Table 3.

Conditional Effects of Self- and Interactive Contingency

Modality Pairings	Infant I → I / M → I		Mother M → M / I → M
	r	p	r	p
(1) M Gaze – I Gaze	−.435	.336	.287	.361
(2) M Fce A – I Fce A	−.373	.013*	−.431	.030*
(3) M Fce A – I Vocal Affect	−.062	.699	−.495	.011*
(4) M Engagement - I Engagement	−.075	.909	−.686	.001**
(5) M Touch – I Engagement	−.375	.049*	-----	-----
(6) M Touch – I Vocal Affect	.048	.805	−.824a	.056a
(7) M Touch – I Touch	−.464	.115	−.249	.158
(8) M Spatial – I Head	−.852	.001**	−.416	.011*

^*p< .05,

^**p< .01

Note.

1. Entries are conditional effects of dyad-by-dyad levels of self-contingency (e.g. M → M) and interactive contingency (e.g. I → M), in a set of modality-specific pairings listed (1) to (8). For ease of interpretations, conditional effects are presented as correlations, taken from the random effects model of the best-fit two-level multilevel models; p-values are taken from tests of the covariance of these two effects.

2. Abbreviations are as follows: Facial Affect (Fce A), Spatial Orientation (Spatial), Head orientation (Head).

2. M → M/I → M indicates the correlation between self- and interactive contingency for mothers. For example, in the pairing M Fce A → I Fce A, the value -.431 represents the correlation of M Fce A → M Fce A self-contingency with I Fce A → M Fce A interactive contingency.

4. All significant estimates of the conditional effects of self- and interactive contingency are negative, indicating a negative or inverse association between self and other contingency. Thus, for example above, mothers who had higher facial self-contingency tended to have lower contingency with infant facial affect, and vice versa.

5. ---- indicates the correlation could not be computed (the variance of I Eng → M Tch = zero).

^aThe correlation of −.824 seems substantial, but it is not interpretable. Both self- and interactive contingency had such little variance that the correlation is not meaningful.