caregiver-infant interactions Flashcards
what is the def. of interactional synchrony?
when 2 people interact they tend to mirror what the other is doing in terms of facial and body movement.
who studied interactional synchrony and how?
Meltzoff and Moore. they conducted a study using an adult model who displayed one of three facial expressions/movements. a dummy was placed in the infant’s mouth to prevent any response. then the dummy was removed and the infant’s expression filmed. they found an association between the behaviour of the infant and that of the adult. they repeated the study with 3 year olds and had the same findings, which suggests that behavioural response is innate.
what is the def. of reciprocity?
responding to the action of another with a similar action. where the actions of one partner elicit a response from the other
Jaffe et al, 1970’s, reciprocity.
research in the 1970s demonstrated that infants co-ordinate their actions with their caregiver, as a type of conversation.
from birth, babies move in a rhythm when interacting with adults, as if turn-taking in a conversation. this is an example of reciprocity.
brazelton, 1979, reciprocity.
brazelton 1979 suggested that this early rhythm/turn taking is an essential precursor to later communication. the infant’s signals allow the caregiver to anticipate the infant’s mood and respond appropriately. sensitivity to the infant is a foundation of forming an attachment.
is reciprocity real imitation?
Meltzoff and Moore said that the infants are intentionally imitating the adults expressions/movements. this is further supported by Murray and Trevarthen. they showed a video tape to 2 month old infants of their mothers not responding to the infant’s gestures. this caused distress for the infants: they tried to elicit a response from the mother but when they failed they turned away. this suggests that such behaviours are innate, not learned.
is reciprocity pseudo imitation?
Jean Piaget (1962) suggested that an infant repeats behaviour because it is rewarding. this is based on the operant conditioning theory. if a child imitates an adult, the adult is likely to praise (eg through smiling). this response is rewarding to the infant and thus they are likely to repeat the imitative behaviour. they are not consciously/intentionally imitating the behaviour.
evaluation point (caregiver interactions): what is the problem with testing infant behaviour?
some critics have doubted the findings of research into caregiver-infant interactions because of the difficulty of reliably testing infant behaviour. infants mouths are in constant motion and often naturally display the expressions that Meltzoff and Moore were testing (i.e. sticking tongue out, smiling, yawning). this makes it difficult to distinguish between general activity and specific imitated behaviour.
however, they overcame this by videoing the infants response to the adults and asking an observer to judge the behaviour, who had no idea what the infants were imitating. this increases the internal validity.
what is a strength of research into caregiver-infant interactions?
a method of testing intentionality of infant behaviour is to see how they respond to inanimate objects.
Abravanel + DeYung observed infant behaviour when ‘interacting’ with two objects. one had simulating tongue movements and one had an opening/closing mouth.
they found that infants of the median age 5+12 weeks made little response to the objects. they concluded that infants dont imitate anything they see; it is a specific social response to other humans.
