Featured Post from Vanderbilt University

Infant seating devices may reduce language exposure

Mar 15, 2023

3 min

Kathryn L. Humphreys

When a parent needs to cook dinner or take a shower, often they will place their baby in a bouncy seat, swing, exersaucer, or similar seating device intended to protect the baby and grant a degree of independence to both the parent and infant. For many parents, these devices represent a helpful extra set of hands; for babies, the freedom to safely explore their immediate surroundings. As useful as these devices are to both parents and infants, they may present trade-offs regarding their effect on infants’ exposure to adult language, which is critical for language development. That’s according to a new study by researchers at the Stress and Early Adversity Lab at Vanderbilt Peabody College of education and human development.



Within infants’ natural environments and daily routines, the study explored interactions between their exposure to adult language and their placement in seating devices, which support posture and promote the infant’s ability to play with objects or observe their surroundings without direct support from a caregiver. The researchers found that infants were exposed to fewer words when spending time in seating devices compared to when spending time in other placements. They also found that infants who spent the most time in seating devices heard nearly 40 percent fewer daily words compared to infants who spent the least amount of time in seating devices. Infants with more, compared to less, seating device use also had less consistent exposure to adult language throughout the day.


Sixty mothers and their 4- to 6-month-old infants participated in this study. For three days, a Language Environment Analysis audio recording device (i.e. “talk pedometer”) captured language exposure. The mothers inserted the audio recorder into the pocket of a vest their babies wore. Automated software estimated from the recordings the total number of adult words spoken to or near the infant over the course of a day. To record real-time behaviors of infant placement, the mothers responded to 12 brief surveys per day about their infant’s current location and use of seating devices. Caregiver reports of their child’s placement in seating devices accounted for 10 percent of an infant’s daily exposure to adult words, which the researchers say is a striking finding due to the complex nature of language exposure and how many other factors may influence children’s exposure to speech (e.g. caregiver’s talkativeness, presence of other siblings).


Kathryn Humphreys, assistant professor of psychology and human development and expert in infant and early childhood mental health, is the senior author of the study. She notes that infant seating devices can provide a convenient way to keep infants safely contained while caregivers attend to other tasks. However, given the potential for frequent and prolonged use of these devices, she says that parents may want to be intentional about interactive opportunities while the infant explores their surroundings as well as consider wearing or otherwise carrying their infant on their body as much as possible to create more opportunities for engagement through speech.


“While we need more research to be certain that seating devices reduce the richness of infants’ language environments, these findings are influencing my own decisions about intentional placement with my 6-month-old." - Kathryn Humphreys


Kathryn Humphreys


She suggests that safe and convenient places are a boon for both infants and their caregivers, but that there is a risk for reduced levels of interactions when infants are stationary and not moving to where their caregivers are active.


Connect with:
Kathryn L. Humphreys

Kathryn L. Humphreys

Assistant Professor of Psychology and Human Development

A clinical psychologist with expertise in infant mental health.

Tender Age Detainment CentersInfants and ToddlersOrphanagesParent Child SeparationsMigrant Youth

You might also like...

Check out some other posts from Vanderbilt University

1 min

Debate director and rhetoric expert on Biden vs. Trump presidential debate

John Koch, senior lecturer and director of debate at Vanderbilt University, is available for commentary on the presidential debate between Joe Biden and Donald Trump. A recognized scholar on presidential communication and rhetoric, John uses a wide range of methods to understand and explain political and policy debates. His research is guided by the question of how we can improve citizenship practices and debates within our political culture. He has served as chair of the National Communication Association’s Argumentation and Forensics Division and the Committee on International Discussion and Debate. John has published various book chapters on presidential rhetoric. Topics he can speak to include: What arguments to expect from the candidates What each candidate needs to do and not do in the debate How to determine who wins a debate What to watch for/what issues might come up in the debate History of presidential debates The usefulness of presidential debates and how we might improve them How adults can discuss politics and debates with their children by watching debates together After debate analysis of who may have won and what issues/moments may be salient to voters The debate styles of the candidates and their histories in debates

1 min

Arguments against the singularity - and what we should worry about instead

In a new paper, “Against the singularity hypothesis,” published in Philosophical Studies, David Thorstad, assistant professor of philosophy, examines how leading defenses of the singularity hypothesis fail to overcome the case for skepticism and provides policy implications of this discussion. Thorstad offers five reasons that arguments that computer intelligence will surpass that of humans are not substantive enough to provide reasonable cause for worry. He can discuss these findings, as well as the rationale to focus on more immediate tech and AI-related causes for concern, including misinformation, deepfakes, election interference and additional irresponsible use.

2 min

Repeatedly seeing headlines of wrongdoing reduces perception of moral offense

A study recently published in Psychological Science reveals that when people repeatedly encounter headlines about corporate wrongdoing, they view the wrongdoing as less unethical and are more likely to believe the headlines are true. Social media can cause scandalous news to go viral in an instant, and the resharing of provocative headlines ensures people repeatedly encounter these scandals. To test the effects of this repetition on moral judgement, researchers at Vanderbilt Peabody College of education and human development and the London Business School sent text messages to study participants with news headlines about corporate misconduct. The study occurred over the course of 15 days as participants engaged in their daily routines. “We often think about social media and the current digital media landscape as increasing our anger and moral outrage, but in this case, repeated exposures to corporate wrongdoings actually made people slightly less outraged about the moral offense,” said Lisa Fazio, associate professor of psychology and human development. “When we repeatedly see news of the latest viral wrongdoing on social media, we often encounter it passively, at random times of the day, and while we might be distracted by other tasks. In our research, we show that even passing encounters can shape our thoughts and emotional reactions,” said Raunak Pillai, the study’s first author and a psychology doctoral student in Fazio’s Building Knowledge Lab. The researchers found that participants rated repeated headlines of wrongdoing as significantly less unethical than new headlines–a phenomenon known as the moral repetition effect–and that participants’ anger diminished when they encountered wrongdoings described in repeated headlines versus new headlines. The less anger they felt, the less unethical they judged the wrongdoing. Likewise, wrongdoings in repeated headlines verses new headlines were rated as less unusual, which also led to judging the wrongdoing as less unethical. That said, the effect size of repetition on moral judgement diminished as participants encountered more headlines; in other words, the effects were larger from the first to the second encounter as compared to the 15th to 16th encounter. As the number of repetitions increased, the effect on moral judgement became progressively smaller. Additionally, the more frequently participants viewed a headline, the truer they thought it was (known as the illusory-truth effect). After the initial views of headlines, participants’ truth ratings rose sharply and then plateaued, suggesting that the first few encounters with a headline have the most impact on peoples’ beliefs. The findings also suggest that perceptions of misconduct as true may elicit a more lenient moral judgment, but the authors say more research is needed to confirm this effect. “The more we hear about a wrongdoing, the more we may believe it—but the less we may care,” the authors write. Fazio and Pillai collaborated with Daniel Effron, Ph.D., from the London Business School on this study.

View all posts
Powered by