Caregiver-Infant Interactions

Question 1

Define attachment

Answer 1

A close two way emotional bond between two individuals in which each individual sees the other as essential for their own emotional security. It endures over time and takes a few months to develop

Question 2

How can we recognise attachment?

Answer 2

• Proximity: trying to stay physically close to those we are attached to
• Separation anxiety: distressed when attachment figure leaves
• Secure-base behaviour: making regular contact with attachment figure
• Stranger anxiety: distress when in contact of a stranger

Question 3

Define interactional synchrony

Answer 3

When two people interact they tend to mirror what the other is doing in terms of facial and body movements, including imitating emotions and behaviour.

Question 4

Define social releasers

Answer 4

Behaviour that the infant shows that signals they want social interaction, like screeching, laughing, pointing

Question 5

Define reciprocity

Answer 5

Responding to the action of another with a similar action, where the actions of one partner elicits a response from the other. The responses aren’t necessarily similar.

Question 6

Describe two researches into reciprocity

Answer 6

• Jaffe et al (1973) demonstrated that infants coordinated their actions with caregivers in a kind of conversation. From birth, babies move in a rhythm when interaction with adults as if they were taking turns, which is an example of reciprocity.
• Brazelton (1979) suggested this rhythm is an important precursor to later communications. The regularity of an infant’s signals allows a caregiver to anticipate the infant’s behaviour and respond appropriately. This sensitive responsiveness lays the foundation for later attachment between the caregiver and infant

Question 7

Describe two researches into interactional synchrony

Answer 7

• Meltzoff and Moore (1977) conducted a systematic, controlled study of interactional synchrony and found infants as young as 2-3 weeks old imitated specific facial and hand gestures. The adult model used 4 stimuli (3 expressions and one hand gesture). A dummy was placed in the infants mouth during initial display to prevent a response. After it was removed, the infant’s response was filmed on video and found an association between the infant behaviour and that of the adult. Independent observers watched the video and noted instances of 4 behavioural categories ( mouth opening and closing, tongue protrusion and retraction). Each scored the tapes twice to calculate both intra-observer and inter-observer reliability and all scores were greater than 92.
• In a later study by Meltzoff and Moore, the same synchrony was found with 3 day old infants. The fact they were that young and displaying imitation behaviour ruled out the possibility that it was learned, so it must be innate.

Question 8

Give views supporting pseudo-imitation

Answer 8

• Piaget (1962) believed true imitation developed at the end of the first year and anything before was the infant repeating a behaviour that was rewarded, as a result of operant conditioning.
• e.g. Infant might stick out its tongue after seeing a caregiver do it. The consequence is the caregiver smiles, rewarding, encouraging the repetition of this behaviour.
• Thus, in Piaget’s view, the infant hasn’t consciously translated what they see into a matching movement, so it is pseudo imitation

Question 9

Give research supporting real-imitation

Answer 9

• Meltzoff and Moore proposed imitation was intentional.
• Murray and Trevarthen (1985) conducted a study where 2 month old infants first interacted via a video monitor with their mother in real life. Next, the video monitor played a tape of their mother not responding to the infants social releasers, resulting in acute distress. Infants tried to attract the mothers’ interest but, gaining no response, turned away.
• Shows that the infant is an active, intentional partner in the mother-infant interaction, supporting the notion that such behaviour is innate and not learned.

Question 10

Give evaluation for caregiver-infant interaction (intentionality)

Answer 10

• There is evidence that supports the intentionality of infant imitations.
• Abravanel and DeYong (1991) observed infants with two objects, one simulating tongue movements and the other mouth opening/closing. They found infants median age 5 and 12 weeks made little contact with the objects. Suggests infants don’t imitate anything they see, it has to be a specific social response to other humans

Question 11

Give evaluation for caregiver-infant interaction (methodology)

Answer 11

• There are methodological issues with testing infant behaviour.
• Infants’ mouths are in fairly constant motion and the expressions that are tested happen often (tongue protrusion, yawing and smiling). This makes it difficult to distinguish between general activity and imitated behaviour.
• To overcome this, Meltzoff and Moore measured infant responses by filming infants and asking observers to judge infant behaviour from the video.
• This highlights the difficulties in reliability of testing infant behaviour, but also suggests a way of increasing the internal validity of the data

Question 12

Give evaluation for caregiver-infant interactions (replicate)

Answer 12

• Studies have failed to replicate research into caregiver-infant interactions.
• Koepke et al (1983) failed to replicate Meltzoff and Moore’s findings. However, Meltzoff and Moore counterargued that the research by Koepke et al failed as it was less controlled
• Marian et al (1996) replicated Murray and Trevarthen’s study and found infants couldn’t distinguish live from videotaped interactions with their mothers, suggesting that the infants aren’t responding to the adult. Marian et al acknowledges that the failure to replicate may lie with the procedure.
• Therefore, earlier studies may have low reliability, but differences in methodology may account for thus.