Caregiver-Infant interactions

• Caregiver infant interactions refer to the communication between a caregiver and an infant. It is believed that these interactions have essential functions for the child's social development and form the basis of attachment between the two. The more responsive or sensitive they are to each other's signals, the deeper the bond.
• There is reciprocity. It is a two-way/mutual process, each party responds to the other's signals to sustain (continue) the interaction (turn-taking). An interaction is reciprocal when each person responds to the other and the behaviour of each party elicits a response from the other. Both the caregiver and infant can initiate interactions. It is thought to be an important precursor to later communications. Also as the infant signals are regular, this enables the caregiver to anticipate the infant's behaviour and respond appropriately. The sensitivity lays the foundation of the later attachment
• Interactional synchrony is when a caregiver and infant reflect on the actions and emotions of the other in a coordinated way. They mirror each other in terms of facial and body movements.
• Show interactional synchrony: Melzoff and Moore (1977) observed the beginnings of interactional synchrony in infants as young as two weeks old. An adult displayed one of three facial expressions or one of three distinctive gestures. The number of behavioural categories. The observers did not know what the infants had seen (the infants were filmed from an angle which meant that the adult couldn't be seen).
• Results for Meltzoff and Moore (1977)An association was found between the expression or gesture the adult had displayed and the actions of the babies. In 1983 they demonstrated this in three-day old babes which rules out the possibility this behaviour is learned and suggests it is therefore innate.
• Meltzoff and Moore proposed that the infants' limitations were intentional i.e. they were deliberately copying what the caregiver was doing. Meltzoff suggested that through interactional synchrony, infants begin to acquire an understanding of what other people are thinking and feeling which is fundamental for social relationships.
• Reciprocity develops in its simplest form, at a very early age. According to Feldman (2007), reciprocity can be seen in interactions from 3 months of age.
• Strength: they used a well-controlled procedure. E.g. the mother & infant are filmed from multiple angles. The angles often include those that mean that the researcher is analysing the video footage and cannot see what the other person in the video is doing. Also, babies do not know or care where they are being observed. This supports research around the ideas of caregiver infant interactions as this reduces the likelihood of demand characteristics (SD bias), which would otherwise be problematic for observational research.
• Continuing strength: well-controlled procedure Recording interactions that fine details can be recorded and later analysed and as angles can be used where the caregiver cannot be seen, this minimises researcher bias. Thus, this ensures that the research has a good internal validity and so we can make valid conclusions about C-I interactions. (replicated to check reliability).
• Weakness: It is difficult to study infants' behaviour because of their difficult and unpredictable facial expressions. E.g., their mouths are in 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.
• Continuing weakness: difficult to study infants behaviours

  Thus clearly undermines supporting evidence for caregiver-initiated interactions, because we cannot ascertain whether these interactions are deliberate and so thus cannot conclude that they have specific or relevant meaning caused in response to the caregiver thus undermining the validity of the argument
• Strength: The research into C-I interactions is that it is from real world applications. E.g. research into mother-infant interaction is socially sensitive because it suggests that children may be disadvantaged by certain child-regarding practices. In particular, mothers who return to work shortly after a child is born restrict the opportunities for achieving interactional synchrony which has been found to be important in developing C-I attachment. This suggests that mothers should not return to work so soon and as such has socially sensitive implications.
• Continuing strength: from real world application Thus this suggests that the research can be applied beyond the setting it was devised in and so is externally valid.
• Weakness: from other research studies. E.g. many studies that observe some interactions between mothers and infants have shown the same pattern of interaction (R and I.S.). However, what is being observed is just hand movements or changes in expression. Thus, it is difficult to know what is taking place from the infant's perspective (is imitation conscious and deliberate). Other research has suggested that the infants may be displaying pseudo imitation, where they are not truly imitating the behaviour of the caregiver.
• Continuing weakness: from research studiesInstead they are repeating a behaviour that has been rewarded by the caregiver (the caregiver smiles when imitation takes place). So the infant has not consciously translated what they see into a matching movement. So we cannot conclude whether we fully understand the meaning of caregiver-infant interactions, and we cannot know for certain they have a special meaning, thus undermining supporting evidence for research into C-I interactions.
• Continuing weakness: from research studies For example, the findings from Meltzoff and Moore's research in relation to reciprocity are questioned, reducing its validity. This suggests that we cannot be certain that behaviour seen in caregiver infant interactions has special meaning.