Attachment : Reciprocity and Interactional Synchrony

Question 1

What is attachment?

Answer 1

A deep and enduring emotional bond that connects one person to another across space and time

Question 2

What does altricial mean?

Answer 2

Born in early stages of development, need to form bonds with adults who will protect and nurture them

Question 3

Still face experiment - Dr Edward Tronick

Answer 3

Mother and baby interacting normally, then mother stops responding. Even after 2 mins, the baby experiences extreme stress and panic.

Question 4

What is non-verbal communication?

Answer 4

Communicating without words or sometimes sounds. It forms the basis of attachment between infant and caregiver.

Question 5

Whats reciprocity?

Answer 5

A two way response, infants coordinate their actions with their caregivers.

Question 6

What did Brazelton (1979) say about reciprocity?

Answer 6

• basic rhythm is an important precursor to later communications
• infants signals allow caregivers to anticipate and respond appropriately
• caregiver sensitivity lays the foundation for later attachment between caregiver and infant

Question 7

Whats interactional synchrony?

Answer 7

Interactions between two people that Morrison facial and body movements in the same/ a similar ways

Question 8

Meltzoff and Moore (1977) : interactional synchrony study - Procedure

Answer 8

• Structured observation (lab)
• 2-3 week old infants
• an adult model displayed one of three facial expressions (tongue out, open mouth, purse lips) or hand movements (fingers moved in a sequence). A dummy way placed in the baby’s mouth during the initial display to prevent a response. Following the display, the dummy was removed and the disposal was repeated while the babies reaction was filmed.
• observers used behavioural categories (event sampling) to record behaviour

Question 9

Meltzoff and Moore (1977) : interactional synchrony study - Findings

Answer 9

They found an association between infant behaviour and the adults. All scores were higher than 0.92

Question 10

Meltzoff and Moore (1977) : interactional synchrony study - conclusion

Answer 10

Interactional synchrony does exist and the mirroring is innate, not learnt

Question 11

Meltzoff and Moore (1977) : interactional synchrony study - alteration

Answer 11

In a later study, Meltzoff and Moore (1983) carried out the same study with 3 day old infants. Interactional synchrony was shown therefore must be innate as the mirroring so young rules out learning

Question 12

Meltzoff and Moore (1977) : interactional synchrony study - → Advs

Answer 12

• highly controlled = good validity → observations of mother + infant interactions are generally filmed from multiple angles, ensuring every fine detail can be analysed. This does not alter the babies response as they aren’t aware/ dont care they’re being watched
• supportive empirical evidence that infants only form bonds with care givers → Abravahel & DeYoung (1991) carried out the same experiment with inanimate objects rather than a caregiver. The 5-12 week olds did not response to objects - suggesting a social response.
• supportive empirical evidence that infant interaction is intentional and not just a conditioned response → **Murray & Trevarthen recorded response. The videocall produced same results, prerecorded video had no response and baby displayed distress

Question 13

Meltzoff and Moore (1977) : interactional synchrony study - Disadvs

Answer 13

• lacks reliability due to methodological problems → Koepke et al (1983) failed to replicate the findings of Meltzoff and Moore meaning there may be observer bias (interpreted actions). To fix this, multiple observers should be used to control the inter-observer reliability
• recent research suggests individual differences involved in interactional synchrony → Isabella at al (1989) found that the more securely attached the infant, the greater the level of IS. This suggests not all children engage in IS the same way and that Meltzoff and Moore’s original findings overlooked this, meaning nomothetic approached cant be used
• contrary evidence → Piaget (1962) stated true imitation only developed after 1 year. He said the infant is conscious of that they’re doing so any synchrony in pseudo-imitation. He argued infant repeat behaviours that are rewarded
• methodological issues → many studies involving infants express the same patterns of interaction and its difficult to be certain what is taking place from the infant perspective. Therefore low construct validity as actions aren’t proved to be deliberate + meaningful
• socially sensitive → research suggests that children may be disadvantages by certain child rearing practices. Eg: mothers who return to work quickly restrict their child’s opportunities for interaction. This leads to having to be careful when judging relationships.
• cultural differences → Le Vine (1994) suggests IS isn’t found across all cultures, suggesting attachments aren’t necessary - behaviours aren’t innate.
• many actions are just baby things → yawning, sticking out tongue, opening mouth are all normal baby behaviours so it’s difficulty to distinguish between general activity and specific imitated behaviour

Question 14

Meltzoff’s 2005 Theory of mind/ ‘Like Me’ hypothesis

Answer 14

Explains how children begin to understand what others think and feel - essential to help build relationships and future attachments