Interactive devices of two‐year‐old dyads: A twin and nontwin comparison∗

This research was supported in part by NIMH grant number MH30996, a Rackham Graduate School Faculty Research Grant, and a Guggenheim Fellowship to M. Shatz and a USPHS predoctoral training grant 5732 HD07109 to D. Billman. We thank Pamela Waterman, Katheleen Vakalo, Jane Remler, Perry Gilmore, and Susan Livingston for assistance in collecting, transcribing, and coding data; Henry M. Wellman and Louise C. Wilkinson for comments on an earlier version of the manuscript; and J. Keith Smith and Alex C. Wilkinson for statistical advice.

Abstract

We report here a new method for analyzing patterns of dyad interaction. The method is used to describe the free play of one twin dayd and one nontwin dyad at similar levels of language development who were videotaped twice when the subjects were in their third year. Interactive sequences and their component turns were identified. Microanalysis of all interactive sequences examined both the behavior mode used in each turn (utterance or action) and the form of relationship each turn had to the partner (repetition, complementary, or loosely related). The interactive consequences of different forms of turns were explored by studying the sequential patterns of turns. Using our detailed coding of mode and form to compare dyads, we explored the question of whether repetition is an important interactive device used by each young peer dyad. Our twins made extensive use of repetition, but our nontwins did not. They used repetition less than the twins, and its interactive consequences differed. We suggest two factors which may be important for determining the extent to which repetition will be used by different dyads: the similarity of the dyad members and the suitability of repetition for carrying out interactive functions favored by the dyad.

Notes

This research was supported in part by NIMH grant number MH30996, a Rackham Graduate School Faculty Research Grant, and a Guggenheim Fellowship to M. Shatz and a USPHS predoctoral training grant 5732 HD07109 to D. Billman. We thank Pamela Waterman, Katheleen Vakalo, Jane Remler, Perry Gilmore, and Susan Livingston for assistance in collecting, transcribing, and coding data; Henry M. Wellman and Louise C. Wilkinson for comments on an earlier version of the manuscript; and J. Keith Smith and Alex C. Wilkinson for statistical advice.