3. ATTACHMENT (Caregiver-infant interactions in humans: reciprocity and interactional synchrony) Flashcards
What is attachment?
Attachment is a close, two-way emotional bond between two individuals, where each person sees the other as essential for their emotional security. It is recognized by behaviours like proximity, separation distress, secure-base behaviour, and reunion behaviour.
What behaviours indicate attachment in humans?
- Proximity: Trying to stay physically close.
- Separation distress: Distress when the attachment figure leaves.
- Secure-base behavior: Maintaining contact even when independent.
- Reunion behavior: Emotional response when reunited with attachment figures.
What is interactional synchrony?
Interactional synchrony is when a caregiver and infant mirror each other’s facial and body movements, including emotions. This synchronized behaviour helps sustain communication between them.
What is reciprocity in caregiver-infant interactions?
Reciprocity is a two-way, mutual process where both the caregiver and infant respond to each other’s signals to sustain interaction, such as turn-taking. Their responses may not always be identical, but they elicit a response from the other.
What is the difference between interactional synchrony and reciprocity?
Interactional synchrony involves mirroring behaviours (e.g., facial expressions), whereas reciprocity involves turn-taking and mutual responsiveness, where each party elicits a response from the other.
What key study investigated interactional synchrony in infants?
Meltzoff and Moore (1977) investigated how infants, as young as 12 days old, can mirror adults’ facial and manual gestures. They found that infants could imitate gestures, suggesting that interactional synchrony is innate.
What were the findings of Meltzoff and Moore (1977) regarding interactional synchrony?
They found that infants as young as 12 days old could mirror facial and manual gestures of adults, indicating that synchronized behaviours are innate and crucial for early communication.
What was the aim of Brazelton et al (1974)?
The aim was to investigate reciprocal social interactions between mothers and their young infants to understand the role of reciprocity in attachment formation.
What were the findings of Brazelton et al (1974) on reciprocity?
They found that when mothers engaged in face-to-face interaction, infants responded with smooth body movements and frequent eye contact. When mothers stopped responding, infants’ movements became jerky, indicating the importance of reciprocal behaviours for attachment.
How does reciprocity contribute to attachment?
Reciprocal behaviours, such as responding to a caregiver’s actions, are essential for forming secure attachments. Infants rely on these exchanges to develop emotional bonds with caregivers.
What is a strength of research on caregiver-infant interactions?
One strength is the practical application, such as antenatal classes, which encourage parents to engage with their babies to promote healthy attachment. This can reduce long-term social and mental health costs for society.
How does controlled observation strengthen research into caregiver-infant interactions?
Controlled observations allow researchers to film interactions from different angles, ensuring that fine details are recorded and analysed later. This increases the internal validity of findings about caregiver-infant interactions.
What is a limitation of testing infants’ behaviours?
A limitation is the difficulty in reliably testing infant behaviour due to the high frequency of general activity (like smiling or sticking out the tongue). This can lead to observer bias and make it hard to distinguish between general actions and specific behaviours like synchrony or reciprocity.
How did Meltzoff and Moore improve the reliability of their research?
They filmed infants’ responses and had independent observers judge the behaviour, unaware of which adult gestures the infant was imitating. This increased the internal validity of their findings.
What is a limitation of research on caregiver-infant interactions in terms of sample size?
A limitation is low population validity, as studies like those by Meltzoff and Moore (6 infants) and Brazelton et al. (12 mother-infant pairs) used very small sample sizes, which may not be representative of all infants.