Caregiver infant interactions

What is a caregiver?

A caregiver is a primary figure to takes care/provides care for (normally) an infant

Who are the main researchers into caregiver infant interactions?

Meltzoff and Moore

What does it mean by infancy?

Describes the period of time before a child can speak, normally before the age of 1

What does attachment mean?

Enduring and long special bond between two people (key characteristics is proximity seeking)

What does Caregiver - infant interactions mean?

The basis of Caregiver-infant interactions is formed by non-verbal communication and from this, attachment is formed based on sensitivity (respond to the childs needs).

Main researchers into caregiver-infant interactions: Meltzoff and Moore (77)

AO1 - Reciprocity - Meltzoff and Moore (77)

Back and forth between caregiver and infant, the action of one causes the action of another AFTER

CGI is reciprocal in that both caregiver and baby respond to each other’s signals and each elicits a response from the other. ‘Turn-taking’.

Alert phases → Feldman and Eidelman 2007 - Reciprocity

Babies have a periodic ‘alert phases’ in which they signal (e.g. making eye contact) that they are ready for an interaction.

Research shows that mothers typically pick up on and respond to their baby’s alertness around 2/3 of the time (Feldman and Eidelman), although this varies according to the skill of the mother and external factors such as stress (Finegood et al 2016).

From around 3 months, this interaction tends to become increasingly frequent and involves both mothers and baby paying close attention to each other’s verbal signals and facial expressions (Feldman 2007).

Active involvement → Brazelton et al (1975) - reciprocity

Babies, as well as CG, take quite an active role.

Both CG and the baby can initiate interactions, and they appear to take turns in doing so.

Brazelton et al. describe this interaction as a ‘dance’ because it is just like a couple’s dance where each partner responds to the other person’s moves.

Tronick et al. (1979) - reciprocity

Reciprocity refers to turn-taking behaviour in interactions. Tronick et al. (1979) demonstrated this using the still-face technique. When a caregiver suddenly became unresponsive, infants showed distress and attempted to re-engage the caregiver. This suggests that infants expect a two-way interaction and are active participants in communication.

AO1 -Interactional synchrony - Meltzoff and Moor (77)

IN SYNC, caregiver and infant do the same thing at the same time, MIRRORING each other.

CG and baby reflect both the actions and emotions of the other and do this in a coordinated (synchronised) way.

Synchrony begins (Meltzoff and Moore 1977) - interactional synchrony

• Observed the beginnings of interactional synchrony in babies as young as 2 weeks old.

• An adult displayed one of three facial expressions or one of three distinctive gestures.

• The baby’s response was filmed and labelled by independent observes.

• Babies’ expression and gestures were more likely to mirror those of the adults more than chance would predict i.e. there was a significant association.

1977 Meltzoff and Moore’s study on interactional synchrony:

• Systematic study

• Adult model displayed facial expressions or hand gestures while infant watched with dummy in mouth

• Dummy taken out and video taken of infant

• Association between infant behaviour and model behaviour

• Imitation though to be intentional

• Observers looked out for behaviours like mouth opening, sticking out tongue

Later study (83) found the same interactional synchront in infants as small as 3 days old…innateness? Born with the ability to imitate.

Piaget disagreed: said that imitation only happens after first years, anything before is just for rewards - Pseudo imitation (unconscious, non-intentional imitation)

Importance of attachment - Isabella et al (1989) - interactional synchrony

• It is believed that interactional synchrony is important for the development of CG-infant attachment.

• Isabella (1989) observed 30 mothers and babies together and assessed the degree of synchrony.

• The researchers also assessed the quality of mother-baby attachment.

• They found that high levels of synchrony were associated with better quality mother-baby attachment (e.g. the emotional intensity of the relationship).

AO3 summary

+Research support: Abravanel and Deyong observed infant behaviour with objects that had human expressions. Infant didnt respond much. Imitation is a specific and intentional response to other humnas, supporting Meltzoff and Moore’s idea that imitation is innate

+Value of research - helps us understand the basis of social development, how infants behind to understand how other feel and think, can link to developmental disorders

-Difficult to test infant behaviour - a lot of the behaviour observed could be confused with specific imitation (sticking tongue out is a common thing for infants to do) - methodological issue. BUT more researchers can be brought in to help increase internal validity, inter-rater reliability.

-Individual differences - not all infants engage with interactional synchrony, Isabella et al found that secure attachment = more engagement

+Filmed observations

• Usually filmed in a lab

• Means that other activities that might distract a baby can be controlled.

• Using films means that observations can be recorded and analysed later. There it is unlikely that researchers will miss seeing key behaviours.

• Furthermore, having filmed interactions means that more than one observer can record data and establish the inter-rater reliability of observations.

• Finally, babies don’t know they are being observed, so their bvr doesnt change in response to observation (which is generally the main problem with overt observations).

• Therefore, the data collected in such research should have good reliability and validity.

-Difficulty observing babies

• It is hard to interpret a baby’s behaviour.

• Young babies lack coordination, and much of their bodies are almost immobile.

• The movements being observed are just small hand movements or subtle changes in expression.

• It is difficult to be sure, e.g. whether a baby is smiling or just passing wind.

• It is also difficult to determine what is taking place from the baby’s perspective. E.g. we cannot know whether a movement such as a hand twitch is random or triggered by something the CG has done.

• This means we cannot be certain that the bvrs seen in CG-infant interaction have a special meaning.

-Developmental importance

• Observing a bvr does not tell us its developmental importance

• Feldman (2012) points out that ideas like synchrony (and, by implication, reciprocity) simply give names to patterns of observable CG and baby bvrs.

• These are robust phenomena in the sense that they can be reliably observed, but they may not be particularly useful in understanding child development as it does not tell us the purpose of these bvrs.

• This means that we cannot be certain from observation research alone that reciprocity and synchrony are important for a child’s development.

+COUNTERPOINT:

• There is evidence from other lines of research to suggest that early interactions are important.

• Isabella et al (1989) found that achievement of interactional synchrony predicted the development of a good quality attachment.

• This means that CG-infant interaction is probably important in development.

-/+Practical value VS ethics

• Research into early CG-infant interaction has practical applications in parenting skills training.

• E.g. Crotwell et al (2013) found that a 10-min parent-child interaction therapy (PCIT) improved interactional synchrony in 20 low-income mothers and their pre-school children.

• On the other hand, researchers into CG-infant interaction are socially sensitive because it can be used to argue that when a mother returns to work soon after having a baby, this may risk damaging their baby’s development.