It is argued that babies engage in meaningful social interactions with caregivers from an early age
These interactions are crucial for social development and attachment formation
Reciprocity
Refers to the interaction that involves turn-taking between caregiver and infant
E.g caregiver cuddles the baby -> baby smiles in response
Brazelton (1979) suggested babies move in rhythm with adults, aiding commnication development
Caregiver's sensitivity to infant signals fosters secure attachment
Caregiver-infant interaction in humans 2/2 AO1
Interactional synchrony
Caregiver and infants mirror each other's facial expressions and movements simultaneously
E.g caregiver smiles -> infant smiles at the same time
Meltzoff and Moore (1977) found 2-3 week old infants mimic facial expressions
It was concluded that high levels of synchrony are linked to stronger mother-infant attachment
Caregiver-infant interactions in humans AO3
Studies in this area are well controlled
The research is conducted in the controlled setting of a lab, where extraneous variables can be controlled
Cameras are set up to capture ‘micro-sequences’ of behaviour so that even the smallest of movements can be recorded and observed
Positive as it has enabled very precise observations of infant behaviour
Caregiver-infant interactions in humans AO3
Not possible to be certain whether the infants’s behaviour is intentional or not
It is unclear whether the infant is truly ‘trying’ to interact with the caregiver in a meaningful way or whether this is just a case of observerbias where the researcher ’sees what they want to see’ and gives meaning to unrelatedbehaviours
It may be a coincidence that a child makes a particular face at the same time as the parent and the observer may incorrectly interpret this
Problem as findings may lack internal validity
Caregiver-infant interaction in humans AO3
Other studies have failed to replicatefindings of earlier studies
Koepke et al (1983) failed to replicate Meltzoff and Moore‘s findings when they replicated the study some years later
This suggest Meltzoff and Moore’s findings about interactional synchrony may have been a result of chance and coincidencerather than representing a genuine behavioural characteristic of infants
However Meltzoff and Moor counter-argued that Koepke et al failed because it was less controlled
Caregiver-infant interactions in humans AO3
Evidence to support this idea being intentional comes from Murray and Trevarthen
They allowed 2-month old infants to first interact with their mother via a live video monitor, before they were then showed a recording of their mother so that the image shown on the monitor screen was not responding to their facial and body gestures
In the condition where the mother was not responding, the infant showed acute distress
Suggest the infants were actively trying to interact with their mother and elicit a response, supporting Meltzoff and Moore’s findings
Caregiver-infant interactions in humans AO3
Research in this area is sociallysensitive
The theory that early caregiver-infant interaction lays the vital foundations for development may be seen as having consequences for caregivers in wider society
The theory may cause workingmothers to become concerned about causing their child potential harm by not being continually present to interact with their child in this way
Problem as the research in this area may have extremely damaging effects on society.