Hi there, I have clearly attached 7 files: 1) Instruction 2) There are 4 articles that serves as a source that I want you to write the essay about.It should not be out of this 4 articles. 3) I have a

Email: [email protected] Funding Information This research was made possible by grant R21 MH103627 from the US Department of Health and Human Services of the National Institute of Mental Health Abstract Mobile device use has become increasingly prevalent, yet its impact on infant develop- ment remains largely unknown. When parents use mobile devices in front of infants, the parent is physically present but most likely distracted and unresponsive. Research using the classic Still Face Paradigm (SFP) suggests that parental withdrawal and unre- sponsiveness may have negative consequences for children’s social- emotional devel- opment. In the present study, 50 infants aged 7.20 to 23.60 months (M = 15.40, SD = 4.74) and their mothers completed a modified SFP. The SFP consisted of three phases:

free play (FP; parent and infant play and interact), still face (SF; parent withdraws at- tention and becomes unresponsive), and reunion (RU; parent resumes normal interac- tion). The modified SFP incorporated mobile device use in the SF phase. Parents reported on their typical mobile device use and infant temperament. Consistent with the standard SFP, infants showed more negative affect and less positive affect during SF versus FP. Infants also showed more toy engagement and more engagement with mother during FP versus SF and RU. Infants showed the most social bids during SF and more room exploration in SF than RU. More frequent reported mobile device use was associated with less room exploration and positive affect during SF, and less recovery (i.e., engagement with mother, room exploration positive affect) during RU, even when controlling for individual differences in temperament. Findings suggest that the SFP represents a promising theoretical framework for understanding the impact of par- ent’s mobile device use on infant social- emotional functioning and parent–infant interactions. RESEARCH HIGHLIGHTS • The traditional Still Face Paradigm (SFP) was modified to include mobile device use, mimicking typical disruptions in parent–infant interactions that may occur in daily life.

• Patterns of child behavior during the modified SFP mirrored those of the traditional version, with infants showing the most distress when mothers were disengaged.

• Greater habitual self-reported maternal mobile device use was as- sociated with less infant recovery upon reunion. • Findings provide support for the use of this modified paradigm as a framework for understanding the impact of parent’s mobile device use on infant social-emotional functioning and parent–infant interactions. 1 |  INTRODUCTION The exponential increase in mobile device use has transformed not only how we communicate remotely, but also how we engage in 2017 John Wiley & Sons Ltd 2 of 9  |     face- to- face interactions. Greater mobile device use in adults has been associated with mental health problems, including anxiety (Reid & Reid, 2007; Sapacz, Rockman, & Clark, 2016). However, little is known about the impact of device use on parent–infant interactions. Frequent use of mobile devices during these interactions may de- crease the quality of the social exchange by limiting opportunities for the in- the- moment emotional feedback essential for emotion regula- tion development (Field, 1994). Infant behavior during dyadic interactions can be assessed using the Still Face Paradigm (SFP; Braungart- Rieker et al., 2014; Fuertes, Santos, Beeghly, & Tronick, 2006; Montirosso, Casini et al., 2015; Montirosso, Provenzi et al., 2015; Provenzi, Borgatti, Menozzi, & Montirosso, 2015; Tronick, Als, Adamson, Wise, & Brazelton, 1978), a classic laboratory behavioral task that examines infant responses to social cues by a parent, consisting of three phases: Free Play (FP), Still Face (SF), and Reunion (RU). The FP phase serves as a baseline for par - ent–infant play, while the SF phase disrupts this interaction by making the parent cease initiating or responding to social cues, while main- taining eye gaze. Infant behavior during the SF phase is characterized by decreased positive affect and gaze, and increased negative affect (Mesman, van IJzendoorn, & Bakermans- Kranenburg, 2009). Maternal regulation of infant emotion is absent during this phase, and when bids for emotional reciprocation are not returned, the infant tends to respond with distress and confusion (Montirosso, Casini et al., 2015; Montirosso, Provenzi et al., 2015; Provenzi et al., 2015; Trevarthen, 1977). Finally, the RU phase provides an opportunity to repair subse- quent mismatches in dyadic behavior by resuming interactive play. The current study created a modified version of the classic SFP by employ- ing a novel SF phase that introduced an ecologically valid mechanism (mobile device use) that in effect may typically make parents unavail- able to infants in daily life. Infant behavior during the SFP is related to broader patterns of emo- tional and social well- being, with greater positive affect and social bids during the SF phase predicting secure attachment (Braungart- Rieker et al., 2014; Fuertes et al., 2006; Kiser, Bates, Maslin, & Bayles, 1986; Tronick, Ricks, & Cohn, 1982). In addition, infant individual differences are related to their behavior during the SFP. For example, infants with greater parent- rated temperamental negative affectivity showed re- duced self- comforting during SF, potentially blunting regulation and re- covery during RU (Braungart- Rieker, Garwood, Powers, & Notaro, 1998; Mesman et al., 2009). In addition, Rothbart, Ziaie, and O’Boyle (1992) found that self- regulatory behaviors during the task were related to in- fant temperament. For example, activity level was negatively related to oral self- soothing, fear scores were positively related to inhibited reach and negatively related to approach, and attention disengagement was negatively related to distress and positively related to positive affect. A large body of research has also established the SFP as an ana- log for dyadic interactions between a depressed mother and her child (Field, 1994; Field et al., 2007). In one study, the SF phase elicited less distress in infants of depressed mothers compared to controls (Field et al., 2007), potentially since this lack of emotional responsiveness tends to be more habitual in day- to- day interactions for infants of de- pressed mothers. Several studies have modified components of the classic SFP.

In one study, modifications included mothers wearing masks while maintaining eye contact and vocal interactions with their children, or drinking from a bottle while maintaining eye contact and a neutral, unresponsive face. Infants only displayed negative affect in response to the traditional still face but not to the modified versions (Legerstee & Markova, 2007), suggesting that infants may have interpreted the mothers’ unresponsiveness differently when tied to a novel behavior. In another study using a modified SF phase in which mothers played with another infant, 6- month- old infants responded with heightened sadness and interest that exceeded that of the traditional SFP (Hart, Carrington, Tronick, & Carroll, 2004). A third study modified the tradi- tional SFP for use with toddlers by using the same three phases, but placing them in the middle of a longer mother–child free play session (Weinberg, Beeghly, Olson, & Tronick, 2008). Toddlers showed similar response patterns as infants, including the classic still face effect, but also exhibited a wider array of responses, including vocalizations that expressed an effort to understand the reason for the mother’s unre- sponsiveness. Thus, Weinberg and colleagues (2008) demonstrated that the SFP can be used to examine behavior across a wider age range than previously examined. Similar to the key components of the classic SFP, parent mobile de- vice use in front of infants causes the parents to be physically present but putatively distracted and unresponsive. While mobile device use is pervasive, only two studies to date have investigated how engage- ment with devices may interfere with parent–child interactions. One study found that during a structured interaction task, maternal mobile device use was common and associated with fewer mother–child in- teractions (Radesky et al., 2015). In a descriptive observational study, Radesky and colleagues (2014) found that parents who were deeply absorbed in mobile device use during meal times tended to respond to child bids for attention in insensitive or aggressive ways. However, no study to date has examined how infant social and emotional behavior is influenced by parental device use during dyadic interactions. The first aim of the current study is to establish whether a mod- ified SFP that incorporates maternal mobile device use could serve as an analog to the original SFP, probing the impact of distracted or unresponsive parents on child socioemotional behavior. Specifically, given that mobile device use may mimic the social and emotional dis- engagement present in the classic SFP, we predict that there will be greater negative affect, and less positive affect, during the SF phase, compared to the FP and RU phases. Also, we predict that dyadic interaction will resume upon the RU phase, with infants showing more engagement with mother in the RU phase compared to the SF phase. Second, we aim to examine whether or not maternal device use habits predict individual differences in infant behavior during the SFP. Specifically, based on research using the SFP with infants and depressed mothers (Field et al., 2007), we hypothesize that habitual device use will be associated with less negative responses from infants in the SF phase. That is, mothers who frequently use devices, particularly in front of their family and infants, may habit- ually show a lack of emotional responsiveness during interactions, making their infant more accustomed to such disruptions and thus MYRUSKI ET AL.      |  3 of 9 eliciting less distress. Third, based on previous studies suggesting that temperament may make infants more sensitive to the still face disruption (Braungart- Rieker et al., 1998), we predicted that infants high in negative affect would show greater disruption during the SF and less re- engagement during the RU.

2 | METHOD 2.1 | Participants Fifty infants (25 female) ages 7.20 to 23.60 months (M = 15.40, SD = 4.74) 1 participated in a modified SFP with their mothers. Forty- five (90.0%) parents reported their infant’s ethnicity as White/Non- Hispanic, three (6.0 %) reported Hispanic, three (6.0 %) reported Asian/Pacific Islander, one (2.0 %) reported African- American, and one (2.0 %) reported Native American. All infants were born within 2 weeks of their due date, reported no major health complications, and were within normal birthweight ranges ( M = 7.53 lb, SD = 1.14). 2.2 | Materials 2.2.1 | The modified SFP Infants and their mothers participated in a modified SFP (Tronick et al., 1978), which consisted of three phases: a free play phase (FP; 5 minutes), during which mother and infant interacted as they naturally would during play time; a still face phase (SF; 2 minutes), during whi\ ch an alarm signaled the mother to pick up a mobile device (iPod touch), interact only with the device, withdraw attention from their infant, be- come unresponsive, and allow their infant to play on their own; and a reunion phase (RU; 1 minute; signaled by a knock on a window), during which the mothers stopped using the device and resumed interacting with their infant as they did during FP. This modified SFP altered the protocol of the original SFP by instructing mothers to use a mobile de- vice during SF, allowing infants to move around freely instead of con- fining them to a high chair, and allowing infants to have access to toys\ throughout the task. We also varied the durations for each of the three SFP phases. A key difference between the modified SFP and the origi- nal SFP is that we did not require mothers to maintain eye contact while\ avoiding any communication with infants, which was a feature present in the original SFP. These modifications were intended to increase the ecological validity of the SFP by including features that more closely mimicked scenarios that may arise in everyday life.

2.2.2  | Behavioral coding The SFP was video- recorded and scored by three reliable raters.

Reliability was computed across 20% of participants using Cohen’s kappa, and ranged from .71 to .98 (M = .85, SD = .03). Presence or ab- sence of each behavior (0, 1) was coded in 15 second epochs. Average scores were computed (number of epochs each behavior was per- formed divided by total number of behaviors) for each phase (FP, SF, RU) to account for individual differences between children who showed generally higher and lower behavioral frequencies overall. Behaviors performed by at least 25% of infants in at least one phase were selected for analyses (negative affect, positive affect, toy engagement, engage- ment with mother, social bid, room exploration; Table 1). 2 2.2.3  | Questionnaires Parents self- reported their mobile device use including habitual de- vice use frequency per day [(1) less than 30 min; (2) 1 hour; (3) 1–3 hours; (4) 3–5 hours], use in front of family, and use in front of infant [(1) do not use in presence; (2) less than 30 min; (3) 1 hour; (4) 1–3 hours; (5) 3–5 hours], as well as the total number of communication types used (e. g. texting, email, etc.). Participants also completed the Revised Infant Behavior Questionnaire Short Form [IBQ- R; (Putnam, Helbig, Gartstein, Rothbart, & Leerkes, 2014); n = 11] or the Toddler Behavior Assessment Questionnaire [TBAQ; (Goldsmith, 1996); n = 39]. The IBQ- R is a parent- report measure of infant temperament for ages 4–12 months and consists of 91 items about infant behaviors in the past week on a 7- point Likert- type scale. The TBAQ is a parent- report measure of infant temperament for ages 12–24 months and consists of 110 items about infant behaviors in the past month on a 7- point Likert- type scale. To examine temperament across the entire age range of the cur - rent sample, within- questionnaire z- scores were computed and IBQ- R and TBAQ subscales were combined. Independent samples t tests found no significant differences in temperament (z- scores) between Infant behaviorDescription Negative affect Negative expressions or vocalizations; infant protesting, or withdrawn. Must display negative facial expressions.

Positive affect Displaying facial expressions of joy particularly smiles or vocalizations with a positive tone.

Engagement with toy or other object Playing with the toys provided or in room or playing with non- toy objects, such as the chair.

Engagement with mother Playing with or engaging with the parent (except if parent is ignoring infant for the still face phase, then it is a social bid).

Social bid Making an attempt to get the attention of the parent physically or vocally, either in a negative way or positive or neutral way.

Room exploration Playing with objects around the room or exploring the room in an attention- seeking manner or in a manner designed to not engage the caregiver.

TABLE 1 Coding scheme for infant behaviors during the still face paradigm MYRUSKI ET AL. 4 of 9  |     infants whose parents completed the infant (IBQ) or toddler (TBAQ) version of the questionnaire (ps > .10). Subscales represented on both versions of the questionnaire that captured characteristics relevant to behavior during the SFP were examined: activity level, approach/in- terest, attentional control (duration and orienting from IBQ- R and ap- propriate attentional allocation from TBAQ), and negative affectivity (higher order subscale consisting of fear, sadness, distress to limitation, and falling reactivity).

2.3 | Procedure This study was approved by the institutional review board of the Pennsylvania State University. Parents and infants participated in either one (2.5 hour duration) or two (to prevent infant fatigue; 1.5 hour duration) lab visits, as part of a larger study. Following informed consent, parents completed questionnaires reporting their infant’s temperament and demographics. Participants then completed the modified SFP task with their infant (approximately 8 minutes). The modified SFP task was video- recorded to allow for observation of in- fant behaviors. Participants were compensated with $50 and infants received a T- shirt with the lab logo. 3 | RESULTS 3.1 | Descriptive statistics Descriptive statistics for infant behavior during the SFP, maternal de- vice use, and infant temperament are presented in Tables 2–4. Pearson correlations were conducted to examine associations between infant age and sex relative to other study variables. Infant age was normally distributed, and there were an even number of males and females in the sample. There were no differences be- tween males and females in child temperament (p s > .10), maternal mobile device use habits (p s > .10), or infant behaviors during the SFP (p s > .10). Older infants showed more engagement with mother during FP (r = .46, p = .001), and infant age was positively correlated with attentional control (r = .34, p = .02) and approach/interest (r = .42, p = .003). Infant age was not significantly correlated with ma- ternal mobile device use (p s > .10). Although there were only limited relations between infant age and other measures, due to the wide age range of the sample, age was included as a covariate in subse- quent analyses to control for the potential influence of developmen- tal stage on observed behaviors (e.g., greater mobility, verbal skills in older infants).

3.2 | Analytic plan First, as a manipulation check, we examined within- subject differ- ences in behaviors across the three phases of the SFP to confirm that the parameters of the task elicited varying levels of child behaviors.

Second, a series of regressions were conducted to examine the main research question regarding the relationship between maternal device use and infant behavior in the SFP.

TABLE 2 Descriptive statistics for SFP behaviors Behavior MinMaxMean (SD) Free play phase Negative affect .00.80.07 (.16) Positive affect .001.00 .29 (.25) Toy engagement .151.00 .92 (.15) Engagement with mother .00 1.00 .68 (.26) Room exploration .00.95.44 (.29) Still face phase Negative affect .00.78.17 (.24) Positive affect .00.57.06 (.12) Toy engagement .201.00 .82 (.22) Social bid .001.00 .26 (.27) Room exploration .001.00 .50 (.31) Reunion phase Negative affect .001.00 .10 (.20) Positive affect .001.00 .21 (.27) Toy engagement .001.00 .70 (.41) Engagement with mother .00 1.00 .63 (.38) Room exploration .001.00 .32 (.37) Maternal device use MinMaxMean (SD) How often do you use your device(s)? 152.74 (.97) Do you use your device(s) in the presence of family members? If so, how often? 2 52.92 (.80) Do you use your device(s) in the presence of your baby? If so, how often? 2 42.54 (.68) Communication types 81410.34 (1.24) Note . Response scale for device use frequency (per day) = (1) less than 30 min; (2) 1 hour; (3) 1–3 hours; (4) 3–5 hours; (5) more than 5 hours.

Response scale for use in front of family and baby (per day) = (1) do not use in presence; (2) less than 30 min; (3) 1 hour; (4) 1–3 hours; (5) 3–5 hours. TABLE 3 Descriptive statistics for maternal device use MYRUSKI ET AL.      |  5 of 9 3.3 | Infant behavior during still face paradigm To examine differences across the phases of the SFP, repeated- measures ANCOVAs were conducted separately for each behavior (negative affect, positive affect, toy engagement, engagement with mother, social bids, room exploration) with age in months as a co- variate, and Phase (FP, SF, RU) as a within- subjects factor (Figure 1).

Bonferroni correction was used to control for multiple comparisons in post- hoc paired- samples t tests (adjusted p = .017).

Affect: Mirroring the effects of the traditional SFP, infants showed more negative affect during SF versus FP, [t (49) = 2.98, p = .004; F(2, 96) = 5.67, p = .005, ƞ p2= .11]. In contrast, infants showed less positive affect during SF versus FP [t (49) = −7.14, p < .001] and RU [ t(49) = −3.85, p < . 001; F (2, 96) = 23.11, p < .001, ƞ p2 = .33]. Positive affect was also greater during FP in comparison to RU [t (49) = 2.64, p = .011].

Toy engagement: Infants showed more toy engagement in FP com pared to SF [t (49) = 3.37, p = .001] and RU [t(49) = 2.16, p < .001; F(2, 96) = 11.25, p < .001, ƞ p2 = .19].

Social behaviors: Infants also showed less engagement with mother during SF compared to FP [t(49) = −17.64, p < .001] and RU [t(49) = −11.37, p < .001; F(2, 96) = 117.83, p < .001, ƞ p2 = .71]. Social bids were used more in SF compared to FP [t(49) = 6.76, p < .001] and RU [t(49) = 5.51, p < .001; F(2, 98) = 37.70, p < .001, ƞ p 2 = .44].

Exploration: Finally, infants explored the room less in RU compared to SF [t(49) = −3.50, p = .001; F(2, 98) = 6.89, p = .002, ƞ p 2 = .13]. 3.4 | Infant temperament and behavior during still face paradigm To identify covariates for regression analyses, infant temperament was examined in relation to mobile device use and child behavior dur- ing the SFP. Pearson correlations revealed that infants with greater parent- reported negative affectivity showed less engagement with mother during FP (r = −.31, p = .03), and less room exploration during RU (r = −.30, p = .03). Infants with greater parent- reported activity level expressed more negative affect during SF (r = .29, p = .04). Infants with greater approach/interest engaged in more room exploration during SF ( r = .32, p = .03). 3.5 | Maternal mobile device use and infant behavior during still face paradigm Associations between self- report of maternal mobile device use and behavior during the SFP were examined using linear regressions as follows: 1st step = age, sex, and infant temperament variables (nega- tive affectivity, activity level, approach/interest); 2nd step = maternal device use (separately for mobile device use variable: overall habitual use, use in front of family, use in front of infant); DV = infant behavior during SFP, separately for each phase. Infant temperamental variables were included as covariates since they correlated with infant behavior.

The Benjamini- Hochberg correction (Benjamini & Hochberg, 1995) was applied to correct for multiple comparisons for each phase. 3 This procedure, which involves ranking p- values and accounts for the number of tests conducted, was applied separately to each family of regressions (i.e., separately for each SFP phase), since this correction approach assumes independence of samples. All p-values reported below are raw, and were significant using a false discovery rate crite - rion of 0.25 which is recommended for research questions that are a first, relatively exploratory step (Benjamini & Hochberg, 1995). Based on these parameters, raw p- values less than approximately .085 were considered significant. 3.5.1  | Free play phase Maternal mobile device use did not significantly predict infant behav- ior during the SFP ( ps > .10).

3.5.2 | Still face phase Greater habitual device use was associated with less room exploration [β = −.39, t(49) = −2.70, p = .01; Figure 2], and more frequent device Temperament Questionnaire Subscale Measure usedNMin MaxMean (SD) Attentional control z- Score50−1.87 1.80 – IBQ 112.25 5.273.49 (0.99) TBAQ 392.13 5.313.77(0.88) Activity level z- Score50−2.10 2.49 – IBQ 113.935.674.67 (0.62) TBAQ 392.676.104.24 (0.75) Approach/interest z- Score50−1.94 1.68 – IBQ 113.70 6.755.27(1.03) TBAQ 391.60 5.003.42(0.94) Negative affectivity z- Score50−1.71 3.06 – IBQ 113.264.563.93(0.44) TBAQ 392.16 5.033.26(0.66) TABLE 4 Descriptive Statistics for Temperament Questionnaire Subscales MYRUSKI ET AL. 6 of 9  |     use in front of infant was associated with less positive affect [β = −.35, t(49) = −2.37, p = .022].

3.5.3  | Reunion phase Greater habitual device use [β = −.38, t(49) = −2.55, p = .014], and more specifically greater use in front of infant [β = −.29, t(49) = −2.05, p = .047], was associated with less room exploration. Greater habitual device use [β = −.30, t(49) = −1.96, p = .057], as well as use in front of infant [β = −.29, t(49) = −1.95, p = .057], was marginally associated with less positive affect. Greater habitual device use [β = −.36, t(49) = −2.54, p = .015; Figure 3], more use in front of family [β = −.25, t(49) = −1.79, p = .081], as well as more use in front of infant [β = −.28, t(49) = −2.03, p = .048], was associated with less engagement with mother during this phase. 4 |  DISCUSSION Since infants tend to respond to maternal unresponsiveness during the SF phase with distress (Trevarthen, 1977), the SF phase is char- acterized by a decrease in positive affect and an increase in negative affect (Mesman et al., 2009). Consistent with the extant literature, the modified SFP using a mobile device in the current study produced robust differential patterns of infant behavior between the three phases. Infants expressed increased negative affect in the SF versus FP, as well as decreased positive affect and engagement with mother in SF versus both FP and RU. Infants also increased social bids dur- ing the SF in an attempt to obtain their caregiver’s attention. Infants displayed more toy engagement during FP versus the other phases, likely due to the fact that infants were adjusting to the new environ- ment and parents aided in toy engagement when they were available to interact, whereas during RU infants were preoccupied with re- engaging with the parent and they lacked scaffolding for play during SF. Finally, infants explored the room less in RU compared to SF, pos- sibly because they were more focused on reuniting with their mother following the SF phase. In fact, as predicted, infant engagement with mother increased significantly between the SF and RU phases. Two- way engagement was greater in FP and RU when the rules of the task allowed for it, whereas social bids were greater when the parent was unavailable during SF. These observed patterns illustrate that the modified SFP may act as a potentially analogous paradigm to the origi- nal SFP and can be used to understand the implications of maternal device use on infant social- emotional functioning.

Results of the current study also indicated that individual differ - ences in infant temperament contribute to behavior during the SFP phases. Infants with higher parent- reported temperamental negative affectivity engaged less with their caregiver during FP. During RU, in- fants with higher negative affectivity displayed less room exploration, indicating less recovery. This is consistent with findings that infants high in negative affectivity showed less emotion regulation during SF, blunting recovery during RU (Braungart- Rieker et al., 1998; Mesman et al., 2009). During SF, infants with greater activity level scores showed more negative affect. It is possible that it is more challenging for more active infants to deal with their nonresponsive parent, result - ing in increased negative affect. Finally, infants with greater approach/ interest scores showed more room exploration during SF. Increased approach and interest scores may be related to decreased fear (Buss, 2011; Rothbart et al., 1992) and increased curiosity about the environ- ment, resulting in increased room exploration. An important goal of the current study was to examine the impact of maternal device use on infant emotion regulation and parent–in- fant interactions. Although previous research suggests that physical FIGURE 1 Infant behavior significantly differed across the three phases of the still face paradigm. Notably, the still face phase elicited greater negative affect, but less positive affect Negative Affec t Positive Affect Toy Engagemen t Engagement with Mothe r Social Bid Room Exploration 0.0 0.5 1.0 Ch ild Behavior by during the Still Face Paradig m Frequency Still Fa ce Reun ion Freepl ay ** * *** *** * * ** *** *** *** *** * ** FIGURE 2 Greater parental device use predicts less infant room exploration during the still face phase, while controlling for infant temperament MYRUSKI ET AL.      |  7 of 9 and emotional unavailability may decrease the quality of the social exchange (Field, 1994), no study has examined the effect of maternal device use on infant behavior and emotion regulation. The results of the current study suggest that greater maternal mobile use is associ- ated with behavior patterns across the SFP phases, even when infant temperamental traits are taken into account. Contrary to predictions, infants of mothers who frequently used devices did not show less neg- ative affect, or more positive affect, during the SF phase. We did note decreased room exploration during SF and RU as a function of greater habitual use, indicating that these infants were not unaffected by the disruption. These findings may suggest that parental habitual device use may be associated with an infant’s ability to adjust to their envi- ronment and highlight the need for future research in this area. Importantly, during RU, greater habitual device use was associated with less positive affect, less engagement with mother, and less room exploration. The RU phase is crucial in that it provides an opportunity for the parent and infant to reconnect. However, the current study showed that with greater habitual device use, the reunion between mother and infant was not as successful. Consistent with previous re- search showing that greater parental mobile device use was related to less interaction with children (Radesky et al., 2015), and insensitive or aggressive parent responses to social bids (Radesky et al., 2014), the current findings suggest that frequent habitual device use may reduce the successful repair of interactions following disruptions. These results highlight the importance of research surrounding parental device use and its impact on both infant emotional regulation development and the quality of social exchange in parent–infant interactions. The modified SFP represents a promising theoretical framework for this research. Although the results from the current study confirm the find- ings that parental mobile device use is associated with infant social- emotional functioning and parent–infant interactions, some limitations should be noted. First, the age range included in the current study was relatively wide, encompassing developmental stages with vary- ing levels of mobility, language ability, and understanding of others’ intentions. For these reasons, age was included as a covariate in all main analyses. Age did not significantly alter the pattern of results when examining either infant behaviors across stages or relations be- tween maternal device use and infant behavior. Although the current findings represent a crucial starting point and previous studies have illustrated that the SFP can be used across a wide age range (Weinberg et al., 2008), future studies must investigate smaller age ranges and/ or track changes longitudinally across early childhood to more con- cretely understand when and how maternal device use impacts social- emotional development. Also, the current study lacked a comparison group or comparison condition exposed to the classic SFP at the same age. Future studies should aim to address this gap to establish if the two versions elicit similar patterns of behavior in the same child. In addition, contrary to the classic SFP, in the modified SFP with a mobile device, toys were freely available, infant mobility was not restricted, and mothers were not instructed to maintain eye contact during SF. Importantly, these variations included in the modified SFP more closely resemble real- life parent–child interactions involving disruptions in social- emotional communication, thus increasing the ecological validity of this paradigm. Due to these differences, the cur - rent SF may have elicited overall lower levels of negative affect versus other behaviors as compared to the classic SF (Braungart- Rieker et al., 2014; Fuertes et al., 2006; Montirosso, Casini et al., 2015; Montirosso, Provenzi et al., 2015; Provenzi et al., 2015). This difference in negative affect frequency could also be due to differences in coding methods used (e.g., 30 second epochs versus second- by- second microanalysis).

It also may be that infants are more accustomed to disruptions due to mobile device use and thus were not as distressed as they would be by the classic SFP. These subtle, low- level expressions of negative affect might be common among children whose parents habitually and fre- quently use mobile devices, and future research should examine their function, such as serving to re- engage the parent or express distress.

An additional limitation is that the response scale for parental mo- bile device use only went from (1) less than 30 minutes per day to (5) FIGURE 3 Greater parent device use was associated with less infant positive affect (left) and engagement with mother (right) during the reunion phase, while controlling for temperament, suggesting reduced recovery following disruption in parent–infant interaction MYRUSKI ET AL. 8 of 9  |     greater than 5 hours per day for three contexts: general device use frequency, use in front of family, and use in front of their infant. Future research should track device use in real time or complete in- home be- havioral observations to observe how often parents use their device and how the infant reacts. This would provide a better understanding of how parent device use and how familiarity with a device may impact an infant’s responses. It would also be beneficial to track infant social- emotional functioning over time to determine whether device use has a long- term impact on emotion regulation development.

Finally, it is important to note that the durations of the three phases were altered from the original SFP. Similar to previous studies (Weinberg et al., 2008), an extended free play phase was included to allow dyads enough time to adjust to the room in which they had the freedom to move at will, in contrast to the classic SFP. However, the most notable shortcoming of the current SFP design was that the re- union phase was only 1 minute long. Despite this short time- period, infants exhibited patterns of behavior suggesting dyadic interaction repair (e.g., increase in engagement with mother), as well as significant individual differences in recovery behaviors, which related to mobile device use habits. This suggests that, while this short RU phase may not be ideal, it was sufficient to detect notable patterns of infant be- havior and lays the groundwork for subsequent investigations. Future studies should extend this phase to observe recovery over a longer pe- riod, and track individual differences in recovery trajectories in relation to patterns of daily device use. The modified SFP used in the current study may represent a fruitful method for examining the use of digital devices in parent–child rela- tionships in a controlled, yet ecologically valid manner. Taken together, results suggest that parental device use influences the quality of par - ent–infant interactions, and highlight the need for continued research on the role of technology in infant social- emotional development.

ENDNOTES 1 The current sample was a subsample taken from a larger study examin- ing broader patterns of socioemotional functioning in the first 2 years of life (LoBue, Buss, Taber- Thomas, & Pérez- Edgar, 2017; Morales et al., 2017; Pérez-Edgar, Morales, LoBue, Taber-Thomas, Allen, Brown, & Buss, in press).

2 The distributions for some of the observed behaviors were significantly positively or negatively skewed. However, these skewed behaviors would be expected to be used either extremely frequently or infre- quently due to the nature of the paradigm (e.g., task parameters would not be expected to elicit social bids from children during free play or reunion). These skewed behaviors were included in the repeated- measures analyses only, in order to track differences in behavior fre- quency across the three phases.

3 Bonferroni correction for multiple comparisons was used in the analyses of covariance reported above, since Benjamini- Hochberg is not recommended for within- subject tests (Benjamini & Hochberg, 1995).

REFERENCES Benjamini, Y., & Hochberg, Y. (1995). Controlling the false discovery rate: A practical and powerful approach to multiple testing. Journal of the Royal Statistical Society. Series B (Methodological), 57, 289–300. Braungart-Rieker, J., Garwood, M.M., Powers, B.P., & Notaro, P.C. (1998). Infant affect and affect regulation during the still- face paradigm with mothers and fathers: The role of infant characteristics and parental sensitivity. Developmental Psychology, 34, 1428.

Braungart-Rieker, J.M., Zentall, S., Lickenbrock, D.M., Ekas, N.V., Oshio, T., & Planalp, E. (2014). Attachment in the making: Mother and father sen- sitivity and infants’ responses during the still- face paradigm. Journal of Experimental Child Psychology, 125, 63–84.

Buss, K.A. (2011). Which fearful toddlers should we worry about? Context, fear regulation, and anxiety risk. Developmental Psychology, 47, 804–819.

Field, T. (1994). The effects of mother’s physical and emotional unavail- ability on emotion regulation. Monographs of the Society for Research in Child Development, 59, 208–227.

Field, T., Hernandez-Reif, M., Diego, M., Feijo, L., Vera, Y., Gil, K., & Sanders, C. (2007). Still- face and separation effects on depressed mother–in- fant interactions. Infant Mental Health Journal, 28, 314–323.

Fuertes, M., Santos, P.L.d., Beeghly, M., & Tronick, E. (2006). More than ma- ternal sensitivity shapes attachment. Annals of the New York Academy of Sciences, 1094, 292–296.

Goldsmith, H. (1996). Studying temperament via construction of the Toddler Behavior Assessment Questionnaire. Child Development, 67, 218–235.

Hart, S.L., Carrington, H.A., Tronick, E., & Carroll, S.R. (2004). When infants lose exclusive maternal attention: Is it jealousy? Infancy, 6, 57–78.

Kiser, L.J., Bates, J.E., Maslin, C.A., & Bayles, K. (1986). Mother–infant play at six months as a predictor of attachment security at thirteen months.

Journal of the American Academy of Child Psychiatry, 25, 68–75.

Legerstee, M., & Markova, G. (2007). Intentions make a difference: Infant responses to still- face and modified still- face conditions. Infant Behavior and Development, 30, 232–250.

LoBue, V., Buss, K.A., Taber-Thomas, B.C., & Pérez-Edgar, K. (2017). Developmental differences in infants’ attention to social and nonsocial threats. Infancy, 22, 403–415.

Mesman, J., van IJzendoorn, M.H., & Bakermans-Kranenburg, M.J. (2009). The many faces of the still- face paradigm: A review and meta- analysis. Developmental Review, 29, 120–162.

Montirosso, R., Casini, E., Provenzi, L., Putnam, S.P., Morandi, F., Fedeli, C., & Borgatti, R. (2015). A categorical approach to infants’ individual differ- ences during the still- face paradigm. Infant Behavior and Development, 38, 67–76.

Montirosso, R., Provenzi, L., Tavian, D., Morandi, F., Bonanomi, A., Missaglia, S., & Borgatti, R. (2015). Social stress regulation in 4- month- old infants:

Contribution of maternal social engagement and infants’ 5- HTTLPR genotype. Early Human Development, 91, 173–179.

Morales, S., Brown, K.M., Taber-Thomas, B.C., LoBue, V., Buss, K.A., & Pérez-Edgar, K.E. (2017). Maternal anxiety predicts attentional bias towards threat in infancy. Emotion (Washington, DC), 17, 874–883.

Pérez-Edgar, K., Morales, S., LoBue, V., Taber-Thomas, B.C., Allen, E.K., Brown, K.M., & Buss, K.A. (in press). The impact of negative affect on attention patterns to threat across the first two years of life.

Developmental Psychology.

Provenzi, L., Borgatti, R., Menozzi, G., & Montirosso, R. (2015). A dynamic system analysis of dyadic flexibility and stability across the Face- to- Face Still- Face procedure: Application of the State Space Grid. Infant Behavior and Development, 38, 1–10.

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. Journal of Personality Assessment, 96, 445–458.

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, e843–e849.

MYRUSKI ET AL.      |  9 of 9 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. Academic Pediatrics, 15, 238–244.

Reid, D.J., & Reid, F.J. (2007). Text or talk? Social anxiety, loneliness, and divergent preferences for cell phone use. CyberPsychology & Behavior, 10, 424–435.

Rothbart, M.K., Ziaie, H., & O’Boyle, C.G. (1992). Self- regulation and emo- tion in infancy. New Directions for Child and Adolescent Development, 55, 7–23.

Sapacz, M., Rockman, G., & Clark, J. (2016). Are we addicted to our cell phones? Computers in Human Behavior, 57, 153–159.

Trevarthen, C. (1977). Descriptive analyses of infant communicative be- havior. In H.R. Schaffer (Ed.), Studies in mother–infant interaction (pp.

227–270). London: Academic Press.

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. Journal of the American Academy of Child Psychiatry, 17, 1–13.

Tronick, E.Z., Ricks, M., & Cohn, J.F. (1982). Maternal and infant affective exchange: Patterns of adaptation. In T. Field & A. Fogel (Eds.), Emotion and early interaction (pp. 83–100). London: LEA.

Weinberg, M.K., Beeghly, M., Olson, K.L., & Tronick, E. (2008). A still- face par- adigm for young children: 2½ year- olds’ reactions to maternal unavailabil- ity during the still- face. Journal of Developmental Processes, 3, 4–22.

How to cite this article: Myruski S, Gulyayeva O, Birk S, Pérez-Edgar K, Buss KA, Dennis-Tiwary TA. Digital disruption? Maternal mobile device use is related to infant social- emotional functioning. Dev Sci. 2018;21:e12610. https://doi.

org/10.1111/desc.12610 MYRUSKI ET AL. Copyright ofDevelopmental Scienceisthe property ofWiley- Blackwell anditscontent may not becopied oremailed tomultiple sitesorposted toalistserv without thecopyright holder's express writtenpermission. However,usersmayprint, download, oremail articles for individual use.