Parenting Journal · Volume 2 · Issue 1 · Licensed source edition
Comparison of Japanese and Scottish Mother–Infant Intersubjectivity: Resonance of Timing, Anticipation, and Empathy During Feeding
Originally published 2021-10-14 · Frontiers in Psychology
Frontiers Media SA · DOI 10.3389/fpsyg.2021.724871 ↗
Editorial reading guide · Kindness
How can I notice a baby’s pause or invitation during a feed?
This article addresses the timing of mutual responses during feeding in two cultural settings.
Who was studied?
11 Japanese and 10 Scottish mother-infant pairs observed during feeding
Age / stage: 6 and 9 months
Read with three questions
- How did the authors investigate the timing of mutual responses during feeding in two cultural settings?
- Was the proposed family influence measured before the outcome, and who remained at follow-up?
- How did feeding rhythms change from six to nine months within each small group?
Keep the limits in view
Observations involved 21 mother-infant pairs. Differences between these groups cannot characterize all Japanese or Scottish families.
The text below is the original article’s licensed repository edition. Its wording is not rewritten. Use the Paper Agent beside the text to locate evidence; open the source for figures, tables and complete context.
Opening the verified paper and agent…
Checking the article identity, license record, and saved source text.
Open the repository recordAttribution & reuse
Follow the original.
Original authorship, publication date, journal and DOI are preserved. This issue’s TRICK placement and reading questions are editorial additions, not claims made by the original authors.
Koichi Negayama; Jonathan T Delafield-Butt; Keiko Momose; Konomi Ishijima; Noriko Kawahara (2021). Comparison of Japanese and Scottish Mother–Infant Intersubjectivity: Resonance of Timing, Anticipation, and Empathy During Feeding Frontiers in Psychology. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2021.724871
Permissions checked against the saved article notice; repository publication notices screened 2026-11-04. This is not a new peer-review decision. The source authors and publishers are not represented as endorsing this issue.