Attachment - Caregiver-Infant Interactions

Question 1

Attachment

Answer 1

an emotional bond between two people - it’s a two-way process that endures over time. It leads to certain behaviours such as clinging and proximity seeking - protecting an infant

Question 2

Caregiver

Answer 2

a person who is providing care for a child

Question 3

Reciprocity

Answer 3

responding to another’s action with a similar action, where the actions of one partner elicit a response from the other partner like a ‘conversation’

Question 4

Interactional Synchrony

Answer 4

When two people interact they tend to mirror what the other is doing in terms of facial movements, body movements, emotions and behaviours like they are acting in ‘unison’

Question 5

Jaffe et al (1973)

Answer 5

Demonstrated that infants coordinated their actions with caregivers in a kind of conversation - reciprocity

Question 6

Brazelton (1979)

Answer 6

basic rhythm - an important precursor to later communication - sensitivity to infants behaviour lays the foundation for later attachment

Question 7

Problems with testing infant behaviour

Answer 7

infants mouths are in constant motion and the expressions that are tested occur frequently - hard to distinguish between general activity and specific imitated behaviours - M&M measured infants response via filming and asking an observer to judge the infants behaviour from the video - increase the internal validity

Question 8

Failure to replicate

Answer 8

Koepke et al (1983) - failed to replicate M&M - less carefully controlled
Marian et al (1996) - failed to replicate M&T - differences in methodology

Question 9

Internationally supported

Answer 9

Abravanel and DeYong (1991) - observed infant behaviour when interacting with two objects - stimulating tongue movement and mouth opening/closing - 5-12 weeks made little response - suggests that infants do not imitate anything they see - specific social response to other humans

Question 10

Individual differences

Answer 10

Isabella et al (1989) - more strongly attached infant = greater interactional synchrony
Heimann (1989) - infants who demonstrate a lot of imitation from birth onwards have a better quality of relationships at 3 months - isn’t clear whether imitation is a cause or effect - there are significant individual differences - doesn’t indicate the cause

Question 11

The value of research

Answer 11

forms the basis for social development - able to conduct relationships - Meltzoff (2005) - ‘like me’ hypothesis - connection between what the infant sees and their imitation of this - infants associate their own acts - project their own internal experiences onto others - begin to acquire Theory of Mind - fundamental for conducting social relationships

Question 12

Isabella and Belsky (1991)

Answer 12

link between well developed reciprocity and IS and infants who had a secure, close attachment bonds later on - naturalistic observation - longitudinal study of mothers and infants interactions at birth then at 3 and 9 months - they found the opposite too

Question 13

Meltzoff and Moore (1977)

Answer 13

first systematic study of interactional synchrony - 2 weeks - imitated specific facial & hand gestures sequence - four different stimuli

Question 14

Meltzoff and Moore (1983)

Answer 14

-three days old - rule out the possibility that imitation behaviours are learned - the behavioural response must be innate

Question 15

Murry and Trevathen (1985)

Answer 15

2 month first interacted via video monitor - live and pre-recorded - acute distress - infants are actively eliciting a response rather than displaying a response that has been rewarded - further supports that these behaviours are innate

Question 16

Piaget (1962)

Answer 16

true imitation only developed towards the end of the first year and anything before was ‘response training’ - operant conditioning - pseudo-imitation - not consciously translating what they see

Question 17

Oostenbroek (2016)

Answer 17

conducted a similar process to M&M but there were lots of criticisms to her procedure - M&M in (2016) said there were at least 11 confounding variables such as not supporting the child properly.