Caregiver-Infant Interactions Flashcards
Define attachment
A close two way emotional bond between 2 individuals where each person sees the other as essential for their own emotional security. It endures over time and takes a few months to develop
How can we recognise attachment?
- 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
Define interactional synchrony
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.
Define social releasers
Behaviour an infant shows that signals they want social interaction, like screeching, laughing, pointing
Define reciprocity
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 the same.
Describe Jaffe et al’s research into reciprocity
- Jaffe et al showed that infants coordinated their actions with caregivers in a kind of conversation.
- From birth, babies move in a rhythm when interaction with adults is as if they were taking turns, which is an example of reciprocity.
Describe Brazelton’s research into reciprocity
- Brazelton suggested this basic 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
Describe Meltzoff and Moore’s initial research into interactional synchrony
- Meltzoff and Moore 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 there was an association between the infant behaviour and that of the adult.
Describe Meltzoff and Moore’s later study on interactional synchrony
Meltzoff and Moore found the same synchrony 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.
Give support for the view for pseudo-imitation
- Piaget believed true imitation developed at the end of the first year and anything before was a result of operant conditioning.
- e.g. Infant sticks out its tongue after seeing a caregiver do it. The consequence is the caregiver smiles, which is rewarding and encourages the repetition of this behaviour.
- So, the infant hasn’t consciously translated what they see into a matching movement, so it is pseudo imitation
Give support for the view real-imitation
- Meltzoff and Moore proposed imitation was intentional.
- Murray and Trevarthen did 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 partner in the mother-infant interaction, supporting the notion that such behaviour is innate and not learned.
Give evaluation for caregiver-infant interaction (intentionality)
- There is evidence that supports the intentionality of infant imitations.
- Abravanel and DeYong observed infants with two objects, one simulating tongue movements and the other a 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
Give evaluation for caregiver-infant interaction (methodology)
- There are methodological issues with testing infant behaviour.
- Infants’ mouths are in fairly constant motion and the expressions that are tested happen often (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
Give evaluation for caregiver-infant interactions (failed to replicate)
- Studies have failed to replicate research into caregiver-infant interactions.
- Marian et al 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. However, Marian et al acknowledge that the failure to replicate may lie with the procedure.
- Therefore, earlier studies may have low reliability, but differences in methodology may account for this.
