caregiver infant interactions Flashcards
what is attachment?
an emotional bond between two people that is reciprocal and endures over time
reciprocity
- when an infant responds to the actions of another in a form of turn-taking. the actions of one person eliciting a response from the other
- this increases in frequency from 3 months old as the infant and caregiver pay more attention to each others verbal and facial communications
- showing this sensitive responsiveness lays strong foundations for later attachments to develop
interactional synchrony
- when an infant mirrors the actions or emotions of another person
- they will carry out the same actions as their caregiver simultaneously, they’re in sync
- this sustains communication between them
meltzoff and moore (1977) - aim
examine interactional synchrony in infants
meltzoff and moore (1977) - method
- using a controlled observation, an adult displayed 1 of 3 facial expressions or a hand gesture
- at first the child had a dummy in their mouth
- after the adults display, the dummy was removed and the child’s expressions were filmed
meltzoff and moore (1977) - results
- there was a clear association between the behaviour of the adults and of the children
- this was later repeated in 3 day olds and the same was found
meltzoff and moore (1977) - conclusion
interaction synchrony is innate and not learnt
give a strength of caregiver infant interactions
1/2
meltzoff and moore’s research provides support for interactional synchrony. in their study there was a clear association between the behaviours of infants and 3 day old babies with the adults they observed. this makes the theory of interactional synchrony and consequently caregiver infant interactions more valid. furthermore, this theory and the research has formed the basis for social development
give a strength of caregiver infant interactions
2/2
the observations carried out during meltzoff and moore’s study were highly controlled and filmed from multiple angles, allowing researchers to record smaller and more subtle behaviours and analyse these to gain a clear understanding. this high level of control also means that the study can be replicated with other ages and ethnicities for example to assess replicability. furthermore, since the babies will of been unaware of the observations, their behaviour will of been natural, increasing external validity
give a limitation of caregiver infant interactions
1/3
the reliability of testing children is questionable since infants will often move their mouths and wave their arms, making it hard for researchers to assess intentional behaviour. we cannot separate this intentional behaviour being measures from subconscious behaviour, so cannot conclude that the infants were actually engaging in interactional synchrony or reciprocity, reducing the validity of the theory
give a limitation of caregiver infant interactions
2/3
there are methodological issues with the use of observational methods to study interactional synchrony. there is a chance of observer bias in which observers will consciously or unconsciously interpret behaviour in order to support their findings. this can be controlled by using more than one observer to examine the inter-observer reliability of the study. for example recent research has failed to replicate the findings of meltzoff and moore, suggesting that their results are unreliable and more research needs to be done to validate their findings
give a limitation of caregiver infant interactions
3/3
recent research has found that only securely attached infants will engage in interactional synchrony. for example, isabella et al (1989) found that the more securely attached the infant, the greater the level of interactional synchrony. this suggests that not every child will engage in it, and that meltzoff and moore’s findings may have overlooked individual differences that impact whether a child will engage in interactional synchrony
