4.1 Article

Associations between mother-infant bed-sharing practices and infant affect and behavior during the still-face paradigm

Journal

INFANT BEHAVIOR & DEVELOPMENT
Volume 60, Issue -, Pages -

Publisher

ELSEVIER SCIENCE INC
DOI: 10.1016/j.infbeh.2020.101464

Keywords

Sleep location; Bed-sharing; Mother-infant interaction; Still-face paradigm

Funding

  1. Eunice Kennedy Shriver National institute of Child Health and Development [NICHD R21 HD077146]

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Parents in the United States increasingly report bed-sharing with their infants (i.e., sleeping on a shared sleep surface), but the relationship between bed-sharing and child socioemotional outcomes are not well understood. The current study examines the links between mother-infant bed sharing at 3 months and infant affect and behavior during a dyadic challenge task at 6 months. Further, we examine nighttime mother-infant contact at 3 months as a possible mechanism that may mediate linkages between bed-sharing and infant outcomes. Using observational data from a sample of 63 mother-infant dyads, we found that infants who bed-shared for any proportion of the observation period at 3 months displayed significantly more self-regulatory behaviors during the still-face episode of the Still-Face Paradigm (SFP) at 6 months, compared to non-bed-sharing infants. Also, infants of mothers who bed-shared for the entire observation period displayed significantly less negativity during the reunion episode than non-bed-sharing infants. There was no evidence that the relations between mother-infant bed-sharing practices and infant affect and behavior during the SFP were mediated through nighttime mother-infant contact. Results suggest that infant regulation at 6 months postpartum may vary based on early nighttime experiences, with bed-sharing potentially promoting more positive and well-regulated behavior during dyadic interaction.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.1
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available