Caregiver-infant interaction

• Define ‘attachment’.


  An enduring emotional bond between an infant and their caregiver.

  Both will seek closeness to one another and will feel more secure when in each other’s presence.

  Signs of attachment therefore include proximity seeking, stranger anxiety and separation anxiety.
• Identify examples of caregiver-infant interactions.

  Reciprocity

  Interactional synchrony

  Imitation
• Distinguish between reciprocity and interactional synchrony.


  Reciprocity is a delayed interaction whereas interactional synchrony occurs at the same time.

  Reciprocity can involve the same behaviour (e.g. a mother smiles and her infant smiles back) or a different behaviour (e.g. a mother makes a funny face and her infant giggles). In contrast, interactional synchrony always has to be the same behaviour because they are mirroring each other’s actions.
• Outline research into caregiver-infant interactions.

  Research has found that caregivers and infants interact with one another to help develop and maintain attachments.

  One example of a caregiver-infant interaction is reciprocity which refers to when the caregiver and infant interact in a turn-taking fashion. 

  The responses made by the caregiver and infant may be the same (e.g. if a caregiver smiles, their infant may smile back) or different (e.g. if a caregiver makes a funny facial expression, the infant may giggle). 
• Evaluate research into caregiver-infant interactions: supporting evidence.


  One study involved infants interacting with their mother via a video monitor in real time. A pre-recorded video of their mother was then played meaning the mother did not respond to the infant’s gestures. They found that infants showed distress when the mother failed to reciprocate. This is a strength as it shows how infants play an active role in interacting with their caregivers through reciprocity.
• Evaluate research into caregiver-infant interactions: conducted in highly controlled environments with standardised procedures. 


  Study was conducted in a lab where they standardised the length of time the infants were shown the live and pre-recorded videos. This is a strength because prevented extraneous variables from affecting the findings e.g. infants may have watched the pre-recorded video for longer and so got more distressed due to the length of time away from the caregiver in person as opposed to the mother in the video not responding to them.
• Evaluate research into caregiver-infant interactions: interactional synchrony has received supporting evidence. 


  E.g. one study involved measuring the strength of infant’s attachments and then recorded the amount of interactional synchrony they showed with their caregiver. They found that more strongly attached infants showed greater interactional synchrony. This is a strength as it supports the proposal that infants display interactional synchrony to help build strong attachments.
• Evaluate research into caregiver-infant interactions: negative social and economic implications.


  E.g. the above research would pressure mothers to stay at home more so they can interact with their infants through interactional synchrony to strengthen their attachment. This is a limitation as it places burden on mothers and reduces productivity in female-dominated workplaces such as health and social care.
• Evaluate research into caregiver-infant interactions: imitation has received supporting evidence.


  E.g. one study involved adults displaying facial gestures to infants (e.g. poking their tongue out) to assess whether the infant could copy what they saw. They found that infants as young as 12 days old could imitate the gestures displayed. This is a strength as it shows that infants have an innate ability to imitate to help them form attachments.
• Evaluate research into caregiver-infant interactions: issues of whether the imitation is intentional or not. 


  This is because the gestures that were displayed (e.g. and adult poking their tongue out) are behaviours that infants frequently do anyway. This is a limitation because it may mean that infants were not deliberately imitating. Indeed, given that young infants are unable to communicate verbally, such research relies on subjective assumptions that may not be true.