Caregiver-Infant Interactions Flashcards
What is Attachment?
Attachment is a strong and lasting emotional tie or bond between two people, in this case between an infant and their caregiver. The relationship is reciprocal and endures over time. Each seeks the other for closeness and emotional security.
How is the Strength of Attachment between an Infant and Caregiver Measured?
Caregiver-Infant Interactions.
What are Two Examples of Caregiver-Infant Interactions?
- Reciprocity
- Interactional Synchrony
What is Reciprocity?
Reciprocity is a mutual turn-taking form of interaction. With reciprocity, the actions of one person (i.e. the primary caregiver) elicits a response from the other (i.e. the infant). Both caregiver and infant are essentially contributing to the interaction by responding to the other’s signals and cues.
What did Feldman (2007) suggest about Reciprocity?
From around 3 months of age, reciprocity increases in frequency and involves mutual responsiveness, as the infant and caregiver pay increasing attention to each other’s verbal and facial communications. It is suggested that showing this sensitive responsiveness, whereby the caregiver pays attention sensitively towards the infant’s behaviour, will lay the strong foundations for attachment formation to occur later between the caregiver and infant.
What is Interactional Synchrony?
Interactional synchrony is a simultaneous interaction between the caregiver and infant, who appear to be acting rhythmically, with matching, coordinated behaviour and matching emotional states. The behaviour or emotional state is being mirrored and the pair are said to be in sync. This interaction serves to sustain communication between the two individuals.
Key study: Meltzoff and Moore (1977) - Aim
To examine the interactional synchrony in infants.
Key study: Meltzoff and Moore (1977) - Method
- Controlled observation.
- An adult model displayed 1 of 3 facial expressions or a hand gesture.
- Initially, the infant had a dummy placed in his/her mouth to prevent a facial response.
- Following the display from the adult model, the dummy was removed and the child’s expressions were filmed.
Key study: Meltzoff and Moore (1977) - Findings
- There was a clear association between the infant’s behaviour and that of the adult model.
- Later research by Meltzoff and Moore (1983) found the same findings in 3-day-old infants.
Key study: Meltzoff and Moore (1977) - Conclusion
These findings suggest that interactional synchrony is innate and reduces the strength of any claim that imitative behaviour is learned.
Caregiver-infant interactions - Strength
Point: One strength of Meltzoff and Moore’s study is the utilisation of a highly controlled methodology.
Evidence: The researchers used filmed observations of infant behaviour, which were later analysed by independent observers, who were blind to the experimental condition - meaning they didn’t know which facial expression or hand gesture the adult had performed.
Justification: This means that the findings were based on objective evidence as the risk of observer bias have been minimised.
Implication: Therefore, this increases the internal validity of the study, as it was less likely that the researchers influenced the results. We have greater conviction in the claim that even young infants are capable of demonstrating interactional synchrony, supporting the idea that caregiver-infant interactions play a crucial role in early social communication.
Counterargument: However, despite the advantages of controlled methodology, a key limitation is the procedural flaws associated with using a controlled observation when studying caregiver-infant interactions.
Evidence: In Meltzoff and Moore’s study, although a controlled observation was used and behaviours were filmed, the method still remains vulnerable to observer bias. Researchers may consciously or unconsciously interpret infant behaviour in a way that supports their expectations, particularly when working with subtle and ambiguous responses. Without ensuring strong inter-observer reliability, these interpretations can become subjective. Furthermore, the findings have not always been consistently replicated - for example, Koepke et al. failed to produce Meltzoff and Moore’s study, casting further doubt on their reliability.
Justification: This inconsistency suggests that even within controlled settings, the validity of the findings may be compromised if the behaviours being recorded are open to interpretation or if replication is difficult to achieve.
Implication: Therefore, while controller methods aim to reduce extraneous variables, they do not fully eliminate issues of subjectivity and replication failure. This weakens the overall internal validity of the research and raises questions about the accuracy of conclusions drawn about caregiver-infant interactions.
Caregiver-infant interactions - Weakness
Point: Furthermore, a key limitation of research into caregiver-infant interactions is the difficulty in establishing intentionality behind infant behaviour.
Evidence: Infants frequently display spontaneous movements, such as random facial expressions or limb motions, which may not be deliberate or socially driven. This presents a challenge when interpreting whether a baby’s actions are a purposeful response to a caregiver or simply coincidental behaviour.
Justification: As infants cannot communicate their motives, it becomes problematic to determine whether any apparent synchrony or reciprocity observed is genuinely reflective of meaningful social interaction, or just natural reflexes.
Implication: This lowers the internal validity of the findings in caregiver-infant interaction studies, as researchers may misinterpret non-intentional behaviours as evidence of social responsiveness, potentially leading to inaccurate conclusions about early developmental processes.
Caregiver-infant interactions - Weakness
Point: One notable weakness of research into caregiver-infant interactions is the influence of individual differences among infants.
Evidence: For example, research by Isabella et al. found that infants who were more securely attached exhibited higher levels of interactional synchrony compared to those with insecure attachments. This indicates that the quality of attachment plays a significant role in the degree of synchrony observed.
Justification: This demonstrates that not all infants are equally likely to engage in interactional synchrony, and therefore studies that treat infant behaviour as uniform may overlook important moderating variables, such as attachment style, temperament, or even cultural background, which could be a mediating factor.
Implication: Consequently, the presence of individual differences limits the generalisability of findings in this area, as the observed behaviours may not apply universally across all infants. This challenges the assumption that interactional synchrony is a consistent feature of early development.
Caregiver-infant interactions - Strength
Point: One strength of research into caregiver-infant interactions is its valuable practical applications in real-world settings.
Evidence: Understanding key concepts like reciprocity and interactional synchrony has informed early parenting programmes and interventions, particularly for caregivers of children with developmental difficulties or insecure attachments. For example, such research has been used to improve practices in infant-parent therapy and early years education, where promoting responsive interactions is shown to benefit emotional development.
Justification: This shows that the research is not just theoretical, but can be applied to help strengthen caregiver-infant bonds and support children’s social and emotional wellbeing, especially in at-risk populations.
Implication: Therefore, research into caregiver-infant interactions have high ecological validity, as they contribute to improving real-life outcomes, highlighting the broader usefulness and relevance of such research into early social interactions.
