Careguver-infant Interactions In Humans Flashcards
What is attachment
an affectional tie that one person or animal forms between himself and another specific one – a tie that binds them together in space and endures over time.
What behaviours indicate an attachment
Seeking proximity
Distress in separation
Joy on reunion
General orientation towards each other
What is infancy
Infancy is the period of a child’s life before speech begins – usually seen as the first year of a child’s life although it can include the second year.
What are the key interactions between caregiver and their infants
One of the key interactions between caregivers and their infants is their non-verbal communication i.e. communicating without words or sometimes even sound. Such interactions may form the basis of attachment between an infant and caregiver.
2 main types of caregivers infant interactions in humans
- Reciprocity
- Interactional Synchrony
What is reciprocity
an interaction is reciprocal when each person responds to the other and elicits a response from them.
Research on reciprocity
Research in the 1970s demonstrated that infants coordinated their actions with caregivers in a kind of conversation. From birth babies move in a rhythm when interacting with an adult almost as if they were taking turns, as people do when having a conversation – one person talks, the other listens etc – this is an example of reciprocity.
Brazelton et al. (1975) described this interaction (reciprocity) as a dance because it is just like a couple’s dance where each partner responds to each other’s moves.
Brazelton (1979) suggested that the basic rhythm is an important precursor to later communications. The regularity of an infant’s signals allows a caregiver to anticipate the infants behaviour and respond appropriately. The sensitivity to infant behaviour lays the foundation for later attachment between caregiver and infant.
Example of reciprocity
one person talks, the other listens etc – this is an example of reciprocity.
What is interactional synchrony
the temporal co-ordination of micro-level social behaviour’
Research on interactional synchrony
Procedure: Meltzoff and Moore - controlled observation. They selected four different stimuli (three different faces plus a hand gesture) and observed the behaviour of infants in response. The study was conducted using an adult model who displayed one of three facial expressions or hand movements where the fingers moved in sequence. A dummy was placed in the infant’s mouth during the initial display to prevent any response. Following the display the dummy was removed and the child’s expression was filmed on video.
To record observations an observer watched videotapes of the infant’s behaviour in real time, slow motion and frame by frame if necessary. This video was then judged by independent observers who had no knowledge of what the infant had just seen. Each observer was asked to note down all instances of infant tongue protrusions and head movements using the following behavioural categories:
Mouth opening – abrupt jaw drop opening the mouth across entire extent of lip
Termination of mouth opening- return of lips to their closed resting position
Tongue protrusion –clear forward thrust of tongue such that the tongue tip crossed the back edge of the lower lip
Termination of tongue protrusion –retraction of tip of tongue behind the back edge of the lower lip
Each observer scored the tapes twice so that both the intra-observer and inter-observer reliability could be calculated and all scores were greater than 0.92.
l synchrony.
Evaluation of Caregiver-infant interactions through reciprocity and interactional synchrony - weakness
1) Problems with testing infant behaviour – there is doubt on the findings of infant behaviour studies (such as the study conducted by Meltzoff and Moore) because it is difficult to reliably test their behaviour. Infants mouths are in fairly constant motion and the expressions that are tested occur frequently e.g. tongue sticking out, yawning, smiling etc. This makes it difficult to distinguish between general activity and specific imitated behaviours. However, to overcome these problems, Meltzoff and Moore asked an independent judge to view the babies tapes without knowledge of what the infant had seen. This research therefore highlights the difficulties in testing infant behaviour, but also suggests one way of increasing the internal validity of the data.
2) Failure to replicate – Other studies such as Koepke et al (1985) failed to replicate Meltzoff and Moores findings although Meltzoff argued that Koepke study was not controlled carefully enough. Furthermore, Marian et al (1986) tried to replicate Murray and Trevarthen’s study and found that infants could not distinguish live interactions from videotaped interactions of their mother – although Marian did argue that the problem may lie with the procedure rather than the babies ability to imitate their caregivers.
3) Is the behaviour intentional or just imitative? – Another method to test the intentionality of infants is to see how they respond to inanimate objects. Abravenal and DeYoung (1991) observed infant behaviour when interacting with two objects – one simulating tongue movements and the other mouth opening and closing. They found that infants between the ages of 5 and 12 weeks made little response to the objects – this study shows that babies do not just imitate what they see – it is in fact a social response to other humans showing both reciprocity and interactional synchrony.
4) Individual differences – when studying interactional synchrony, there is some variation between infants behaviour - for example, Isabella et al (1989) found that more strongly attached infant-caregiver pairs showed greater interactional synchrony. Heimann (1989) showed that infants who demonstrate a lot of imitation from birth onwards have been found to have better quality relationships at three months although there is a problem of cause and effect here in terms of whether it is the imitation which leads to interactional synchrony which then leads to better quality relationships or is there other factors involved?
.
Meltzoff and Moore findings
Findings: infants as young as two to three weeks old, imitated specific facial gestures and that there was an association between the infant behaviour and that of the adult model.
In a later study – Meltzoff and Moore demonstrated the same synchrony with infants only three days old – since infants this young are copying facial expressions is suggesting that interactional synchrony is likely to be innate (inborn or nature) rather than learned.
Meltzoff and Moore study evaluation
However Piaget (1962) argued that infants this young cannot imitate intentionally – instead are just doing a ‘pseudo – imitation’ i.e. copying because there is a reward e.g. the caregiver smiling rather than it being due to interactional synchrony. Piaget argued that true imitation happened after the child was a year old.
Evidence to support Meltzoff’s study was shown by Murray and Trevarthen (1985) research. In this study two-month-old infants first interacted via a video monitor with their mother in real time. In the next part of the study the video monitor played a tape of the mother so that the image on the screen was not responding to the infants’ facial and bodily gestures. The results were one of acute distress from the infants. The infants tried to attract their mothers’ interest but, gaining no response, turned away – this shows that an infant is actively eliciting a response rather than just displaying a response that has been rewarded. This study shows the importance of interactiona
strength of caregiver infant interactions
The value of research – the importance of studying caregiver- infant interactions such as interactional synchrony and reciprocity is that it shows how if forms the basis for social development. Meltzoff (2005) has developed a ‘like me’ hypothesis of infant development based on his research on interactional synchrony – and from this the baby associates their imitation with feelings and thoughts of others which then ultimately leads understanding how others think and feel (Theory of Mind) and thus are able to construct relationships. Therefore a strength of this research is that it explains how children begin to develop a theory of mind and are thus able to conduct relationships
