evaluation

• evaluation points-

  • positives
  • supporting evidence- Meltzoff and Moore
  • other examples - Isabella et al
  • controlled methods
  • negatives
  • problems with testing and observing infant behaviours
  • caregiver-infant interactions are not found in all cultures- research done is ethnocentric
• • One strength is that there is supporting evidence for interactional synchrony and reciprocity.
  • For example, Meltzoff and Moore researched interactional synchrony by observing 12-21 day old infants producing facial expressions. The infants' behaviours were videotaped and shown to independent observers who recorded the infants' behaviours.
  • The researchers found that the infants imitated the adults' facial expressions and hand movements.
  • Therefore it is valid as interactional synchrony shows that the caregiver and infant act as if they are one person.
• • One limitation is that there are problems with testing and observing infant behaviour
  • There is reason to doubt the findings of research studies such as Meltzoff and Moore because of the difficulties in reliably testing infant behaviour. This is because infants' mouths are in constant motion and the behaviours that are tested occur frequently.
  • This makes it difficult to distinguish between general activity and specific imitated behaviours.
  • Therefore, testing on infants is unreliable as their facial expressions are in constant motion
• • One strength is that the research done uses controlled methods that capture fine details.
  • Meltzoff and Moore filmed the activity of infants from different angles which meant that independent and multiple assessments can be made during analysis, the assessors can also pause and rewind to make closer observations. Additionally the infants will not know and don't care if they're being observed which means tat they won't change their behaviours.
  • This shows that the research is valid.
• • one strength is that there are other examples of variation between infants.
  • Isabella et al found that more strongly attached infant-caregiver pairs showed greater interactional synchrony and strength of attachment.
  • this shows that quality of attachments is linked with interactional synchrony.
  • This shows that caregiver-infant interactions are important for developing attachment.
• • one limitation is that caregiver-infant interactions are not found in all cultures.
  • Le Vine et al reported that Kenyan mothers have little physical interactions and contact with their infants, yet the infants have a high proportion of secure attachment.
  • Therefore the research may be ethnocentric and ignores how attachments may be formed in different cultures and that the infant doesn't have to imitate the caregiver to form an attachment.
  • This reduces the validity of the research as all cultures should be considered in order to generalise as much as possible.