Caregive-infant interactions in humans: Reciprocity and interactional synchrony

Question 1

Reciprocity

Answer 1

Responding to action of another with a similar action, where the actions of one partner elicit a response from the other partner.

Question 2

Interactional synchrony

TRIGGER WORDS:

1. two
2. Mirror
3. facial

Answer 2

When two people interact thet tend to mirror what the other is doing in terms of their facial and body movements.

Question 3

Metzoff and Moore (1977)

Answer 3

Conducted the first stufy of interactional synchrony, using a controlled observation.

Question 4

Procedure

Meltzoff and Moore 1977

Answer 4

The study used an adult model who displayed one of three different facial expression or a hand gesture. A dummy was placed in the infant’ts mouth during the inital display, to prevent any response. Following the display the dummy was removed and the child’s expression was film

Question 5

Findings

Metzoff and Moore (1977)

Answer 5

The results revealed an association between the infant behaviour and that one of the adult model. Later research revealed the same finfings in three-year old infants suggesting that interactional synchrony is innate.

Question 6

AO3

Question 7

One criticism of testing infants is their reliabilty

Answer 7

E; Infants’ mouths are in fairl constant motion anf they often stick their tounge out, yawn and smile, which may cause an issue for researchers investigating infant behaviour.

E: However, Meltzoff and Moore (1977) measured infant responses by filming infants and asking the observers to judge the infants’ behaviour from video

L: This increases the internal validty of their finding and suggests that infants do mirror the actions of adults.

Question 8

Another criticism of research investigating caregiver-infant interactions is the effect of invididual differences

Answer 8

E: For example, isabella et al (1989) found that more strongly attached infant-caregiiver pairs, showed greater interactional synchrony

E: This sows that children will respond to adlts differently depending upon the nature of their attachment.

L: This means that not all children will demonstrte interactional synchrony and that the results of previous research may be unreliable.

Question 9

One strength of the research into ineractional synchrony is its application to later adult relationships.

Answer 9

E: Meltzoff (2005) developed the ‘like me’ hypothesis which explains how infants acquire an understanding of what other people are thibking and feeling

E: This shows how interactional synchorny might help children to understand the internal mental states of other peole, which is fundamntal in developing social relationships.

L: This shows the importance of interactional synchorny research to understanding adult social relationships.

Question 10

One strength of examining infant behaviours comes from research investigating intentional behaviour

Abravanel and Deyoung (1991)

Answer 10

E: Recent research examining infant behaviour has shown the infants do not respond to inanimate objects.

E: Abravanel and Deyoung (1991) observed infants interacting with two objects, one simulating tougue movment and the other mouth opening/closing.

L: They found that infants between 5 and 12 weeks’ old made liittle response to objects, suggesting that infants do not imitate anything they see and only respond to specific social responses.

Question 11

What AO3 Strengths are you using?

Answer 11

1. examining infant behaviours comes from research investigating intentional behaviour
2. Research into ineractional synchrony is its application to later adult relationships.

Question 12

What AO3 Weaknesses are you using?

Answer 12

1. Testing infants is their reliabilty

2. Research investigating caregiver-infant interactions is the effect of invididual differences