Caregiver-infant interaction Flashcards
Who are the main researchers of the infant-caregiver interaction?
Meltzoff and Moore
Define reciprocity
Refers to the coordinated actions from infants in response to their caregivers actions. This basic communication rhythm is important in forming attachments
Define interactional synchrony
Infants imitating the emotions + behaviours of their caregiver. Describes as synchrony as both parties are moving in the same pattern.
What type of study was carried out by Meltzoff and Moore?
Controlled observational study
Aim of the study?
To investigate interactional synchrony
What else did Meltzoff and Moore do to investigate interactional synchrony?
- Adult model displayed one of three hand gestures and movement
- Dummy placed in infants mouth during initial display (prevent response)
- Dummy removed, child’s expression filmed
Procedure of the study?
- Observers watched videotape of infant’s behaviour in real time
- Video judged by independent observer who had no knowledge of what the infants seen
Observers asked to note:
- Mouth opening
- Termination of mouth opening
- Tongue protrusion
- Termination of Tongue protrusion
Findings of the study?
Association was found between infant’s behaviour and adult model
- observer scored the tapes twice so that inter-observer reliability/intra-observer reliability could be calculated : found greater than .92
Conclusions of the study?
Interactional synchrony is innate
A03 - Problem with testing infant behaviour
- Infant’s mouth are in fairly constant motion and the expressions that are tested occur frequently (tongue sticking out, yawning, smiling)
- Makes it difficult to distinguish between general activity and specific imitated behaviours
- To overcome, M+M measures infant responses by filming infant and asked an observer (who had no idea of what behaviour is being imitated) to judge infant’s behaviour
- Therefore, there are difficulties in testing infant behaviours, decreasing the internal valid
A03 - Failure to replicate
- Other studies have failed to replicate the findings of M+M
- Koepke et al failed to replicate M+M, however M+M argued that research failed because it was less carefully controlled
- Marian et al replicated the study by Murray and Trevarthen and found that infants couldn’t distinguish live from videotaped interactions with their mothers
- Suggests that infants are actually not responding to adults
- Marian et al acknowledged the failure to replicate may lie with the procedure
- Therefore, the lack of consistency suggests M+M research is unreliable, although differences in methodology may account for this
A03 - Strength from research support
- Another method used to test the intentionality of infant behaviour is to observe how they respond to inanimate objects
- Abravanel and DeYoung observed infant behaviour when interacting with two objects
- One stimulating tongue movements and the other mouth opening/closing.
- Found that infants of median age 5 and 12 weeks made little response to object
- This suggests that infants do not imitate anything they see - it is a specific social response to other humans/
A03 - Individual differences
- Important feature of interactional synchrony is that there are variations between infants
- Isabella et al found more strongly attached infant-caregiver pairs showed greater interactional synchrony
- Heimann show that infants who show a lot of imitation from birth onwards have a better quality of relationship at 3 months
- However, it is not clear whether imitation is the cause or an effect of this early synchrony
- Therefore, this research shows there are significant individual differences but does not indicate the cause of these differences
