Caregiver Infant Interactions Flashcards
What is an attachment?
The formation of a strong two way emotional bond between two individuals in which they see each other os essential for their own emotional security
What three behaviours indicate an attachment has been formed?
1.Proximity
2.Seperation distress
3.Secure base behaviours
What is reciprocity?
The adult and infant communicate by taking turns and one action elicits a response from the partner. The responses are not necessarily similar
What are two phases in reciprocity?
- Alert phase
- Active involvement
What is the alert phase?
- Babies periodically signal that they are ready for interaction the mother usually pick up and respond around 2/3 of the time
- From 3 months these become increasingly frequent- involves both mother and baby paying close attention to each others verbal and physical signals
What is active involvement?
- Both caregiver and baby can initiate interactions and take turns doing so
- Brazelton et al. (1975)- described this as a dance where each partner responds to the other persons moves
What is interactional synchrony?
When adult and infant tend to mirror what each other is doing in terms of facial and body movements and expressions. They do this in a co-ordinated and synchronised way
What is a study that shows evidence for interactional synchrony?
Meltzoff and Moore (1977)
What was Meltzov and Moore’s (1977) study?
Studied infants as young as 2-3 weeks old. The adult model displayed one of three facial expressions or hand movements. A dummy was placed in the infants mouth during initial play to prevent any response. The dummy was then removed and the baby was filmed. They found an association between the infant behaviour and that of the adult model which demonstrated the infants will to imitate the facial and hand gestures of an adult
What are the 2 strengths of caregiver-infant interactions?
No demand characteristics- When observing mother-infant interactions babies demand characteristics will not occur with baby’s behaviour. Babies do not care/understand that they are being observed and so their behaviour does not change in response to controlled observations. E.g. Meltzoff and Moore (1977)- researchers gained all the benefits of having a highly controlled procedure without the downfall of demand characteristics. The babies will have been acting in a way that they would have done in an everyday situation.
Counter- Study has low internal validity: difficult to reliably test infant behaviour. Infants’ mouths are in constant motion and the expressions that are tested occur frequently (tongue sticking out, yawning, smiling). E.g. We cannot know whether a movement such as a hand twitch is random or triggered by something the caregiver has done. This makes it difficult to distinguish between general activity and specific imitated behaviours.
Value of the research- The importance of this imitative behaviour is that it forms the basis for social development. Infants begin to acquire an understanding of what other people are thinking and feeling (‘Theory of mind’)- this is fundamental for conducting social relationships. This research explains how children begin to understand what others think and feel and thus are able to conduct relationships.
What are the two limitations of caregiver infant interactions?
Socially sensitive research- Research into mother-infant interaction is socially sensitive because it suggests that children may be disadvantaged by particular child-rearing practices. In particular, mothers who return to work shortly after a child is born restrict the opportunities for achieving interactional synchrony, which Isabella et al. showed to be important in developing infant-caregiver attachment. This suggests that mothers should not return to work so soon and this has socially sensitive implications.
Overlooks individual differences- A criticism of Meltzoff and Moore’s research is that recent research has found that only securely attached infants engage in interactional synchrony. E.g. Isabella et al. (1989) found that the more securely attached the infant, the greater the level of interactional synchrony. This suggests that not all children engage in interactional synchrony and that Meltzoff and Moore’s original findings may have overlooked individual differences which could be a mediating factor.
