Responses of Infants to Other Infants

AGE IN MONTHS

Observes other child 4 to 5
Smiles at other child 4 to 5
Cries if other child receives attention 8 to 9
Offers toy to other child 8 to 9
"Lalls" to other child 8 to 9
Imitates movements of another child 9 to 10
Opposes toy being taken away 9 to 10
Organized play activity 10 to 11
Strives for attention by means of "lalling" 10 to 11
Ill-humor if another child moves away 10 to 11
Setting aside toy and turning toward another child 11 to 12

If they noticed them, it was with no interest or emotion. Even the others' movements were of no interest. Such infants played, moved about, cooed, and smiled without any interest or regard for the presence of other infants who were near. Such behavior may be regarded as exhibiting social blindness. The infants who were not socially "blind," that is, those who paid attention to the behavior of others, exhibited varying degrees of independence in social relations. At one extreme some showed a high degree of social dependence. They were much influenced by the presence and activities of other infants. At the other extreme were infants who, equally aware of the presence and activities of others, still showed a great deal of social independence. The socially dependent infant's behavior seemed to be conditioned largely by that of another. He usually copied it or he may merely have watched it. Or if he was not so timid or if his responses were not so readily inhibited, he might go through his little repertory of stunts trying to arouse or please the other. The socially independent infant was aware of the presence of the other and responded to him and his behavior, but did not seem to be dependent upon him. He played with him but was clearly the leader, not being afraid of or intimidated by the other. Children from six months to eighteen months of age possess these characteristics in greater or less degree. Bühler believed that they show them without reference to previous contacts with others, to their being only children, to the home conditions, or to nationality. We may have here early evidence of dominance and submission.

Any reference to infants as socially dependent or socially independent, however, must not be applied too rigidly. We must not think of all children who are not "socially blind" as belonging at either of these other two extremes. Some do belong to the first class and some to the second. Many, however, seem to fall into groupings between the extremes, especially as they pass from infancy to the pre-school and school years. As characterizations of general social attitudes of individuals, Bühler's classes are suggestive and valuable because they throw into clear relief important considerations in the social development of the child. No scheme of classifying children into two or three "types" is satisfactory, however, as is seen in connection with the discussion of child personalities.