L1: Caregiver-Infant Interactions

• What is attachment?


  A close, two-way emotional bond between individuals which endures over time.
• attachment behaviours

  1. proximity: staying physically close to thing they attach to (e.g., child clinging to mother)
  2. separation distress: feeling distressed when separated from attachment figure -> joy on reunion
  3. secure-base behaviour: attachment fig. used as safe base; explore surroundings + independence from attachment fig.
• What are the two main interactions between a caregiver and infant which can lead to the formation of attachments?

  Reciprocity and interactional synchrony.
• interactional synchrony (IS)

  • synchronised mirroring of behaviour between caregiver and infant

  Meltzoff and Moore (1977): observed IS in babies from 2 weeks old

  • adult displayed 1/3 behaviours: pouting, open mouth, stick out tongue
  • filmed + labelled by indep. observers

  M+M found infant behaviour mirrored that of the adult model
• importance of IS in attachment

  Isabella et al (1989): observed 30 mothers and babies; assessed levels of synchrony

  • also assessed quality of attachment between infant and caregiver

  Isabella et al found high levels of synchrony were associated with high quality attachments.
• reciprocity

  • shown when infant and caregiver respond to each other, eliciting a response
  • e.g., a mother may sing -> baby smiles -> mother smiles back
• alert phases of reciprocity

  Feldman and Eidelman (2007): mothers pick up on alert phases 2/3 times

  • alert phases: phases where baby shows they are ready for interaction

  Feldman: 3 months -> interaction more frequent + attentive

  • e.g., baby making eye contact; babbling
• active involvement in reciprocity

  • babies can initiate interaction -> baby + caregiver take turns
  • past: babies as passive when being cared for; now seeing they also have an active role

  Brazelton et al (1975) described the interaction as a "dance"
• limitation: developmental importance

  P: limitation of reciprocity and IS: don't fully understand dev. importance

  E: Feldman (2012): only describes behaviour; doesn't tell us the purpose of this behaviour in attachment

  E: means there is little understanding of reasoning behind these behaviours; don't know why they occur or their importance in attachment

  L: limitation is not understanding developmental importance as this reduces the credibility of reciprocity and IS.
• strength: filmed observations

  P: strength of research is that they are usually filmed in lab

  E: Meltzoff and Moore filmed 15 2-week-old babies in a lab -> extraneous variables were controlled.

  E: means any activity which may have distracted baby (e.g., sound) was controlled, so researcher unlikely to miss key behaviour

  > also no researcher bias; observations filmed by independent observers.

  L: strength -> filmed observations b/c it increases reliability and validity.
• limitation: difficulty observing babies

  P: limitation is it is hard to interpret babies' behaviour.

  E: movements baby makes are small hand movements/subtle changes in facial expression

  > cannot know if this is random or triggered by caregiver; babies lack co-ordination.

  E: limitation b/c means we can't clearly establish cause and effect

  > unable to see if behaviour in caregiver-infant interaction has meaning

  > lack of control for extraneous variables

  L: limitation -> difficulty interpreting babies' behaviour -> reduces validity.
• strength: practical value vs ethics

  P: strength is it has practical application in parenting skills training BUT also has ethical issues

  E: Crotwell et al (2013): Parent-Child Interaction Therapy (PCIT) for 10 mins

  > high IS in low-income mothers and children

  E: research could be socially insensitive; argues when a mother returns to work after having a baby, this may hinder dev. in baby

  L: strength is practical value as it has real-world application, however it also has ethical issues (social sensitivity)