Caregiver-infant interaction in humans

    Cards (7)

    • Caregiver-infant interaction in humans 1/2 AO1
      • 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 observer bias where the researcher ’sees what they want to see’ and gives meaning to unrelated behaviours
      • 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 replicate findings 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 socially sensitive
      • 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 working mothers 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.