Caregiver-infant interactions in humans

Question 1

Features of Caregiver-infant interactions in humans: Interactional synchrony: explanation

Answer 1

-Parent’s speech and infant’s behaviour becomes finely synchronised so that they are in direct response to one another -> to reinforce the attachment bond

Question 2

Features of Caregiver-infant interactions in humans: Reciprocity: explanation

Answer 2

-Interactions between carers and infants result in mutual behaviour, with both parties being able to produce responses from each other
-A behaviour is matched during an interaction e/ smiling back when someone smiles at us -> reinforces the attachment bond

Question 3

Caregiver-infant interactions in humans: evaluation: Strength 1

Answer 3

Condon & Sander (1974) analysed video recordings to find infants co-ordinate their actions in sequence with adult’s speech, supporting the idea of interactional synchrony, which suggests that an infant and caregiver’s behaviour is in direct response to each other.

Question 4

Caregiver-infant interactions in humans: evaluation: Strength 2

Answer 4

Interactional synchrony shown to have high importance with regard to possible effects on behaviour in later childhood. Researchers found positive synchrony between mothers and their child helps children be more socially skilled and engage in self regulation. Those without IS were antisocial with their peers which shows its importance as it can lead to positivie behaviours.

Question 5

Caregiver-infant interactions in humans: evaluation: Limitation 1

Answer 5

Vine et al (1994) reported that Kenyan mothers have little physical contacts or interactions with their infants, but they have a high proportion of secure attachments, which suugests that various cultures may differ in their type of interactions which should be considered and addressed in caregiver-infant research.

Question 6

Caregiver-infant interactions in humans: evaluation: Limitation 2

Answer 6

Problems with testing infant behaviour as infant’s’ mouths are constantly moving and expressions that are tested occur frequently.This makes it harder to distinguish between general activity and imitated behaviours. To increase the internal validity of Meltzoff and Moore’s study they asked an observer to judge the infants behaviour from the video (the observer didn’t know the behaviour was being imitated).