Early Development and Parenting, Vol.

3 (l),51-60 (1994)

Early Interactions and the

Socioemotional Development of
Deaf Infants
Lynne Sanford Koester
Gallaudet University, Washington, DC, U S A

Studies of the early face-to-face interactions and later attachment

behaviours between infants and their caregivers are reviewed, with
a particular focus on implications for deaf infants. Since the majority
of deaf infants are born to hearing parents, it is to be expected that
many parental responses will rely on vocalizations which are
inaccessible to the deaf infant. Are other sensory modalities
enhanced or used in a compensatorymanner by hearing parents so
as to make their communication with a deaf infant more effective?
Is the deaf infant’s heightened need for visual and tactile input
adequately met during normal interactions with their caregivers?
Does the deaf infant develop the same strategies for signalling
distress and coping with separation as does the hearing infant?
Although the research literature on this population is sparse, there
are beginning to be more reports addressingthese questions as early
identification becomes increasingly possible. Therefore, this paper
will cover issues of the role of eye contact and mutual coordination
in early interactions, compensatoryparenting behaviours from the
perspective of the ’intuitive parenting’ model, and precursors to
later attachment behaviours in deaf infants.
I Key words: Deaf infants, intuitive parenting, attachment behaviours.

’Deafness, by its nature, not only inhibits or
prevents access to sound and speech, it is also likely
to disrupt, in developmentally important ways, the
formation of relationships between children and
those around them’ (Wood, 1989, p. 62).
The purpose of this article is to examine the
research literature related to early social interactions
of infants and their caregivers, focusing primarily
on studies with deaf infants and on implicationsfor
their development. As Wood (1989)has stated, the
disruption of communication which typically occurs
when hearing parents have a deaf child affects
much more than the child’s language development
alone. Coordination and timing of dyadic
Address for correspondence: University of Montana,
Department of Psychology, Missoula, MT 59812-1041, USA.
interactions, relying on other sensory channels for
communication and respecting the child’s need to
attend sequentially to objects and social partners are
just a few of the issues of importance when
examining the dynamics of this unique interactive
system. Furthermore, as research with normally
hearing infants has shown, these are all relevant to
the larger picture of the infant’s socioemotional
development and emergent sense of self.
MUTUAL INFLUENCES IN
NORMAL INTERACTIONS
Developmental researchers, particularly those
studying infancy, have recognized for some time
that individual members of an interacting system

CCC 1057-3593/94/01OO51-10 Received 17 November 1991

0 1994 by John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. Accepted 9 October 1992
52
mutually influence each other, and are
consequently changed themselves (e.g. Brazelton
et al., 1974; Koester et al., 1987; Stern, 1974). As
Brazelton and Nugent (1987) have said, even in the
newborn period changes emanate from a ’reciprocal
feedback system’ inherent in the caregiver-child
relationship. ‘We expect developmental prediction
to come from the study of the processes of
biobehavioral organization, based on a transactional
view in which development proceeds as infant and
caregiver continually modify their own and each
other’s behavior through reciprocal interaction‘
(Brazelton and Nugent, 1987, p. 216).
Schaffer (1987) takes this transactional view one
step further by recognizing the interplay of
endogenous and exogenous factors as determinants
of the particular developmental course for a given
child. He asserts that each child brings to the world
certain capabilities and limitations - a
’developmental programme’ -which then both
cause developmental progression and influence the
social factors, such as parental responses, which
impinge on the child.
Likewise, when parents respond appropriately,
they facilitate the child’s progression to the next
phase along his or her developmental trajectory. As
Schaffer argues, development must be viewed
within a social context: ‘. . . on the one hand there
are social facilitating factors that help to bring about
new transitions, and on the other hand these
transitions produce social consequenceswhich will in
turnfacilitatefurther developments’(Schaffer, 1987,
p. 241). On a similar note, Sameroff and Chandler
(1975) cautioned against assuming long-term
negative outcomes as a result of inherent conditions
in the child, urging instead that we consider the
many ways in which an infant‘s condition interacts
with the caregiving environment to produce
developmental outcomes.
The early parent-infant relationship involves
frequent face-to-face encounters, providing
researchers with a lens for observing the mutual
influences or reciprocal effects most characteristic
of these interactions-and those which are most
important to their continued success. Behaviours
such as eye contact and gaze aversion, ‘baby talk‘
and cooing or babbling, touching and comforting
(includingself-regulatorybehaviours by the infant)
and expressions of pleasure or distress occur on
both sides of the dyad and can be used as indices
of the mutuality, affect and responsiveness of the
two partners.
As has been shown in a study of deaf preschoolers,
however, hearing parents with deaf children may
L. S. Koester
continue to rely largely on vocalizations that are
inaccessible to the child (Jamieson, in press).
Without concurrent or supplementary use of other
modalities for reinforcing the infant’s visual
attention, responding to positive social bids or
comforting distress, these otherwise appropriate
vocal responses by the parent are ineffective with
a severely or profoundly deaf infant. Since the
visual and tactile channels are of particular
significance to a deaf infant, these are important
areas for study in relation to the infant’s early
adaptation to the social world.
THE ROLE OF EYE CONTACT
IN EARLY INTERACTIONS
Eye contact and gaze aversion are thought to play
crucial roles in the mutual regulation process that
takes place during any adult-infant interactions,
and are particularly important because they allow
the infant to be an active participant in modulating
levels of arousal in response to external stimulation
(Exline, 1982). Stern (1974), Brazelton (Brazelton et
al., 1974), Field (1978) and others have described the
alternating periods of looking at and looking away
from the partner that seem to reflect the infant’s
attempts to process stimulation and to regulate the
interactional sequence. As Field (1978) states:
‘Mothers who are more active or “overstimulating” and
less sensitive or responsive to their infants’ pauses or
turning away during the conversation, are less able to
elicit or hold their infants’ gaze. . . . One of the most
important rules for the mother to learn is sensitivity to
the infant’s capacity for attention and inattention.’
(P, 132)
Schaffer (1984) points out that the visual system
is a primary means of establishing contact and
communication with others, and that develop-
mentally it is already well adapted at birth to begin
to play this important role. Furthermore, its
versatilityis enhanced by the fact that the infant can
use a simple act-turning the head or closing the
eyes -to control the amount of stimulus input, to
seek or to avoid additional visual sensation.
Alternationsbetween gazingat and gazing away are
an intrinsic characteristicof the infant’s early social
interactions, varying primarily in the timing and
length of attention versus avoidance bouts; it is
thought that these temporal factors are dependent
upon physiological constraints related to the
individual infant’s need for and tolerance of varying
levels of arousal.
Interactions with Deaf lnfants 53

For deaf infants, maintaining visual contact is energy required for this task leaves little in reserve
crucial to dyadic communication; breaking this for attending to the social or object world.
contact is done at the risk of severing the Cues by the infant help to shape the contingent
interaction altogether, except when there is also responses of the adult, which in turn lead the infant
tactile contact. Therefore, an effective arousal- to believe that his or her behaviour has a positive
reducing behaviour such as gaze avert is only effect on the social relationship. Typically, these
available to deaf infants at considerable expense to mutual reactions and modifications of behaviour
the interactive system. Prior to achieving the occur so rapidly that it is only through m i c r o d y t ~ c
concept of object permanence, the act of turning techniques that researchers have identified the
away from the social partner by a deaf infant can contributions of each partner during early parent-
remove that partner from the child’s sensory and infant interactions. In some instances, however,
cognitive realm entirely, whereas a hearing child such as the presence of a sensory impairment, it
can still maintain auditory contact and awareness becomes possible to highlight the role of a specific
of the partner’s continuous presence despite component in the interactions, or to examine ways
frequent gaze aversions. As Koester and Trimm in which other interactive behaviours are affected
(1991) have found, 9-month-old hearing infants by the absence of one important ingredient such as
break eye contact more frequently during face-to- sight or sound.
face interactions than do deaf infants; even at that For example, several studies of deaf infants and
age, the deaf infants have apparently already either deaf or hearing parents have shown that the
learned that visual monitoring of the social mutual regulatory process is altered when
environment is the key to their access to whatever auditorylvocal communication is not available
communication may be available. (Gianino and Meadow-Orlans, 1987). Day and
Prezioso (1987) found that hearing mothers
experienced significant stress following the
diagnosis of a hearing loss in their infant, and that
COORDINATION OF this stress was translated into potentially
MOTHER-CHILD INTERACTIONS counterproductive interaction styles involving
Tronick (1989) has asserted that the long-term overprotectiveness and unnecessary simplification
outcomes of early interactions with infants depend of play behaviours. Meadow-Orlans et al. (1987)
largely on the balance of the infant‘s experiences observed that the greater positive affect expressed
of coordinated versus miscoordinated states within on the faces of deaf mothers appeared to substitute
the dyad. The infant who consistently experiences for that expressed vocally by hearing mothers with
success in efforts at ’interactive repairs’ develops their infants. Furthermore, 3-month-old infants
an expectation that his or her own actions will be (both deaf and hearing) paid closer attention to their
effective, and is therefore more likely to use similar mothers’ faces if the mother was deaf: that is, at this
strategies to reengage the mother when she is early age, they seemed to already understand the
temporarily unresponsive. Numerous investigations necessity of engaging the mother visually and
of normal dyads under experimental situations in responding to her visual cues in order to sustain an
which the mother is instructed to be non-responsive interaction.
(or present a ’still-face’)for a short time have found
that infants can also be remarkably resourceful in
communicating their needs and displeasure, and in
attempting to ‘repair’ this aversive situation (Carter COMPENSATORY
et al., 1990; Cohn and Tronick, 1983; Mayes and PARENTING BEHAVIOURS
Carter, 1990; Tronick et al., 1978). Studies of various at-risk infant populations have
By contrast, infants who have repeatedly shown that adults often try to compensate for the
experienced interactional failures without successful more limited capaaties of their partners (Brown and
transitions back to a coordinated state with the Bakeman, 1979; Field, 1977, 1984; Jones, 1980;
caregiver are more likely to build up negative affect, Wedell-Monnig and Lumley, 1980).
to become self-oriented (e.g. during the still-face) As Goldberg (1982) asks:
and to turn away or attempt to escape through
paceptual shutdown, thusbecomingnon-responsive ’While we seem predisposed toward successful adult-
in turn. In such a case, the infant’s primary concern infant interactions, what happens when somethinggoes
becomes the containment of negative affect; the wrong? One of the features of a successful system is
54
that there is more than one way to achieve a given
result; when one part of the system fails or functions
improperly, corresponding adjustments are made
so that the system as a whole can continue to
operate. . . .‘ (p. 40)
Goldberg (1982) believes that parent-infant dyads
incorporate many alternatives to the normally
optimal modes of interaction, such as varying their
bids for attention at times when their partners are
unable (or unwilling) to respond immediately. The
interaction system may have limits to its capacity
for coping with stress, but self-correcting
mechanisms often appear to help counteract threats
to dyadic functioning.
When a parent or infant has a hearing loss, one
of the most prominent features of early
interaction -that of vocalization -is either
unavailable or only partially accessible. While this
can lead to a distortion in the normal interactive
behaviour patterns, it is also possible for both
partners to adapt and compensate successfully by
relying on other communication modalities. As
Marschark (1992) states, such accommodation
’serves to provide a reciprocal relationship between
parent and (deaf) child and “bootstraps”
development in an effective, if somewhat different
manner than that of hearing children. It is only by
understanding those differences, however, that
we can hope to understand the psychological
functioning of deaf individuals’ (p. 22).
Recent investigations have shown that hearing
mothers provide more visual experiences to deaf
than to hearing infants during face-to-face
interactions (Koester and Trimm, 1991), as well as
during object play (Meadow-Orlans and Steinberg,
1991; Spencer, 1991). In addition, Koester (1991)
reports that even with 9-month-old infants these
maternal visual displays are well coordinated with
the deaf infants’ visual attention, thus ensuring that
an important aspect of early dyadic communication
is perceptually accessible even when the infant is
deaf. However, when visual gaze also involves joint
attention to objects, hearing parents may not be so
adept in coordinating their responses with a deaf
child, as demonstrated by Spencer et al. (1992).
In a longitudinal study of parents with deaf and
hearing infants (MacTurk et al., 1993), multiple
regression analyses were used to examine predictive
relationships between interactive behaviours at
infant ages 9 and 18 months. In this study, it was
reported that the frequency with which mothers
incorporated visual or tactile stimulation with their
9-month-old deaf infants sigruficantlyincreased the
L. S. Koester
amount of explained variance in the dependent
measure of positive interactions at 18 months. No
such relationship was found for the hgaring infants,
although it was suggested that vocal responses
would play a similar role for this group. This finding
confirms the importance of using response
modalities which are matched with the infant’s
sensory capabilities.
Similarly, MacTurk (1993) reports that for deaf but
not for hearing infants, social gaze (looking at the
experimenter or mother during task performance)
at 9 months is positively related to the infant’s
mastery motivation at 12 months. It appears that
deaf infants themselves develop strategies early in
life to compensate for reduced sensory contact with
their environment.
INTUITIVE PARENTING
One conceptual model which offers valuable
insights to further understanding of these issues is
that of ’intuitive parenting’ (Koester et al., 1987;
PapouSek and PapouSek, 1981, 1982, 1987). This
model proposes that many subtle, non-conscious
parental behaviours are ideally suited to the needs
of the less mature infant partner, who must make
many adaptations to the demands of the social and
physical environment. Examples include such
behaviours as the adult’s tendency to maintain a
close face-to-face interaction distance (appropriate
to the infant’s limited visual focal range), the use
of frequent repetition and simplified stimulation
(also consistent with the infant’s learning needs and
capacities) and the use of ’motherese’ during
communication with a preverbal infant (thus
making one’s infant-directed speech more salient
and easily attended to or identified by the infant)
(Fernald, 1989; Koester et al., 1989; PapouSek et al.,
1985).
Contrasts to the usual patterns of intuitive
parenting can clearly be found among dyads in
which one or more of the partners has experienced
a sensory loss such as deafness or blindness. It is
important to remember, however, that although
such patterns may be altered to appear quite
different from those assumed to be the ‘norm’, there
may be many other ways in which these partners
achieve mutually satisfying and developmentally
appropriate interaction styles. In a case study of
blind parents with a sighted infant, for example,
Adamson et al. (1977) report on the development
of reciprocal social interactions despite the persistent
violation of natural face-to-face communication
Interactions with Deaf Infants 55

behaviours. In addition, the mother compensated whom such modifications may be initially just as
for the absence of visual information about her unfamiliar as the visual-gestural method of
baby’s state (particularly during feeding episodes) communication itself. For these parents, especially
by continually fingering the baby lightly. This those who decide to use sign language with their
provides an intriguing example of natural efforts on child, many of the intuitive behaviours which are
the part of a blind mother to use a non-visual closely linked to spoken communication may have
channel to monitor her infant’s behaviour. to be modified in order to accommodate to another
According to PapouBek and PapouSek (1982), modality. At the same time, new methods of
behavioural plasticity and compensatory adjustments communicating, of eliciting and maintaining
during social interchanges serve to protect both attention through visual and tactile channels and
partners against a variety of adverse factors of incorporating grammatical features into facial
stemming from either genetic or environmental expressions may have to be learned on a conscious
origins. level before they are easily incorporated into the
As Fraiberg (1974) has also observed, sighted hearing parent’s interactions with a deaf infant.
mothers with blind infants are often distressed by As mentioned previously, most studies of deaf
the lack of affective feedback due to the reduced children have relied on older populations, such as
facial expressiveness of the infant. However, she toddlers or preschoolers, largely due to the
also found that when parents were made aware of difficulties in obtaining samples of enough infants
how much excitement, tension and general affective for whom deafness has been diagnosed (Greenberg,
responsiveness could be seen in the same infant’s 1980; Greenberg and Marvin, 1979; Henggeler and
hands, they became much better able to ’read’ the Cooper, 1983; Henggeler et al., 1984; Lederberg et
signals from their infant and thus to derive greater al., 1986; Meadow et al., 1981).
mutual satisfaction from their interactions. Results for older children have been quite
consistent in demonstrating a greater use of
directiveness and control techniques, and less
harmonious relationships, in hearing parents of
EARLY INTERACTIONS deaf children (Lederberg, 1984; Lederberg et al.,
WITH DEAF INFANTS 1991; Meadow-Orlans and Steinberg, 1991;
We are just beginning to learn about the impact of Schlesinger, 1985; Schlesinger and Meadow, 1972;
deafness on the very early interactions between Spencer et al., 1992; Wedell-Monnig and Lumley,
infants and their parents, since most previous 1980). Explanations have varied from negative
studies of childhood deafness have been carried out maternal effect in response to the infant’s hearing
either with older children or with extremely small loss to a heightened effort to overcome the delayed
samples. Do interactions by a hearing parent with language development which often characterizes
a deaf infant appear ‘depressed’ in comparison to deaf children.
those with a hearing infant-are the partners’ Spencer et al. (1992) suggest that maternal
behaviours less smoothly synchronized or do they overcontrol may stem from the hearing mothers’
appear less mutually responsive?How do the stress concern about maintaining the deaf infants’
and emotional impact of a diagnosis of infant attention, and their desire to prolong eye contact.
deafness influence the early mother-infant The result is that the mother overrides any attempts
relationship, and are long-term effects (such as on by the child to explore the environment visually
socioemotional and communicative development) to (using such behaviours as physically turning the
be expected as a result? Are other sensory channels, infant‘s head back towards the partner, or moving
if used in a compensatory manner, interchangeable herself into the infant’s line of vision and
with hearing in these early interactions? inadvertently blocking the infant’s view of the
It has been reported that deaf mothers modify object of attention).
their sign language communication to an infant in Wood (1989) reports that deaf parents appear to
much the same way as hearing adults alter their know intuitively how to time their communicative
vocal speech in the form of motherese (Erting et al., efforts with a deaf child in order to make optimal
1990). That is, similar to motherese, sign language use of the infant‘s own attention strategies. By
by a deaf adult to an infant is simplified, more contrast, ‘hearing parents tend to be more intrusive
repetitious and less complex than with an adult. and overtly didactic, sometimes trying, literally and
However, most deaf infants (more than 90%) have physically, to orchestrate the infant’s role in the
hearing parents (Rawlings and Jensema, 1977), for interaction to ensure his attention’ (p. 67). For
56
example, Nienhuys and Tikotin (1983) report on
their observations of one deaf and one hearing
infant between the ages of 6 and 12 months; they
found that the mother of the deaf infant tended to
’lead’ the interactions, compared to the mother of
the normally hearing child who was described as
more effectively following her infant’s cues.
Not surprisingly, some of these same studies
suggest that the deaf children themselves are more
passive, less attentive and less responsive than
hearing children; nevertheless, it is difficult to
determine which is the cause and which the effect.
That is, a passive child might respond to an overly
directive caregiver by withdrawing even more, just
as the caregiver might respond to a child who is
relatively non-reactiveby trying even harder to eliat
a response- efforts which are then interpreted
by observers as intrusive when viewed from
the perspective of typical or ‘normal’ interactive
behaviours.
In a related study, Meadow-Orlans and her
colleagues (1987) reported greater neutral affect in
3- and 6-month-old infants whose mothers were
deaf. This was seen as an indication that infants of
deaf mothers adapt to the greater amount of visual
information to which they must attend in the
absence of maternal vocal input. ‘If there is more
happening visually for these infants-on the
mother’s face, hands, and with the body- they may
become accustomed quite early to focusing intently
in order to process the additional volume of
information provided in the modality that requires
them to attend visually’ (Meadow-Orlans et al.,
1987, p. 3).
Since parental vocalizations are thought to be an
integral feature of dyadic interactions even with a
prelingual child, their absence or inaccessibility for
a deaf infant may dramatically alter the nature of
the early parent-infant relationship. Behaviours
such as turn-taking, eliciting and maintaining
attention and expressing pleasure or disapproval
may all be highly dependent upon voice quality and
vocal patterns when hearing partners are involved;
when a parent or infant is deaf, however, similar
interactive patterns must be developed through
alternative modalities if a comparable level of
satisfaction is to be achieved.
As stated earlier, Wood (1982,1989)has suggested
that deafness prevents the child from simultaneously
exploring the world visually and receiving the vocal
narrative that often accompanies such activity. Thus
for the deaf infant, visual attention to an object or
a person, and communication about that object or
person, must typically occur ir. a sequential rather
L. S. Koester
than a parallel fashion. Visual attention to a social
partner may be a crucial component of the deaf
child’s early interactiverepertoire, but may also alter
the expected sequencing or pacing of the
interaction. ’Whenever it is necessary to negotiate
the meaning of a new symbol or a symbolic
expression, . . . the deaf child faces problems of
divided attention, the need to employ the visual
modality to monitor both acts and objects of
communication‘ (Wood, 1989, p. 67).
In a longitudinal comparison of deaf and hearing
infants, Koester and Spencer (1992) found that the
amount of time deaf infants spent looking away
during early interactions (age 9 months) was
negatively related to their later communicative efforts
(age 18 months). The opposite was true for hearing
infants, suggesting that ‘gaze avert’ behaviour has
different meaning for these two groups. That is,
when a hearing infant turns away to look at
something in the surroundings, the caregiver often
responds with vocal narration or labelling of objects.
In contrast, the act of looking away from the partner
by a deaf child effectively cuts off access to
communicationabout the new focus of interest. By
diminishing opportunities for joint attention,
explanation and scaffolding, this simple gaze
avert may have long-term consequences for the
development of language skills by the deaf child.
Deaf infants with hearing parents are faced with
a difficult challenge, that of interacting with a
caregiver whose usual mode of communication is
via a sensory channel not accessible to them. Thus
they may experience higher levels of stress and
negative affect due to diminished reciprocity or
synchrony with the partner. It is therefore to be
expected that the tolerance levels of these infants
would frequently be exceeded, forcing them to
resort to behaviours such as self-comfort, protest,
gaze aversion or scanning the environment-rather
than those behaviours which invite continued
engagement with the social enviornment. Evidence
of this is seen in the finding that deaf 9-month-olds
with hearing mothers engage in sigruficantlyfewer
efforts to signal, or re-engage, the mother when she
is unresponsive than do their hearing agemates
(Koester and Trimm, 1991).
PRECURSORS TO ATTACHMENT:
FACE-TO-FACE INTERACTIONS
A number of studies have examined the relationship
between the quality of infants’ attachments and
their earlier experiences of face-to-faceinteractions
lnteractions with Deaf lnfants 57

with the attachment figure (Blehar et al., 1977; to develop secure attachments. It has also been
Egeland and Farber, 1984; Isabella and Belsky, 1991; shown that deaf children with deaf parents
Isabella et al., 1989; Langhorst and Fogel, 1982; (presumably dyads with high communicative
Lewis and Feiring, 1989). It is assumed that competence) have attachment patterns similar to
sensitive, reciprocal and contingent interactions those found in hearing children with hearing
with the caregiver over the first year enhance the parents (Meadow et al., 1983).
probability of an infant being securely attached by As Lederberg and Mobley (1990) point out, the
the end of that year. As Blehar et al. (1977)report, development of attachment takes place continuously
mothers of infants who became anxiously attached over the infant’s first year in the context of face-to-
in their study ’more frequently initiated face-to-face face and other proximal interactions. Since the
interaction with a silent, impassive face and more infant is not completely mobile during these early
often failed to respond to their babies’ attempts to months, many of these interactions involve close
initiate interaction than did mothers of infants who physical contact with the caregiver. Therefore, the
were later judged to be securely attached’ (p. 190). mother’s ‘body language’ or non-vocal responses
In contrast, mothers of babies later classified as are often accessible to the deaf infant even in the
securely attached had been more contingent and absence of vocal reassurances.
facilitative of interaction in the previous Lederberg and her colleague found no significant
observations. Similarly, Egeland and Farber (1984) differences in the attachment classifications of deaf
found that securely attached infants had mothers and hearing toddlers (mean age 22 months), and
who were sensitive to their infants‘ needs, and who little effect of hearing status on their more global
encouraged reciprocity in earlier feeding and play interaction ratings. Attachment was related to
situations. toddler behaviours primarily in the sense that
In a recent paper comparing infants’ responses secure children initiated more of the interactions
to the still-face procedure at 4 months and their and engaged in more shared affect with their
subsequent attachment classificationsat 1year, Ross mothers. They concluded that ‘. . . sensitive
et al. (1991) suggest that this assessment of infant caregivers can adapt to a variety of special needs
coping strategies offers a better predictor of of their infantsltoddlers in such a way as to make
attachment than do either maternal or infant their children feel secure in their care‘ (Lederberg
behaviours during normal face-to-face situations. and Mobley, 1990, p. 1602).
They found that infants who were later rated as Similarly, Koester and MacTurk (1991) report no
secure had elicited more and displayed more sigruficant differences in attachment ratings for deaf
positive affect during the still-face than those who and hearing infants at 18 months. However,
were later rated as avoidant. although the overall classifications failed to
differentiate the two groups, the specific behaviours
contributing to the classifications did reveal
differences. For example, when reunited after
ATTACHMENT RELATIONSHIPS separation from their mothers, the hearing infants
IN DEAF CHILDREN sought more contact and maintained closer
There are reasons to expect that deafness might proximity than did the deaf infants. These two
have negative consequences for attachment, such behaviours involve such actions as looking,
as: (1)there is often poor communication between greeting, smiling, approaching, gesturing to be
infant and caregiver; (2) parental vocal feedback is picked up, reaching towards and touching the
inaccessible to the child, therefore reciprocal mother; they may therefore be thought of as parallel
interactions are infrequent and difficult to maintain; to the social eliciting behaviours which evolve
(3) stress is greater in families of children with during the infants’ early face-to-face interaction
special needs, and increased stress is associated experiences.
with insecure attachment (Vaughn et al., 1979). An increased incidence of avoidant behaviours
The degree to which attachment is affected by was also found among the deaf infants, suggesting
early deafness has been shown to be mediated by that their efforts to cope with the stress of separation
other variables such as communication proficiency. are more internalized than for hearing infants
Greenberg and Marvin (1979), for example, found (Koester and MacTurk, 1991). In terms of
that deaf preschoolers with poor communication attachment theory, avoidance is conceptualized as
skills were often insecurely attached, while those anger which is being turned inwards, whereas
with good communication skills were more likely resistance is seen as a more outward expression of
58
the same emotion. At age 9 months, these same
deaf and hearing infants were observed during
face-to-face interactions with their mothers (Koester,
1991). Deaf infants responded to the stress of the
still-face situation by resorting more frequently to
self-comfort than to the ‘other-directed’behaviours
observed in the hearing infants. In fact, hearing
infants in general (not just during the still-face)were
more likely to signal to their mothers, and to use
non-verbal behaviours to elicit social responses from
her, compared to deaf infants in the same situation.
The higher rates of avoidant behaviour by deaf
infants during the Strange Situation (Koester and
MacTurk, 1991) suggest an increased risk of
disturbed relationships between these infants and
their hearing mothers. One cause may be the
difficulty in establishing an effective and contingent
system of communication that will be accessible to
the deaf infant. However, the mediating effect of
other forms of contingent responsiveness may help
to overcome these obstacles and in effect save the
relationship, as evidenced by the deaf infants‘
generally secure attachment ratings.
SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS
Selective literature on early interactions and the
social-emotional development of infants has been
discussed in this paper, with an emphasis on those
findings of particular relevance to deaf infants and
their parents. Although research on this population
is still sparse, advanced audiological technology is
now making earlier diagnosis possible and therefore
increasing the availability of deaf subjects at a much
younger age than previously. As a result, recent
studies have begun to show some important
differences in interactive behaviours, particularly
when a deaf infant is born to hearing parents. Both
parents and infants in these dyads compensate at
an early age for the absence of auditory stimulation,
and the modality which most readily takes over for
this purpose is that of vision. Whether or not the
amount of compensation which apparently takes
place without instruction is sufficient for the
cognitive and social needs of the infant has not yet
been determined. It is quite possible that the more
subtle qualities which contribute to synchrony and
mutuality between two partners-characteristics
such as contingency responding and maintenance
of joint attention- are more difficult to establish
when the usual vocal channel of communication is
not available. Further research which incorporates
deaf parents as comparison groups should provide
L. S . Koester
important insights into the ways in which they
intuitively accomplish these goals and thereby
contribute to the optimal development of infants
growing up in a predominantly visual world.
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
Preparation of this manuscript was supported in
part by the Gallaudet Research Institute, by grants
from the Division of Maternal and Child Health,
US Bureau of Health Care Delivery and Assistance
(Grant MCJ-110563) to Gallaudet University, and
from the Social and Behavioral Sciences Resarch
Program of the March of DimelBirth Defects
Foundation (Grant # 12-FY91-268). The assistance
of Dr Kathryn Meadow-Orlans in reviewing an
earlier draft of this paper is gratefully acknowledged.
REFERENCES
Adamson, L., Als, H., Tronick, E. and Brazelton, T. B.
(1977).The development of social reciprocity between
a sighted infant and her blind parents. Journal of The
American Academy of Child Psychiatry, 16, 194-207.
Blehar, M.C., Lieberman, A. F. and Ainsworth, M. D. S.
(1977).Early face-to-face interaction and its relation to
later infant-mother attachment. Child Development, 48,
182-194.
Brazelton, T. B., Koslowski, B. and Main, M. (1974).The
origins of reciprocity: the early mother-infant interaction.
In M. Lewis and L. Rosenblum (Eds), The Effect of the
Infant on its Caregiver. New York: Wiley, pp. 49-77.
Brazelton, T. B. and Nugent, J. K. (1987). Neonatal
assessment as an intervention. In H. Rauh and H.-Ch.
Steinhausen (Eds), Psychobiology and Early Development.
Amsterdam: Elsevier, pp. 215-229.
Brown, J. V. and Bakeman, R. (1979). Relationships of
human mothers with their infants during the first year
of life. In R. W. Bell and W. P. Smotherman (Eds),
Maternal Influences and Early Behavior. Jamaica, N Y :
Spectrum.
Carter, A. S., Mayes, L. C. and Pajer, K. A. (1990). The
role of dyadic affect in play and infant sex in predicting
infant response to the still-face situation. Child
Development, 61, 764-773.
Cohn, J. F. and Tronick, E. Z. (1983). Three-month-old
infants’ reaction to simulated maternal depression. Child
Development, 54, 185-193.
Day, P. S. and Prezioso, C. (1987).Anxious mothers and
at-risk infants: the influence of mild hearing impairment
on early interaction. Society for Research in Child
Development, Baltimore, MD.
Egeland, B. and Farber, B. (1984). Infant-mother
attachment: factors related to its development and
changes over time. Child Development, 55, 753-771.
Erting, C. J., Prezioso, C. and Hynes, M. 0. (1990).
The interactional context of deaf mother-infant
Interactions with Deaf Infants
communication. In V. Volterra and C. Erting (Eds), From
Gesture to Language in Hearing and Deaf Children. Berlin:
Springer-Verlag, pp. 97-106.
Exline, R. V. (1982). Gaze behavior in infants and children:
a tool for the study of emotions? In C. E. Izard (Ed.),
Measuring Emotions in lnfants and Children. New York:
Cambridge University Press, pp. 164-177.
Fernald, A. (1989). Intonation and communicative intent
in mothers’ speech to infants: is the melody the
message? Child Development, 60, 1497-1510.
Field, T. M. (1977). Effects of early separation, interactive
deficits, and experimental manipulations on infant-
mother face-to-face interaction. Child Development, 48,
763-771.
Field, T. M. (1978). The three R’s of infant-adult
interactions: rhythms, repertoires, and responsivity .
Journal of Pediatric Psychology, 3(3), 131-136.
Field, T. M. (1984). Early interactions between infants and
their postpartum depressed mothers. lnfant Behavior and
Development, 7, 517-522.
Fraiberg, S. (1974). Blind infants and their mothers: an
examination of the sign system. In M. Lewis and
L. A. Rosenblum (Eds), The Effect of the lnfant on its
Caregiver. New York: Wiley, pp. 215-232.
Gianino, A. and Meadow-Orlans, K. P. (1987). Stress and
self-regulation in six-month-old deaf and hearing infants
with deaf mothers. Poster presented at the biennial
meetings of the Society for Research in Child
Development, Baltimore, MD.
Goldberg, S. (1982). Some biological aspects of early
parent-infant interaction. In S. G. Moore and C. R.
Cooper (Eds), The Young Child: Reviews of Research, Vol.
3. Washington: NAEYC, pp. 35-56.
Greenberg, M. T. (1980). Social interaction between
deaf preschoolers and their mothers: the effect of
communicationmethod and communicationcompetence.
Developmental Psychology, 16(5), 465-474.
Greenberg, M. T. and Marvin, R. S. (1979). Attachment
patterns in profoundly deaf preschool children. Mem’ll-
Palmer Quarterly, 25(4), 265-279.
Henggeler, S. W. and Cooper, P. (1983). Deaf child-
hearing mother interaction: extensiveness and
reciprocity. Journal of Pediatric Psychology, 8, 83-95.
Henggeler, S. W., Watson, S . M. and Cooper, P. F. (1984).
Verbal and nonverbal maternal controls in hearing
mother-deaf child interaction. Journal of Applied
Developmental Psychology, 5, 319-329.
Isabella, R. A. and Belsky, J. (1991). Interactional
synchrony and the origins of mother-infant attachment:
a replication study. Child Development, 62, 373-384.
Isabella, R. A., Belsky, J. and von Eye, A. (1989). The
origins of infant-mother attachment: an examination
of interactional synchrony during the infant’s first year.
Developmental Psychology, 25, 12-21.
Jamieson, J. R. (in press). Teaching as transaction:
Vygotskian perspectives on deafness and mother-child
interaction. Exceptional Children.
Jones, 0. H. M. (1980). Prelinguistic communication skills
in Down’s syndrome and normal infants. InT. M. Field,
S. Goldberg, D. Stern and A. M. Sostek (Eds), High-
Risk Infants and Children:Interactions w’th Adults and Peers.
New York: Academic Press, pp. 205-226.
59
Koester, L. S. (1991). Face-to-face interactions between
hearing mothers and their deaf or hearing infants. In
K. P. Meadow-Orlans, R. H. MacTurk, P. E. Spencer
and L. S. Koester, Interaction and Support: Mothers and
Deaf Infants (Grant #MCJ-110563). Washington, DC:
Gallaudet Research Institute.
Koester, L. S. and MacTurk, R. H. (1991). Precursors of
attachment relationships in deaf and hearing infants.
Poster presented at International Society for the Study
of Behavioural Development, Minneapolis, MN.
Koester, L. S., PapouSek, H. and PapouSek, M. (1987).
Psychobiological models of infant development:
influences on the concept of intuitive parenting. In H.
Rauh and H.-Ch. Steinhausen (Eds), Psychobiology and
Early Development, Vol. 45, Advances in Psychology series.
North HollandlElsevier, pp. 275-287.
Koester, L. S., PapouSek, H. and PapouSek, M. (1989).
Patterns of rhythmic stimulation by mothers with three-
month-olds: a cross-modal comparison. International
Journal of Behavioral Development, 12(2), 143-154.
Koester, L. S. and Spencer, P. E. (1992). Early interaction
patterns and later communicative performance of deaf
infants. Poster presented at the 100th Annual
Convention of the American Psychological Association,
Washington, DC.
Koester, L. S. and Trimm, V. M. (1991). Face-to-face
interactions with deaf and hearing infants: do maternal
or infant behaviors differ? Paper presented at the
Biennial Meetings of the Society for Research in Child
Development, Seattle, WA.
Langhorst, B. and Fogel, A. (1982). Cross validation of
microanalytic approaches to face-to-face play. Paper
presented at the International Conference on Infant
Studies, Austin, TX.
Lederberg, A. (1984). Interaction between deaf
preschoolers and unfamiliar hearing adults. Child
Development, 55, 598-606.
Lederberg, A., Chapin, S., Rosenblatt, V. and Vandell,
D. (1986). Ethnic, gender, and age preferences among
deaf and hearing preschool peers. Child Development,
2, 375-386.
Lederberg, A. R. and Mobley, C. E. (1990). The effect of
hearing impairment on the quality of attachment and
mother-toddler interaction. Child Development, 61,
1596-1604.
Lederberg, A. R., Willis, M. G. and Frankel, K. H. (1991).
A longitudinal study of the effects of deafness on the
early mother-child relationship. Poster presented at the
Biennial Meetings of the Society for Research in Child
Development, Seattle, WA.
Lewis, M. and Feiring, C. (1989). Infant, mother, and
mother-infant interaction behavior and subsequent
attachment. Child Development, 60, 831-837.
MacTurk, R. H. (1993). Social and motivational develop-
ment in deaf and hearing infants. In D. J. Messer (Ed.),
Mastey Motivation:Children’s Investigation, Persistence and
Development. London: Routledge, pp. 125-137.
MacTurk, R. H., Meadow-Orlans, K. P., Koester, L. S.
and Spencer, P. E. (1993). Social support, motivation,
language, and interaction: a longitudinal study of
mothers and deaf infants. American Annals of the Deaf,
138(1), 19-25.
60
Marschark, M. (1992).Origins and interactions in social,
cognitive, and language development of deaf children.
In M. Marschark and E. Clark (Eds), Psychological
Perspectives on Deafness. Edison, NJ: Erlbaum, pp. 7-26.
Mayes, L. C. and Carter, A. S. (1990).Emerging social
regulatory capacities as seen in the still-face situation.
Child Development, 61, 754-763.
Meadow, K. P.,Greenberg, M. T. andErting, C. (1983).
Attachment behavior of deaf children with deaf parents.
Journal of the American Academy of Child Psychiatry, 22,
23-28.
Meadow, K. P., Greenberg, M. T., Erting, C. and
Carmichaei, H. (1981).Interactions of deaf mothers and
deaf preschool children: comparisons with three other
groups of deaf and hearing dyads. American Annals of
the Deaf, 126, 454-468.
Meadow-Orlans, K. P.,MacTurk, R. H., Prezioso, C. T.,
Erting, C. J. and Day, P. S. (1987).Interactions of deaf
and hearing mothers with three- and six-month-old
infants. Paper presented at the Biennial Meetings of
the Society for Research in Child Development,
Baltimore, MD.
Meadow-Orlans, K. P. and Steinberg, A. (1991).Effects
of infant hearing loss on mother-infant interactions at
eighteen months. In K. P. Meadow-Orlans, R. H.
MacTurk, P. E. Spencer and L. S. Koester, Interaction and
Support: Mothers and Deaf Znfants (Grant # MCJ-110563).
Washington, DC: Gallaudet Research Institute.
Nienhuys, T. G. and Tikotin, J. A. (1983). Pre-speech
communication in hearing and hearing-impaired
children. Journal of British Association of Teachers of the
Deaf, 6, 182-194.
PapouSek, H. and PapouSek, M. (1981).How human is
the human newborn, and what else is to be done? In
K. Bloom (Ed.), Prospective Zssues in Znfancy Research.
Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum, pp. 137-155.
PapouSek, H. and PapouSek, M. (1982). Infant-adult
social interactions: their origins, dimensions, and
failures. InT. M. Field, A. Huston, H. C. Quay, L. TrolI
and G. E. Fmley (Eds), Review of Human Development.
New York: Wiley.
PapouSek, H. and PapouSek, M. (1987). Intuitive
parenting: a dialectic counterpart to the infant’s
precocity in integrativeCapacities. In J. D. Osofsky (Ed.),
Handbook of Infant Development (2nd edn). New York:
Wiley, pp. 669-720.
PapouSek, M., PapouSek, H. andBomstein, M. H. (1985).
The naturalisticvocal environment of young infants: on
the significance of homogeneity and variability in
parental speech. In T. Field and N. Fox (Eds), Social
Perception in Infants. Norwood, NJ: Ablex.
Rawlings, 8. W. and Jensema, C. J. (1977). Two Studies
of the Families of Hearing-Zmpired Children. Series R,
Number 5.Washington, DC: Gallaudet College, Office
of Demographic Studies.
Ross, S., Cohn, J. F. and Campbell, S. B. (1991).Infant
response in the still-face predicts attachment security.
L. S. Koesfer
Presented at the Biennial Meetings of the Society for
Resarch in Child Development, Seattle, WA.
Sameroff, A. J. and Chandler, M. J. (1975).Reproductive
risk and the continuum of caretaking casualty. In
F. D. Horowitz, M. Hetherington, S. Scarr-Salapatek
and G. Siege1(Eds), Revim of Child Development Research
(Vol. 4 ) . Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
Schaffer, H. R. (1984).Face-to-face interactions. The Child’s
Entry into a Social World. London: Academic Press,
pp. 44-78.
Schaffer, H. R. (1987). The social context of
psychobiological development. In H. Rauh and H.-Ch.
Steinhausen (Eds), Psychobiology and Early Development.
Amsterdam: Elsevier, pp. 239-255.
Schlesinger, H. S. (1985).Deafness, mental health and
language. In F. Powell, T. Finitzo-Hieber, S. Firel-Patti
and D. Henderson (Eds), Education of the Hearing-
Impaired Child. San Diego, CA: College-Hill Press.
Schlesinger, H. S. and Meadow, K. P. (1972).Sound and
Sign: Childhood Deafness andMental Health. Berkeley, CA:
University of California Press.
Spencer, P. E. (1991).Mother-infant communication at
twelve and eighteen months. In K. P. Meadow-Orlans,
R. H. MacTurk, P. E. Spencer and L. S. Koester,
lnferaction and Support: Mothers and Deaf Infants (Grant
# MCJ-110563).Washington, DC: Gallaudet Research
Institute.
Spencer, P. E., Bodner-Johnson, B. A. and Gutfreund,
M. K. (1992).Interacting with infants with a hearing
loss: what can we learn from mothers who are deaf?
Journal of Early Intervention, 16, 64-78.
Stern, D. (1974).Mother and infants at play: the dyadic
interaction involving facial, vocal, and gaze behaviors.
In M. Lewis and L. Rosenblum (Eds), The Effect of the
Znfant on its Caregiver. New York: Wiley, pp. 187-213.
Tronick, E. Z. (1989). Emotions and emotional
communication in infants. American Psychologist, 44(2),
112-119.
Tronick, E. Z., Als, H., Adamson, L., Wise, S. and
Brazelton, T. 8. (1978). The infant’s response to
entrapment between contradictory messages in face-to-
face interaction. Journal of the American Academy of Child
Psychiatry, 17, 1-13.
Vaughn, B., Egeland, B., Sroufe, L. A. and Waters, E.
(1979). Individual differences in infant-mother
attachment at twelve and eighteen months: stability and
change in families under stress. Child Development, 50,
971-975.
Wedell-Monnig,J.and Lumley, J. (1980).Child deafness
and mother-child interaction. Child Development, 51,
766-774.
Wood, D. J. (1982). The linguistic experiences of the
prelingually hearing-impaired child. Journal of the British
Association of Teachers of the Deaf, 6(4), 86-93.
Wood, D. J.(1989).Social interaction as tutoring. In M.
Bornstein and J. Bruner (Eds), Interaction in Human
Development. Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum, pp. 59-80.