caregiver-infant interactions

reciprocity

action of a partner elicit a response form the other

turn taking.

e.g. smiling and smiling back

interaction synchrony

when interacting, ‘mirror’ what the other is doing (facial and body movements)

includes emotions

two or more things move in the same pattern

observational research

Meltzoff and Moore -

• picked 4 different stimuli (3 facial gestures and one hand)

• the interactions were filmed - then watched back by an observer.

• a correlation was found between adult behavioural and infant response.

• all observers check twice - check inter-rater and inter-observer reliability can be can be calculated .

Isabella et al

• assessed degree of synchrony between 30 infants and mothers

• also assessed quality of attachment

• high levels of synchrony correlate to better levels of attachments.

evaluation - weakness (problems with testing infant behaviour)

• hard to interpret the baby’s behaviour (lack of coordination, immobile)

• observations are based of hand movements or subtle changes in expression hard to know what is going on or the meaning.

• can’t be sure the behaviours observed have special meaning.

evaluation - strength (filmed observations)

• filmed in a lab.

• other activates might distract baby - controlled

• recorded and analysed later - unlikely research’s will miss any key behaviours.

• more than one observer can analyse and watch data.

• babies don’t know if they are being observed so behaviour does not change in response to observation - no demand characteristics.

• good reliability and validity

evaluation - weakness (developmental importance)

• Feldman - synchrony and reciprocity are just names given to patterns of behaviour.

• they exist but not useful in getting development because we don’t know the purpose of the behaviours.

  counter point -

• Isabella et al - positive correlation between synchrony and levels of attachment