PAPER 1 - ATTACHMENT - infant and caregiver interactions

Question 1

what is proximity seeking?

Answer 1

the desire to physically be close to the carer

Question 2

what is separation protest?

Answer 2

distress at separation from carer

Question 3

what is pleasure at reunion?

Answer 3

quickly settled upon being reunited with carer

Question 4

what is the secure base effect?

Answer 4

• willingness to explore environment when carer is near
• infant will usually check regularly that carer is still in sight
• will demonstrate social referencing (facial expressions etc.)

Question 5

what is stranger anxiety?

Answer 5

distress at stranger interaction

Question 6

what is general orientation of behaviour towards carer?

Answer 6

carer will be the focus (pointing to the carer etc.)

Question 7

what is interactional synchrony?

Answer 7

infant copying behaviour from the carer (e.g. copying facial expressions)

Question 8

what is reciprocity?

Answer 8

infant and caregiver interact non-verbally, taking actions in turn, actions of one elicit actions of another

Question 9

what type of experiment did Meltzoff and Moore carry out?

Answer 9

controlled lab observation

Question 10

what was the procedure of the Meltzoff and Moore study?

Answer 10

• adult model presented 1 of 3 facial expressions (tongue protrusion, lip protrusion, mouth opening)
• dummy was placed in infants mouth to prevent any imitation, when it was removed the models presented stimuli again
• infants expressions were monitored
• video tapes of the model were made, independent observers who hadn’t seen what models were doing judged infants in categories

Question 11

what were the findings of the Meltzoff and Moore study?

Answer 11

infants of 2-3 weeks old, imitated the facial and the hand expression of the models

Question 12

who contradicted Meltzoff and Moore and why?

Answer 12

Jean Piaget - suggested imitation only developed towards and of first year, before this was leaned behaviour
e.g. copied behaviour from adults was rewarded with smiles and was therefore reinforced. this is (PSEUDO-IMITATION)

Question 13

what is pseudo imitation?

Answer 13

infant not consciously translated what they saw into their own matching behaviour

Question 14

what did Meltzoff and Moore do in their later study to show that interactional synchrony was innate?

Answer 14

did the same study later on and found 2-3 DAY old infants were imitating where they were too young to have learned any behaviour

Question 15

what are some problems with testing infant behaviour?

Answer 15

LIMITATION - babies move a lot - can be hard to distinguish between their responses or coincidence of general activity

Question 16

why does Koepke (1983) challenge the findings of Meltzoff and Moore on interactional synchrony?

Answer 16

Koepke failed to get the same results when the study was replicated - their research was less carefully controlled and so does not invalidate the M&M results

Question 17

how has the ‘intention’ (intentionality) of infant behaviour been tested, to check they are responding to specific human behaviour?

Answer 17

STRENGTH - intentionality controlled by Abravanel and DeYong, observed infant behaviour when ‘interacting’ with 2 objects
concluded that infants 5-12 weeks made little response to objects, and that infants do not just imitate everything they see

Question 18

research has shown individual differences in infant-caregiver interactions, depending on their type of attachment. what has been found?

Answer 18

LIMITATION - Isabella et al found that more strongly attached infant-caregiver pairs showed greater interactional synchrony, and it is harder to draw specific conclusions
- Heinmann showed that infants demonstrate a lot of imitation from birth onwards and have better quality relationships at 3 months - isnt clear if imitation is a cuase or effect of early synchrony