caregiver interaction eval

Question 1

Practical value versus ethics

Answer 1

There is no simple answer about whether socially-sensitive but practically-valuable research should be carried out. Unlike some areas of socially-sensitive research, attachment research has clear real-world applications. For example, Rebecca Crotwell et al. (2013) found that Parent–Child Interaction Therapy (PCIT) improved interactional synchrony in 20 low-income mothers and their pre-school children.
However, there is also an argument against socially-sensitive research like that by Isabella et al. (1989) because research like this can be used to restrict freedom of choice – in this case the choice of mothers of when to return to work. Other people believe that knowledge is always neutral, not good or bad. Attachment researchers sometimes argue that they wish to equip parents with the best understanding possible of their child’s needs so that they can make informed decisions.
So there is a strong argument that attachment research is valuable, but that psychologists need to be clear about its purpose.

Question 2

Filmed observations

Answer 2

One strength of the research on this topic is that caregiver-infant
Interactions are usually filmed in a laboratory.
This means that other activity, that might distract a baby, can be controlled. Also, using films means that observations can be recorded and analysed later. Therefore it is unlikely that researchers will miss seeing key behaviours. Furthermore having filmed interactions means that more than one observer can record data and establish the inter-rater reliability of observations. Finally, babies don’t know they are being observed, so their behaviour does not change in response to observation (this is generally the main problem for overt observations).
Therefore the data collected in such research should have good reliability
and validity.

Question 3

Difficulty observing babies

Answer 3

One limitation of research into caregiver-infant interaction is that it is hard to interpret a baby’s behaviour.
Young babies lack co-ordination and much of their bodies are almost immobile. The movements being observed are just small hand movements or subtle changes in expression. It is difficult to be sure for example whether a baby is smiling or just passing wind. It is also difficult to determine what is taking place from the baby’s perspective. For example, we cannot know whether a movement such as a hand twitch is random or triggered by something the caregiver has done.
This means we cannot be certain that the behaviours seen in caregiver-infant interactions have a special meaning.

Question 4

Developmental importance

Answer 4

A further limitation is that simply observing a behaviour does not tell us its developmental importance.
Ruth Feldman (2012) points out that ideas like synchrony (and by implication reciprocity) simply give names to patterns of observable caregiver and baby behaviours. These are robust phenomena in the sense that they can be reliably observed, but they still may not be particularly useful in understanding child development as it does not tell us the purpose of these behaviours.
This means that we cannot be certain from observational research alone that reciprocity and synchrony are important for a child’s development.

Question 5

Counterpoint

Answer 5

There is evidence from other lines of research to suggest that early interactions are important. For example Isabella et al.
(1989) found that achievement of interactional synchrony predicted the development of a good quality attachment.
This means that, on balance, caregiver-infant interaction is probably important in development.