Attachment: Caregiver-infant interactions

Question 1

Define attachment

Answer 1

reciprocal, long – lasting emotional relationship between two people such as a caregiver + infant in which they depend on each other for a sense of security.

Question 2

What is a caregiver?

Answer 2

a person who is providing care for a child, such as a parent, grandparent, sibling etc.

Question 3

What are care-giver interactions?

Answer 3

Non – verbal communication between caregiver + infant.
It’s vital as it forms the basis of attachment.

Question 4

What is interactional synchrony?

Answer 4

Mirroring each other’s actions at the same time in terms of facial expressions or body movements as well as imitating emotions + behaviours. It reinforces the attachment bond.

Question 5

What is reciprocity?

Answer 5

The coordinated actions of the infant in response to the caregiver’s action. Basic communication rhythm is important in forming attachments. Responses aren’t necessarily like interactional synchrony e.g. caregiver may smile at the infant + the infant smiles back.

Question 6

What is the difference between interactional synchrony and reciprocity?

Answer 6

Interactional synchrony is the mirroring of actions.
Reciprocity is the coordination of actions - taking turns.

Question 7

Who investigated reciprocity?

Answer 7

Jaffe (1973)
Brazelton (1979)

Question 8

What did Jaffe (1973) demonstrate?

Answer 8

infants coordinate their actions with their caregivers like convo.
From birth babies move in a rhythm when interacting with an adult – taking turns like people do in a convo.

Question 9

What did Brazelton (1979) suggest?

Answer 9

The basic rhythm in reciprocity is an essential precursor for later communications + that the regularity of an infant’s behaviour allows the caregiver to anticipate it + act accordingly. This sensitivity to infant behaviour acts as a foundation for later attachment between infant + caregiver.

Question 10

Who researched interactional synchrony?

Answer 10

Meltzoff + Moore (1977)

Question 11

What was the aim of Meltzoff and Moore’s study?

Answer 11

To investigate interactional synchrony

Question 12

What was the procedure of Meltzoff and Moore’s study?

Answer 12

Adult model preformed 1/3 facial expressions + hand gestures, dummy placed in infant’s mouth to prevent response. Following the models’ movements, the dummy was removed + the infant’s expressions were recorded on video.

Question 13

What were the findings of Meltzoff and Moore’s study?

Answer 13

M+M found an association between the infant’s behaviour + the adult model.
They also discovered that interactional synchrony was found in infants as young as 2 – 3 weeks old.
Infants were mirroring + imitating actions of adults, demonstrating interactional synchrony

Question 14

What was the conclusion of Meltzoff and Moore’s study?

Answer 14

Believed that imitation was intentional + deliberate
Later study M +M (1983) demonstrated the same IS in infants as young as 3 days old which suggests that IS is innate + not learned behaviour.

Question 15

How did Piaget’s research criticise Meltzoff and Moore’s study?

Answer 15

He believed true imitation only develops towards the end of the first year.
Anything before that was a kind of response training.
What the infant was doing was just pseudo-imitation. The infant hadn’t consciously translated what they saw.
It supports M&M as the baby didn’t carry on making gestures. They didn’t need the reward as it was innate.

Question 16

What are the 4 AO3 points for Meltzoff and Moore’s study?

Answer 16

+Supported evidence
+Controlled observation
-Problems with infant behaviour
-Failure to replicate

Question 17

(+AO3) What was the supporting evidence for Meltzoff+Moore’s study?

Answer 17

Abravanel + Deyoung (1991)
Used another method to test the intentionality of infant behaviour by observing how they respond to inanimate objects.
They used 2 objects, one stimulating tongue movements and the other mouth (opening + closing).
They found that infants of a median age 5 to 12 weeks made little response to the objects suggesting that don’t just imitate what they see + it’s a specific response to humans.

Question 18

(+AO3) Why is Meltzoff + Moore’s study being a controlled observation a strength?

Answer 18

Controlled observations often capture fine details e.g. the model + infant were filmed during the procedure from multiple angles, which ensures that fine details captured can be analysed. The babies are also unaware that they’re being observed

Question 19

(-AO3) What were the problems with researching infant behaviour?

Answer 19

Difficulties in reliability when testing infant behaviour.
Infant’s mouths are fairly in constant motion and the expressions that were tested occur frequently, which makes it difficult to distinguish between general activity + specific imitated behaviours.
To overcome these problems M +M measure infant responses by filming infants + then asking an observer (who had no idea what behaviour was being imitated) to judge the infant’s behaviour from the video.
Highlights the difficulties in testing infant behaviour, but also suggests one way of increasing the internal validity of the data.

Question 20

(-AO3) failure to replicate

Answer 20

Koepke et al. (1983) failed as it was less carefully controlled.