4.1.3a - Evaluation of Cargiver-Infant Interactions

Wednesday 29th November ‘23

Thursday 7th December ‘23

Wednesday 13th December ‘23

Procedure:

• Controlled observation of a child’s response to a changing stimuli (conducted by model)

• Child’s dummy removed after display and infant’s behaviour recorded

• Two independent blind observers watched the recordings of the infants in real time, slow motion and frame-by-frame

• Intra-observer reliability (measures stability of an observer’s scores) and inter-rater reliability (stability amongst observers) were high which shows how the scores collected were largely accurate.

Findings:

• Imitation possible, even for those as young as 12-21 days old

• Intentional response signifies the infant’s communication

• Imitation must be innate and can be used as an attachment strategy.

Starter Task

1. Melzoff + Moore’s high validity is due to inter-rater reliability; intra-rater reliability; lab study (minimises extraneous variables); removal of researcher bias through

2. Jean Piaget suggests that the responses are pseudo-imitation, this was indicative of learning (nurture).

3. Reciprocity is the process of responding and turn-taking; interactional synchrony is the copying of actions.

4. Schaffer + Emerson’s (longitudinal study) 4 stages of attachment: asocial (0 → 6 weeks) indiscriminate (6 weeks → 4 months), discriminate, multiple.#

Strengths & Weaknesses

GRAVE

Evaluation: Discussion

• Point: one limitation of research into caregiver-infant interactions is the questionable reliability of testing children

  • Evidence / example: this is because infants move their mouths and wave their arms constantly, which is an issue for researchers investigating intentional behaviour.

  • Explanation: therefore, we cannot be certain that the infants were actually engaging in interactional synchrony or reciprocity, as some of the behaviour may have occured by chance.