Does maternal distraction impact maternal responsiveness and infant behaviors during feeding? A Pilot Study

Project Category: Leveraging Technology for New Insights 

Alison K. Ventura, PhD, CLEC
Department of Kinesiology
California Polytechnic State University, San Luis Obispo

Introduction: Caregiver responsiveness promotes infants’ development of effective emotional, cognitive, and behavioral self-regulatory abilities (Leerkes & Wong, 2012), which is predictive of better stress reactivity (Bernard & Dozier, 2010), and lower risk for internalizing and externalizing problems (Lyons-Ruth & Jacobvitz, 1999), and obesity (Power et al., 2016) during later life. Thus, an important foundation for promoting healthy early childhood development is promotion of caregiver responsiveness during caregiver-infant interactions. However, the Institute of Medicine (2011) and others (Lumeng, Taveras, Birch, & Yanovski, 2015) have highlighted the paucity of research aimed at understanding how to promote responsiveness within feeding contexts.

Although there are many reasons why caregivers exhibit low responsiveness during feeding interactions, few studies have examined how maternal distraction (e.g., watching TV, using a mobile device) may impact feeding interactions and outcomes. Given the ever-increasing accessibility of handheld technologies (Pew Research Center, 2014), combined with the large number of daily feedings required by young infants (Fomon, 1993), it is possible that many caregivers regularly attend to distractors as a means to cope with the large volume of time they must dedicate to feeding. Objectives of the present research were to describe the prevalence of maternal distraction during feeding (Study 1) and experimentally test the impact of maternal distraction on feeding interactions (Study 2).

Methods:

Participants

A convenience sample of mothers with 0-6-month-old infants were recruited through community advertisements. Study 1 included 75 dyads and Study 2 included 17 dyads (data collection is ongoing).

Procedures

Study 1: Mothers kept a diary of their infants’ feeding patterns for 1-6 days. For each recorded feeding, mothers also described what else, if anything, they were doing during the feeding.

Study 2: For this within-subject, experimental study, mother-infant dyads visited our laboratory two times for feeding observations. Mothers were video-recorded while feeding their infants under two conditions, presented in counterbalanced order. During the no distraction condition, mothers fed their infants while listening to classical music played at ambient levels. During the TV distraction condition, mothers fed their infants while watching a TV show. Infant intake was assessed by weighing the baby (breast-feeding dyads) or bottle (bottle-feeding dyads) before and after the feeding. Videos were coded by two coders trained in the Nursing Child Assessment Feeding Scale [NCAFS; (Sumner & Spitz, 1994)].

Results: Study 1: Of the 2982 reported feedings, distractions were reported during 47% of feedings, with 26% of feedings involving a technological distractor. On an individual-level, mothers’ reports of any distraction ranged from 0-100% of feedings (M=47.4±30.2%) and reports of technological distractions ranged from 0-97% of feedings (M=27.9±24.0%).

Study 2: When mothers’ typical level of technological distraction was tested as a moderator of effects of condition, a significant interaction was seen for infants’ clarity of cues (P=0.01) and responsiveness to the mother (P=0.05). Infants of mothers with high typical levels of technological distraction significantly increased in their clarity of cues (P<0.001) and responsiveness to the mother (P=0.04) during the TV distraction compared to the no distraction condition. Similar increases in these outcomes were not seen for infants of mothers with low typical levels of distraction. No effect of condition or interaction between condition and typical level of distraction was seen for infants’ intake or mothers’ sensitivity to infant cues, response to infant distress, socioemotional growth fostering, or cognitive growth fostering.

Discussion: These studies are among the first to explore the prevalence and impact of maternal distraction during feeding. Descriptive findings from Study 1 illustrated mothers attend to environmental stimuli during almost half of reported feedings, and, for over a quarter of reported feedings, these stimuli consist of technological distractions. Preliminary analyses from Study 2 illustrated infants respond to technological distractions by increasing the clarity of their cues and responsiveness to their mothers, but this may be a learned response that depends on the dyad’s history of distracted feeding. Limitations of these findings include their reliance on self-reported data (Study 1), and small and homogeneous sample (Study 2).

Future research should include larger and more diverse samples to improve the generalizability of findings. Inclusion of additional objective measures of infant and maternal physiological and behavioral responses to distractions will also provide novel data on mechanisms underlying impacts of distracted feeding on feeding outcomes. The potential impact of maternal distraction on both short-term and long-term feeding and developmental outcomes is an important question for future inquiry and may lead to novel education efforts to improve maternal responsiveness, as well as the quality of maternal-infant interactions, during early feeding.

Contact:
Alison K. Ventura, PhD, CLEC
Department of Kinesiology
California Polytechnic State University, San Luis Obispo
One Grand Ave, 43A-371
San Luis Obispo, CA 93407
akventur@calpoly.edu

REFERENCES

Ainsworth, M. D., & Bell, S. M. (1970). Attachment, exploration, and separation: illustrated by the behavior of one-year-olds in a strange situation. Child Dev, 41(1), 49-67.

Allison, P. D. (2012). Handling Missing Data by Maximum Likelihood. Retrieved from SAS Institutes, Cary, NC.

Bernal, J., & Richards, M. P. (1970). The effects of bottle and breast feeding on infant development. J Psychosomatic Res, 14(3), 247-252.

Bernard, K., & Dozier, M. (2010). Examining infants’ cortisol responses to laboratory tasks among children varying in attachment disorganization: stress reactivity or return to baseline? Dev Psychol, 46(6), 1771-1778.

Berolo, S., Steenstra, I., Amick, B. C., 3rd, & Wells, R. P. (2015). A comparison of two methods to assess the usage of mobile hand-held communication devices. J Occup Environ Hyg, 12(4), 276-285.

Bland, J. M., & Altman, D. G. (1996). Transforming data. Br Med J, 312(7033), 770.

Blass, E. M., Anderson, D. R., Kirkorian, H. L., Pempek, T. A., Price, I., & Koleini, M. F. (2006). On the road to obesity: Television viewing increases intake of high-density foods. Phys Behav, 88(4-5), 597-604.

Bowlby, J. (1977a). The making and breaking of affectional bonds. I. Aetiology and psychopathology in the light of attachment theory. An expanded version of the Fiftieth Maudsley Lecture, delivered before the Royal College of Psychiatrists, 19 November 1976. Br J Psychiatry, 130, 201-210.

Bowlby, J. (1977b). The making and breaking of affectional bonds. II. Some principles of psychotherapy. The fiftieth Maudsley Lecture. Br J Psychiatry, 130, 421-431.

Bowlby, J. (1978). Attachment theory and its therapeutic implications. Adolesc Psychiatry, 6, 5-33. Brandt, K. A., Andrews, C. M., & Kvale, J. (1998). Mother-infant interaction and breastfeeding outcome 6 weeks after birth. J Obstet Gynecol Neonatal Nurs, 27(2), 169-174.

Britton, J. R., Britton, H. L., & Gronwaldt, V. (2006). Breastfeeding, sensitivity, and attachment. Pediatrics, 118(5), e1436-1443.

Charmaz, K. (2000). Grounded theory: Objectivist and constructivist methods. In K. Denzin & Y. S. Lincoln (Eds.), Handbook of Qualitative Research (pp. 509-536). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

Dewey, K. G., & Lonnerdal, B. (1986). Infant self-regulation of breast milk intake. Acta Paediatr Scand, 75(6), 893-898.
Dunn, J. (1980). Feeding and sleeping. In M. Rutter (Ed.), The Scientific Foundations of Developmental Psychiatry. London: Heinemann Medical Books.

Easterbrooks, M. A., & Lamb, M. E. (1979). The relationship between quality of infant-mother attachment and infant competence in initial encounters with peers. Child Dev, 50(2), 380-387.

Erickson, M. F., Sroufe, L. A., & Egeland, B. (1985). The relationship between quality of attachment and behavior problems in preschool in a high-risk sample. Monogr Soc Res Child Dev, 50(1-2), 147- 166.

Feldman, R., Gordon, I., Schneiderman, I., Weisman, O., & Zagoory-Sharon, O. (2010). Natural variations in maternal and paternal care are associated with systematic changes in oxytocin following parent-infant contact. Psychoneuroendocrinology, 35(8), 1133-1141. doi:10.1016/j.psyneuen.2010.01.013

Fomon, S. J., Filmer, L. J., Jr., Thomas, L. N., Anderson, T. A., & Nelson, S. E. (1975). Influence of formula concentration on caloric intake and growth of normal infants. Acta Paediatr Scand, 64(2), 172-181.

Francis, D. D., Champagne, F. C., & Meaney, M. J. (2000). Variations in maternal behaviour are associated with differences in oxytocin receptor levels in the rat. J Neuroendocrinol, 12(12), 1145-1148.

Gartstein, M. A., & Rothbart, M. K. (2003). Studying infant temperament via the Revised Infant Behavior Questionnaire. Infant Behavior and Development, 26(1), 64-86.

Golen, R. B., & Ventura, A. K. (2015a). Mindless feeding. Is maternal distraction during bottle-feeding associated with overfeeding? Appetite.

Golen, R. B., & Ventura, A. K. (2015b). What are mothers doing while bottle-feeding their infants? Exploring the prevalence of maternal distraction during bottle-feeding interactions. Early Hum Dev, 91(12), 787-791.

Gunning, M., Halligan, S. L., & Murray, L. (2013). Contributions of maternal and infant factors to infant responding to the still face paradigm: a longitudinal study. Infant Behav Dev, 36(3), 319-328.

Harrist, A. W., & Waugh, R. M. (2002). Dyadic synchrony: Its structure and function in children’s development. Devel Rev, 22(4), 555-592.

Isabella, R. A., & Belsky, J. (1991). Interactional synchrony and the origins of infant-mother attachment: a replication study. Child Dev, 62(2), 373-384.

Kochanska, G., Philibert, R. A., & Barry, R. A. (2009). Interplay of genes and early mother-child relationship in the development of self-regulation from toddler to preschool age. J Child Psychol Psychiatry, 50(11), 1331-1338.

Leerkes, E. M., & Wong, M. S. (2012). Infant distress and regulatory behaviors vary as a function of attachment security regardless of emotion context and maternal Iivolvement. Infancy, 17(5), 455- 478.

Llewellyn, C. H., van Jaarsveld, C. H., Johnson, L., Carnell, S., & Wardle, J. (2011). Development and factor structure of the Baby Eating Behaviour Questionnaire in the Gemini birth cohort. Appetite, 57(2), 388-396.

Lyons-Ruth, K., & Block, D. (1996). The disturbed caregiving system: Relations among childhood trauma, maternal caregiving, and infant affect and attachment. Inf Mental Health J, 17, 257-275.

Lyons-Ruth, K., & Jacobvitz, D. (1999). Attachment disorganization: Unresolved loss, relational violence, and lapses in behavioral and attentional strategies. In J. Cassidy & P. Shaver (Eds.), Handbook of Attachment (pp. 520-554). New York: Guilford Press.

Mann, P. E., & Bridges, R. S. (2001). Lactogenic hormone regulation of maternal behavior. Prog Brain Res, 133, 251-262.

Mehta, R., Zhu, R., & Cheema, A. (2012). Is noise always bad? Exploring the effects of ambient noise on creative cognition. J Consum Res, 39(4), 784-799.

Moore, G. A., & Calkins, S. D. (2004). Infants’ vagal regulation in the still-face paradigm is related to dyadic coordination of mother-infant interaction. Dev Psychol, 40(6), 1068-1080.

Moore, G. A., Hill-Soderlund, A. L., Propper, C. B., Calkins, S. D., Mills-Koonce, W. R., & Cox, M. J. (2009). Mother-infant vagal regulation in the face-to-face still-face paradigm is moderated by maternal sensitivity. Child Dev, 80(1), 209-223.

Pew Research Center. (2014). Mobile Technology Fact Sheet. Retrieved from http://www.pewinternet.org/fact-sheets/mobile-technology-fact-sheet/

Putnam, S. P., Helbig, A. L., Gartstein, M. A., Rothbart, M. K., & Leerkes, E. (2014). Development and assessment of short and very short forms of the infant behavior questionnaire-revised. J Pers Assess, 96(4), 445-458.

Radesky, J., Miller, A. L., Rosenblum, K. L., Appugliese, D., Kaciroti, N., & Lumeng, J. C. (2015). Maternal mobile device use during a structured parent-child interaction task. Acad Pediatr, 15(2), 238-244.

Radesky, J. S., Kistin, C. J., Zuckerman, B., Nitzberg, K., Gross, J., Kaplan-Sanoff, M., . . . Silverstein, M. (2014). Patterns of mobile device use by caregivers and children during meals in fast food restaurants. Pediatrics, 133(4), e843-849.

Reyna, B. A., & Pickler, R. H. (2009). Mother-infant synchrony. J Obstet Gynecol Neonatal Nurs, 38(4), 470-477.

Rollins, B. Y., Savage, J. S., Fisher, J. O., & Birch, L. L. (2015). Alternatives to restrictive feeding practices to promote self-regulation in childhood: a developmental perspective. Pediatr Obes.

Sumner, G., & Spitz, A. (1994). NCAST Caregiver/Parent-Child Interaction: Feeding Manual. Seattle, WA: NCAST Publications, University of Washington School of Nursing.

Thompson, A. L., Mendez, M. A., Borja, J. B., Adair, L. S., Zimmer, C. R., & Bentley, M. E. (2009). Development and validation of the Infant Feeding Style Questionnaire. Appetite, 53(2), 210-221.

Tronick, E., Als, H., Adamson, L., Wise, S., & Brazelton, T. B. (1978). The infant’s response to entrapment between contradictory messages in face-to-face interaction. J Am Acad Child Psychiatry, 17(1), 1-13.

van Bakel, H. J., & Riksen-Walraven, J. M. (2004). Stress reactivity in 15-month-old infants: links with infant temperament, cognitive competence, and attachment security. Dev Psychobiol, 44(3), 157- 167.

van Ijzendoorn, M. H., & van Vliet-Visser, S. (1988). The relationship between quality of attachment in infancy and IQ in kindergarten. J Genet Psychol, 149(1), 23-28.

Ventura, A. K., Beauchamp, G. K., & Mennella, J. A. (2012). Infant regulation of intake: the effect of free glutamate content in infant formulas. Am J Clin Nutr, 95(4), 875-881.

Ventura, A. K., Inamdar, L. B., & Mennella, J. A. (2014). Consistency in infants’ behavioural signalling of satiation during bottle-feeding. Pediatric Obesity.

Wansink, B. (2006). Mindless eating: Why we eat more than we think. New York: Bantam-Dell. Yoo, K., & Reeb-Sutherland, B. C. (2013). Effects of negative temperament on 5-month-old infants’ behavior during the still-face paradigm. Infant Behav Dev, 36(3), 344-348.