An emotional bond between two people, usually a primary caregiver and a child
The relationship is reciprocal (shared), which means that it is a two-way relationship that endures over time
Define what is meant by reciprocity
When an infant responds to the actions of another person in a form or turn-taking
The action of one person elicits a response from the other
Define what is meant by interactional synchrony
When infants mirror the actions or emotions of another person
Mirroring can also be referred to as imitation or simply copying the adult's behaviour
Child will move their body/ carry out same act as caregiver SIMULTANEOUSLY- both said to be synchronised; interaction serves to sustain communication
Meltzoff & Moore (1977):
Aim: to examine interactional synchrony in infants; to find out if interactional synchrony is innate
Method: controlled observation, adult model displays one of three facial expressions/ hand gesture; starting with dummy in child's mouth, preventing facial response. following display from adult model, dummy removed and child's expressions were filmed.
Meltzoff & Moore (1977):
Results: Clear association between infants' behaviour and that of adult model; later research has same findings in 3-day-old infants
Conclusion: Interactional synchrony is innate and reduces strength of claim that imitative behaviour is learned
W- Methodological problems:
Observational methods allow observer bias where researchers (un)consciously interpret behaviour to support their findings; more than one observer should be used to examine inter-observer reliability of observations.
Koepke et al. (1983) failed to replicate findings of Meltzoff & Moore. Therefore, lack of research support suggests results are unreliable.
S- Research support:
Kaitz et al. (1988) found certain behaviour are innate. For example, tongue protrusion may be a pre-packaged motor programme, simply released by adult's behaviour. Innate behaviours have an intentional motive
W- Only securely attached infants engage in interactional synchrony:
Isabella et al. (1989) found that the more securely attached to the infant, the greater the level of interactional synchrony. Not all children engage in interactional synchrony; Meltzoff & Moore's original findings overlook individual differences which could be a mediating factor