSOD\LQJZLWKWKDWRQHRUGR\RXZDQWWRWU\ VRPHWKLQJHOVH"

iv. The use of “no”

Mind-related comments were coded as appropriate even if a child responded with a “no” to the mother’s comment if it appeared appropriate to the observer. For

example:  Mother:<RXWKLQNWKHELNHPLJKWEORZRYHU? Child:1R.  0RWKHU+DVLWUXQRXWRIEDWWHU\GR\RXWKLQN? &KLOG1R v. Tangential conversations

The ability of the child to converse meant that the mother could make mind-related comments which could be coded as appropriate, even if not linked directly to the current activity, because they were linked verbally. Conversations between the

90

mother and older child meant that tangential comments were more likely to occur than with a mother and young infant. For example, a child mentioned that a

Playmobil toy had bare feet because of a sandpit. Later on, the mother noticed there was a toy sandpit and said:

 You know you said a clever thing because you said the little boy’s got bare feet because he was in the sandpit and then I saw there was a real sandpit. I didn’t see that, did you?

Counting comments

While counting up the number of comments produced by the mother, if alternative mind-related comments were given, then this was coded twice and counted as two comments. For example, comments are divided up below by the use of “or”:

 'R\RXZDQWPHWRVKRZ\RXKRZWRRSHQLWRUGR\RXWKLQN\RXFDQZRUNLWRXW"

 'R\RXZDQWWRFDUU\RQSOD\LQJZLWKWKDWRQHRUGR\RXZDQWWRWU\VRPHWKLQJ

HOVH"

In document Maternal mind-mindedness: a cognitive-behavioural trait or a relational construct? (Page 96-104)