1. Caregiver-Infant Interactions

• 1. Attachment

  Attachment forms bond between infant/caregiver.

  • Infants are altricial, meaning they need to form attachment for protection/nurture.
• 2. Caregiver-Infant Interactions

  Forms basis of attachment.

  • Non-verbal communication - key interaction.
  • Depends on way infant + caregiver responds that determines formation of attachment.
• 3. Reciprocity

  • 3-months-old.
  • Intense/frequent interactions.
  • Attention to verbal/facial signals.
  • ’Turn-taking’.
  • Alert Phase - must respond for attachment!!!
• 3a. Reciprocity

  • Feldman + Eidelman (2007), mothers respond to alertness 2/3 of time.
  • Finegood et al. (2016), varies due to external factors + skill of mother.
• 3b. Reciprocity

  • Active Involvement - crucial for attachment.
  • Brazelton et al. (1975), ‘dance‘ where they respond to each other’s moves.
• 4. Interactional Synchrony

  Mirroring each other; can happen from 2-weeks-old.

  • Isabella et al. (1989) - 30 mothers/infants; assess degree of synchrony.
  • High level synchrony = better quality attachment.
• 4a. Interactional Synchrony

  Meltzoff + Moore (1977):

  • Systematic study; imitate facial expressions/hand gestures.
  • Adult model, 1/3 facial expressions + hand gestures.
  • Infant had dummy = prevent response.
  • When removed, infant filmed.
  • Association between infant behaviour/model.
• Caregiver-Infant Interactions (Evaluation)

  Strength:

  P - interactions filmed in laboratory.

  E - controlled setting = analysis later + more than one observer can record data (inter-rater reliability).

  E - babies behaviour not change, no demand characteristics.

  L - high reliability + internal validity.
• Caregiver-Infant Interactions (Evaluation)

  Limitation:

  P - hard to interpret infant behaviour.

  E - lack co-ordination; movements observed subtle.

  E - can’t determine baby’s perspective.

  L - uncertain on movements having special meaning.
• Caregiver-Infant Interactions (Evaluation)

  Limitation:

  P - observations alone don’t explain developmental importance.

  E - Feldman (2012), ideas like synchrony/reciprocity just give names to observable patterns of behaviour.

  E - may not be useful in understanding child development as doesn’t explain purpose of behaviour.

  L - uncertain that synchrony/reciprocity important.
• Caregiver-Infant Interactions (Evaluation)

  Strength:

  P - research suggests early interactions important.

  E - Isabella et al. (1989), high level interactional synchrony causes good quality attachment.

  L - caregiver-infant interactions important in development.