Caregiver-Infant Interactions Flashcards
what is attachment?
4
a reciprocal, long lasting, emotional relationship between two people such as a caregiver and an infant
in which they depend on each other for a sense of security
attachments act as templates for future relationships and affect how we behave in these relationships (e.g. displaying ‘clingy’, proximity seeking behaviour)
serve the purpose of protecting the infant
what is infancy? what is a caregiver?
2
infancy = a period in a child’s life before speech begins, usually referring to a child’s first year of life
caregiver = any person providing care for a child such as a parent or a sibling
caregiver-infant interactions
3
non verbal communication between a caregiver and an infant is vital as it forms the basis of attachment
the formation of attachment depends on how those involved in the attachment respond to each other — the more sensitive each is to the other’s signals, the deeper the relationship and stronger the attachment
2 types of caregiver-infant interaction…
• reciprocity
• interactional synchrony
explain reciprocity
5
responding to eachother’s actions with a similar action like taking turns in a conversation
the action of one person elicits a response from the other
although, responses are not necessarily as similar as in interactional synchrony
reinforces the attachment bond
EXAMPLE = the caregiver may smile and the infant may smile back afterwards in response
explain interactional synchrony
3
mirroring each other’s actions at the same time in terms of facial expressions and body movements as well as imitating emotions and behaviours
reinforces the attachment bond
EXAMPLE = infant may move their body in time with the rhythm of the caregiver’s spoken language OR they may both smile at the same time
key study of caregiver infant interactions (procedure)
6
Meltzoff + Moore (1977) conducted the first systematic study into interactional synchrony, which is a type of caregiver infant interaction
controlled observation of an infant’s responses to 4 different stimuli from an adult; 3 facial expressions and 1 hand gesture
responses were videotaped
independent observers had to judge them in real time, slow motion and frame by frame — they did not know what stimulus the infant had seen
each observer had to record all instances of tongue protrusions, head movements, etc using specific behavioural categories (e.g. mouth opening = abrupt jaw drop)
tapes were scored twice by each observer to calculate inter and intra observer reliability — all scores of reliability were found to be greater than 0.92
key study of caregiver infant interactions (findings)
4
found a clear association between infant behaviour and that of the adult model
infants were mirroring and imitating the actions of the adults, therefore demonstrating interactional synchrony
believed that imitation was intentional and deliberate
later research found the same results in 3 day old infants, which suggests that interactional synchrony is innate as the infants could not have learned these behaviours at such a young age
x3 evaluation points
problems with reliability testing infant behaviour (+ make it a double)
failure to replicate
supporting research
EVALUATION
problems with reliably testing infant behaviour
4
infants mouths are in fairly constant motion and the expressions tested such as mouth opening and tongue protrusions occur frequently
this means that it may be difficult to distinguish between general activity and specific imitated behaviours
may decrease the internal validity of results as they may not be measuring what they’re intending to, making findings dubious
therefore, the study may lack usefulness in explaining caregiver infant interactions and should be viewed with caution when doing so
EVALUATION
make it a double
4
however, it can be argued that Meltzoff and Moore overcame this issue by asking independent observers to judge the infants’ behaviour from videos without knowing what stimulus had been seen
they watched and scored the tapes twice, recording all behaviour in precise behavioural categories
all scores of inter and intra observer reliability was found to be greater than 0.92
increases internal validity of results, perhaps increasing the usefulness of the study in explaining caregiver-infant interactions
EVALUATION
failure to replicate
4
research such as Koepke et al (1983) have failed to replicate the findings of Meltzoff and Moore’s study, which challenges the reliability of the results obtained
Koepke did not find a clear association between infant behaviour and that of the adult models
furthermore, Marian et al (1996) found that infants could not distinguish between live and videotaped interactions with their mothers, suggesting that they were not actually responding to the adult
these studies have failed to replicate Meltzoff and Moore’s findings, therefore the results found by Meltzoff and Moore may lack reliability and may have limited usefulness in explaining caregiver infant interactions
EVALUATION
supporting research
5
a key idea linked to caregiver infant interactions is that behaviour is intentional
a study by Abravanel et al (1991) supports this belief
they observed infant behaviour towards two objects that were inanimate but still imitated tongue movements and mouth opening
found that infants made little response to the objects which suggests that infants do not just imitate everything they see — they intentionally respond to other humans
therefore, the study may have increased ability to explain caregiver infant interactions due to the existence of supporting research that illustrates one of its main ideas about how infants specifically respond to other humans, which is what M+M were trying to show
