Evidence map›Paper›PMID 40846659›Full record

ArticleInfancy : the official journal of the International Society on Infant Studies

Cross-Cultural Similarities and Differences in the Development of Infants' Positive Reactivity.

Helen Wefers, Nils Schuhmacher, Joscha Kärtner

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Infancy : the official journal of the International Society on Infant Studies. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
1citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

1 citing paper in PubMed.

  1. Cross-Cultural Similarities and Differences in the Development of Infants' Positive Reactivity.Infancy : the official journal of the International Society on Infant Studies
    Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

3 authors.

Helen WefersDepartment of Psychology, University of Münster, Münster, Germany.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0001-8245-701X
Nils SchuhmacherDepartment of Psychology, University of Münster, Münster, Germany.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-3927-2447
Joscha KärtnerDepartment of Psychology, University of Münster, Münster, Germany.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0003-4139-5339

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

To investigate the development of positive affect during early infancy across cultures, we conducted a joyful affect-eliciting dyadic face-to-face interaction between a female experimenter and 3- and 4.5-month-old infants from Münster (urban Germany; n = 20 at 3 months, n = 20 at 4.5 months) and indigenous Kichwa families from the Andean context (rural Ecuador; n = 24 at 3 months, n = 27 at 4.5 months), which differ in their ethnotheories about infants' ideal affect. Results pointed to cross-cultural differences in infants' affective reactivity to high-intensity stimulation, namely higher intensities of positive affect at 3 months in Münster as compared to Kichwa infants that disappeared at 4.5 months of age. The findings serve as an important complement to naturalistic studies that have left open the question of the developmental continuity of cross-cultural differences in infant positive affect beyond 3 months. We discuss our findings in terms of a dynamic interaction between culturally informed parent-infant interactions and biological potentials that give rise to both cross-cultural similarities and differences in the course of emotional development, even in early infancy.

Indexed as

AffectChild DevelopmentCross-Cultural ComparisonInfant BehaviorEcuadorFemaleGermanyHumansInfantMaleculturedevelopmental trajectoriesearly infancyface‐to‐face interactionpositive affect

Identifiers

PMID40846659
PMCPMC12373566

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.