Caregiver-Infant Interactions

Question 1

What is Attachment?

Answer 1

Attachment is an emotional tie or bond between two people, usually a primary caregiver and an infant. The relationship is reciprocal, meaning that it is two-way and endures over time.

Question 2

What is Reciprocity?

Answer 2

Reciprocity is when an infant responds to the actions of another person in a form of turn-taking. With reciprocity, the actions of one person (i.e. the primary caregiver) elicits a response from the other (i.e. the infant).

Brezelton et al (1975) describe this interaction as a ‘dance’ because when a couple dance together, they each respond to one another’s movements and rhythm. Likewise, reciprocity as a caregiver-infant interaction is where the interaction between both individual flows back and forth.

Question 3

What did Feldman (2007) suggest about Reciprocity?

Answer 3

From around 3 months old, reciprocity increases in frequency as the infant and caregiver pay increasing attention to each other’s verbal and facial communications. It is suggested that showing this sensitive responsiveness, whereby the caregiver pays attention sensitively towards the infant’s behaviour, will lay the strong foundations for attachment to develop later between the caregiver and infant.

Question 4

What is Interactional Synchrony?

Answer 4

Interactional synchrony takes place when infants mirror the actions or emotions of another person. In this caregiver-infant interaction, the infant will move their body or carry out the same act as their caregiver simultaneously and the 2 are said to be synchronised/in sync. This interaction serves to sustain communication between the 2 individuals.

Question 5

Key study: Meltzoff and Moore (1977) - Aim

Answer 5

To examine the interactional synchrony in infants.

Question 6

Key study: Meltzoff and Moore (1977) - Method

Answer 6

Using a controlled observation, an adult model displayed 1 of 3 facial expression, or a hand gesture. To start with, the child had a dummy placed in his/her mouth to prevent a facial response. Following the display from the adult model, the dummy was removed and the child’s expressions were filmed.

Question 7

Key study: Meltzoff and Moore (1977) - Findings

Answer 7

There was a clear association between the infant’s behaviour and that of the adult model. Later research by Meltzoff and Moore (1983) found the same findings in 3-day-old infants.

Question 8

Key study: Meltzoff and Moore (1977) - Conclusion

Answer 8

These findings suggest that interactional synchrony is innate and reduces the strength of any claim that imitative behaviour is learned.

Question 9

Caregiver-infant interactions - Strength

Answer 9

(Refer to key study by Meltzoff and Moore (1977))

Question 10

Caregiver-infant interactions - Weakness

Answer 10

One limitation of research into caregiver-infant interactions is the questionable reliability of testing children. This is because infants move their mouths and wave their arms constantly, which is an issue for researchers investigating intentional behaviour. Therefore, we cannot be certain that the infants were actually engaging in interactional synchrony or reciprocity, as some of the behaviour may have occurred by chance.

Question 11

Caregiver-infant interactions - Weakness

Answer 11

There are methodological problems with studying interactional synchrony using observational methods. There is the possibility of observer bias where the researcher consciously or unconsciously interpret behaviour to support their findings. To address this problem, more than 1 observer should be used to examine the inter-observer reliability of the observations. Recent research by Koepke et al (1983) failed to replicate the findings of Meltzoff and Moore. This lack of research support suggests that the results of Meltzoff and Moore are unreliable and more research is required to validate their findings.

Question 12

Caregiver-infant interactions - Weakness

Answer 12

A criticism of Meltzoff and Moore’s research is that recent research has found that only securely attached infants engage in interactional synchrony. Isabella et al (1989) found that the more securely attached the infant, the greater the level of interactional synchrony. This suggests that not all children engage in interactional synchrony and that Meltzoff and Moore’s original findings may have overlooked individual differences which could be a mediating factor.