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.
Melzoff + Moore’s high validity is due to inter-rater reliability; intra-rater reliability; lab study (minimises extraneous variables); removal of researcher bias through
Jean Piaget suggests that the responses are pseudo-imitation, this was indicative of learning (nurture).
Reciprocity is the process of responding and turn-taking; interactional synchrony is the copying of actions.
Schaffer + Emerson’s (longitudinal study) 4 stages of attachment: asocial (0 → 6 weeks) indiscriminate (6 weeks → 4 months), discriminate, multiple.#
GRAVE
Strengths | Weaknesses |
|---|---|
Reliable - easily replicable due to being a lab experiment with high levels of control. | Piaget (1964) - suggested that it was pseudo-imitation and it was learned (nurture debate); it wasn’t interactional synchrony being observed. |
Morray + Travathen (1985) - live videocall screen interactions compared with unreactional video (causing distress) showing association between infant & caregiver. | Marian et al (1996) - tried to replicate M + M but didn’t get the same results as infants could not distinguish video and live. Their results were found invalid due to flawed procedure. |
Replication of Melzoff + Moore (1983) - used younger children, 3-day-old children - behaviour is innate not learned. | Ethical considerations of including children so young - could cause harm. Is this lasting? |
Intention of the baby to perform function - low motor control. | |
Koepke et al (1983) - repeated the experiment but didn’t get the same results, disproving reliability. Argument that it didn’t have the same level of control. | |
Isabella et al (1989) - showed the sensitivity of interaction between caregiver and infant led to quality of attachment. Proves generalisability. | Not able to be able to conclude causal relationship, purely correlational. |
Feldman (2012) - observation of babies only labels behaviours, doesn’t give insight into the importance of this. |
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.
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.
Melzoff + Moore’s high validity is due to inter-rater reliability; intra-rater reliability; lab study (minimises extraneous variables); removal of researcher bias through
Jean Piaget suggests that the responses are pseudo-imitation, this was indicative of learning (nurture).
Reciprocity is the process of responding and turn-taking; interactional synchrony is the copying of actions.
Schaffer + Emerson’s (longitudinal study) 4 stages of attachment: asocial (0 → 6 weeks) indiscriminate (6 weeks → 4 months), discriminate, multiple.#
GRAVE
Strengths | Weaknesses |
|---|---|
Reliable - easily replicable due to being a lab experiment with high levels of control. | Piaget (1964) - suggested that it was pseudo-imitation and it was learned (nurture debate); it wasn’t interactional synchrony being observed. |
Morray + Travathen (1985) - live videocall screen interactions compared with unreactional video (causing distress) showing association between infant & caregiver. | Marian et al (1996) - tried to replicate M + M but didn’t get the same results as infants could not distinguish video and live. Their results were found invalid due to flawed procedure. |
Replication of Melzoff + Moore (1983) - used younger children, 3-day-old children - behaviour is innate not learned. | Ethical considerations of including children so young - could cause harm. Is this lasting? |
Intention of the baby to perform function - low motor control. | |
Koepke et al (1983) - repeated the experiment but didn’t get the same results, disproving reliability. Argument that it didn’t have the same level of control. | |
Isabella et al (1989) - showed the sensitivity of interaction between caregiver and infant led to quality of attachment. Proves generalisability. | Not able to be able to conclude causal relationship, purely correlational. |
Feldman (2012) - observation of babies only labels behaviours, doesn’t give insight into the importance of this. |
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.
