Caregiver - infant interactions - R, I

• (AO1) Define attachment

  Is an emotional tie or bond between two people, usually a primary caregiver and a child.

  The relationship is reciprocal (shared) = two way relationship that endures over time.
• (AO1) Define reciprocity

  Two-way interaction. When an infant responds to the actions of caregiver in the form of turn taking or mirroring.
• (AO1) Relate Brezelton and Feldman to reciprocity

  Brezelton et al (1975) = describes the interaction as a 'dance', because when a couple dance together they each respond to one another's movements/rhythms

  
  

  Feldman (2007) = from around 3 months old, reciprocity increases in frequency as the infant & caregiver pay more attention to each other's verbal & facial communications.

  
  

  It is suggested that showing this sensitive responsiveness, (caregiver pays attention sensitively towards the infant's behaviour) will lay strong foundations for attachment to develop later between them.
• (AO1) Define interactional synchrony

  Caregiver reacts quickly & seamlessly to movements/emotions of their infants, and can even anticipate this before expressed by the infant. e.g. facial expressions.

  
  

  This would create a simultaneously co-ordinated sequence of movement/emotions, establishing communication between the two.
• (AO1) Describe Meltzoff and Moore (1977) aim and method

  Aim = To examine interactional synchrony in infants

  
  

  Method = Controlled observation. Adult displayed 1 of 3 facial expressions/hand gestures. To start, the child has a dummy placed in mouth to prevent facial response. Following display of facial expression from adult, dummy was removed and the child's expressions were filmed.
• (AO1) Describe Meltzoff & Moore (1977) results and conclusion

  Results = Clear association between infant's behaviour and adult model. Later research by M&M in 1983 found that same findings in 3 day old infants.

  
  

  Conclusion = These findings suggest that interactional synchrony is:

  • Innate
  • Reduces the strength of any claim that imitative behaviour is learned
• (AO3) Give a limitation of caregiver infant interactions

  Point: The reliability of research into caregiver-infant interactions can be questioned due to difficulties in testing infants' behaviours.

  
  

  Evidence: Move mouths & wave arms frequently = issues for researchers who are trying to distinguish between natural and intentional behaviour.

  
  

  Evaluate: Since infant's intention is difficult to determine, cannot be certain that infants engaged in interactional synchrony or reciprocity, as some behaviour may have occurred by chance, reducing validity of findings.
• (AO3) Give a limitation of caregiver infant interactions)

  
  

  P: Even though use of controlled observation to capture micro-sequences allows for detailed analysis of R & IS, may not reflect real-world interactions.

  
  

  E: Focusing solely on brief behaviours can lead to assumptions that not wholly representative of actual behaviour in natural settings.

  
  

  E: Behaviours may be (1) reflexes or (2) linked to muscle development RATHER than attachment - with infants searching for food source rather than comfort. Thus, supports Learning Theory over Bowlby's view of attachment as innate.
• (AO3) Give a limitation of caregiver infant interactions

  Point: Research suggests that only securely attached infants consistently engage in interactional synchrony, expressing potential individual differences.

  
  

  Evidence: Isabella et al (1989) found that the more securely attached the infant is, the greater the level of interactional synchrony.

  
  

  Evaluate: Challenges M&M findings, suggests IS is not universal, in which not all children engage in IS. Thus, M&M original findings may have overlooked individual differences, which could be a meditating factor in caregiver-infant interactions.