Reciprocity and interactional synchrony

• What is attachment?

  A strong emotional and reciprocal tie that develops between an infant and its primary caregiver

  • Each sees the other as essential for their own emotional security
• What are attachment behaviours?

  • Proximity
  • Separation distress
  • Secure base behaviour
• What is reciprocity?

  Actions of caregiver are imitated by infant (or vice versa)

  • e.g. carer smiles at infant, infant smiles back
  • Two-way interaction
  • Both respond to each other's signals + try to elicit deliberate reaction from the other
  • Involves coordination + turn-taking
  • Feldman (2007) = infants 3+ months old show high levels of reciprocity through facial expressions -> mothers typically pick up on alertness 2/3 of the time
• What is interactional synchrony?

  Infant + caregiver develop a type of conversation without language by reflecting both actions + emotions of the other

  • Two-way interaction
  • Involves coordinated, simultaneous sequence of movements
  • e.g. caregiver + infant smiling at same time
  • Meltzoff + Moore (1977) = interactional synchrony observed in 2+ week old infants -> association between adult's facial expressions + infant's
  • Isabella et al. (1989) = high levels of synchrony between mothers + babies
  • Higher synchrony if more secure attachments
• Strengths of observing babies:

  • Filmed observations = reliable + valid
  • Observations can be recorded + analysed -> key interactions not missed
  • 1+ observer can analyse behaviour
  • Babies don't know they are being recorded = no ppt reactivity
  • Isabella et al. (1989) = achievement of interactional synchrony predicts development of good quality attachment -> important in development of babies
• Limitations of observing babies:

  • Difficult to observe babies
  • Some movements may be natural rather than reciprocal
  • Developmental importance
  • Simply observing 'reciprocity' + 'interactional synchrony' doesn't tell us its importance in babies' development
• Other forms of caregiver-infant interactions:

  • Bodily contact
  • Skin to skin immediately after birth = strengthened mother-baby bond
  • Mimicking
  • Infants innately imitate facial expressions
  • Caregiverese
  • Infants innately respond to caregiver tones
  • Shown across various cultures = instinctive behaviour from parents
• What was the Still Face Experiment (Tronick et al. 1975)?


  • Method: lab experiment
  • Procedure: controlled observation -> mothers who had been interacting with their child told to hold faces still
  • Interactions recorded on film
  • Findings: infants attempted to resume interaction by smiling -> became distressed when no reciprocation
  • Conclusions: infants expect reciprocity -> reciprocity/interactional synchrony = key in caregiver-infant interactions
  • Infants active in interactions = important foundation for building relationships
• What was Condon + Sander's (1974) study into attachment?


  • Method: controlled observation
  • Procedure: infants filmed while sound recordings of adults played
  • Frame-by-frame analysis of babies' movements in response to recordings of adult conversation
  • Findings: babies moved in time to rhythm of conversation = subtle form of turn-taking
  • Conclusions: in real life interactions between infant + adult this results in reciprocity (both parties can elicit responses from the other despite only the adult being able to talk)
• What was Meltzoff + Moore's (1977) study into attachment (part 1)?


  • Method: controlled observation
  • Sample: 2-3 week infants
  • Procedure: 4 facial expression stimuli + 1 hand gesture stimulus used
  • Infants had dummies to prevent instantaneous responses
  • Adult demonstrated stimuli + waited for infant to react w/o dummy, now with a blank face
  • Process recorded on camera then observers rated neutrality of baby's expressions + placed behaviours in categories
• What was Meltzoff + Moore's (1977) study into attachment (part 2)?

  Findings: association between adult model + baby's behaviour

  • Correlation = +0.92
  • Conclusions: infants' imitation of adult behaviour designed to elicit response from caregiver
• Reciprocity + interactional synchrony A&E point 1: research support for infants deliberately engaging in mutual interactions with caregivers

  • Meltzoff + Moore (1977) -> +0.92 correlation between adult model + baby's behaviour
  • Infants = aiming to elicit continuous response
  • Tronick et al. (1975) Still Face Experiment -> infants became distressed when caregiver gave no response
  • Babies have expectation of a reaction
  • = evidence that infant-caregiver interactions are mutual
• Reciprocity + interactional synchrony A&E point 2: there are some issues with research studies into caregiver-infant interactions

  • Infants cannot communicate using language -> inferences drawn about behaviour can't be confirmed = inference of intentionality potentially flawed
  • Noted failure to replicate key research
  • Keopke et al. (1983) couldn't replicate Meltzoff + Moore (1977)
  • Marian et al. (1996) couldn't replicate Murray + Trevarthen (1985)
  • Failure to replicate suggests initial findings could be down to chance alone -> theory has much reliance on shaky research
• Reciprocity + interactional synchrony A&E point 3: research has significant implications + is highly socially sensitive

  • Most research focused on mother-infant interactions
  • Mutual interactions = fundamental to infant's development
  • Puts pressure on mothers to stay at home with babies instead of going back to work
  • Could hurt economy + ethical issues introduced
  • Patriarchal research -> beta gender bias
  • Lamb (1987) -> men equally capable of being a part of their child forming early attachment
  • Need to be careful about his this research is publicised + conclusions drawn