caregiver-infant interactions AO3

• Meltzoff & Moore’s claims that imitation in infants is intentional and

  innate have been criticised.


  • Piaget(1962) claimed that true imitation only develops towards the end of the 1st year
  • He argued any imitation before the end of the first year is just operant conditioning- the infant repeats the behaviour because it has been rewarded.
  • For example, a consequence of a infant sticking out their tongue after the caregiver would be that the caregiver smiles and this would encourage the infant to repeat that behaviour due to this rewarding response.
• What does Piaget's claim suggest?

  This suggests what the infant would be doing is just pseudo-imitation-they may not be consciously translating what they have seen into a

  matching movement, meaning that the behaviour is not innate but

  is learned.
• Meltzoff & Moore’s findings have been supported by other research.

  • In a study by Murray and Trevarthen (1985), two-month-old infants first interacted via a video monitor with their mother in real time.
  • when the monitor played a recording (mother not interacting with infant) the infant showed acute distress (as they tried to get the mother’s attention and gained no response, they turned away).
  • This shows that the infant is actively provoking a response rather than displaying a response that has been rewarded.
• What does Murray and Trevarthen's study suggest?

  This suggests that the infant is an active and intentional partner in the

  mother-infant interaction, supporting the notion that such behaviours are innate not learned.
• There are a number of methodological strengths of caregiver-infant research like that conducted by Meltzoff & Moore.

  • generally well-controlled procedures, with both the mother and infant being filmed, often from multiple angles. The angles often include those that mean that the researcher analysing the video footage cannot see what the other person in the video is doing. As angles can be used where the caregiver can’t be seen, this reduces the likelihood of researcher bias.
  • babies have less chance of social desirability or demand characteristics
• what do the methodological strengths of caregiver-infant research ensure?

  the research has good internal validity and so we can make valid

  conclusions about the importance of caregiver-infant interactions. It also means that the research can be replicated to check reliability of the results.
• what is a counterargument for 'methodological strengths of caregiver-infant research' ?

  • it is difficult to study infants’ behaviour because their mouths are in fairly constant motion. The expressions being tested in research (e.g. tongue sticking out, yawning, smiling) occur frequently.
  • This makes it difficult to distinguish between general activity and specific imitated behaviours.
  • we can’t be certain that the interactions are deliberate and so have a special meaning.
• Research into mother-infant interaction is socially sensitive because it suggests that children may be disadvantaged by particular child-rearing practices.


  • mothers who return to work shortly after a child is born restricts the opportunities for interactional synchrony which is important in developing attachment.
  • This suggests that mothers should not return to work so soon and so is socially sensitive - mothers may feel guilty about having to go to work
  • However, the research is important as it suggests that the interactions have a special meaning and may have implications later on in life.
• what does the fact that research in caregiver-infants is socially sensitive but also important suggest?

  These two opposing viewpoints need to be carefully considered when

  conducting and publishing such research.