Specification: Caregiver-infant interactions in humans: reciprocity and interactional synchrony. Stages of attachment identified by Schaffer. Multiple attachments and the role of the father.  

Attachment is an emotional tie or bond between two people, usually a primary caregiver and a child. The relationship is reciprocal (shared), which means that it is a two-way relationship that endures over time. 

Interactions between caregivers and infants are the subject of psychological research, as they provide an insight into the type and nature of attachment.

Reciprocity

Reciprocity is when an infant responds to the actions of another person in a form or turn-taking. With reciprocity, the actions of one person (i.e. the primary caregiver) elicits a response from the other (i.e. the infant). Brezelton et al. (1975) describe this interaction as a ‘dance’ because when a couple dance together they each respond to one another’s movements and rhythm. Likewise, reciprocity as a caregiver– infant interaction is where the interaction between both individuals flows back and forth. 

From around three months old, according to Feldman (2007), reciprocity increases in frequency as the infant and caregiver pay increasing attention to each other’s verbal and facial communications. It is suggested that showing this sensitive responsiveness, whereby the caregiver pays attention sensitively towards the infant’s behaviour, will lay the strong foundations for attachment to develop later between the caregiver and infant. 

Interactional Synchrony 

Interactional synchrony takes place when infants mirror the actions or emotions of another person, for example, their facial expressions. This mirroring can also be referred to as imitation or simply copying the adult’s behaviour. In this caregiver–infant interaction the child will move their body or carry out the same act as their caregiver simultaneously and the two are said to be synchronized (in ‘sync’). This interaction serves to sustain communication between the two individuals.

Meltzoff and Moore (1977)

Aim: To examine interactional synchrony in infants.

Method: Using a controlled observation, an adult model displayed one of three facial expressions, or a hand gesture. To start with, the child had a dummy placed in his/her mouth to prevent a facial response. Following the display from the adult model, the dummy was removed and the child’s expressions were filmed.

Results: There was a clear association between the infants’ behaviour and that of the adult model. Later research by Meltzoff and Moore (1983) found the same findings in three-day-old infants.

Conclusion: These findings suggest that interactional synchrony is innate and reduces the strength of any claim that imitative behaviour is learned. 

Evaluation of Caregiver–Infant Interactions

One limitation of research into caregiver–infant interactions is the questionable reliability of testing children. This is because infants move their mouths and wave their arms constantly, which is an issue for researchers investigating intentional behaviour.  Therefore, we cannot be certain that the infants were actually engaging in interactional synchrony or reciprocity, as some of the behaviour may have occurred by chance.

There are methodological problems with studying interactional synchrony using observational methods. There is the possibility of observer bias where the researchers consciously or unconsciously interpret behaviour to support their findings. To address this problem more than one observer should be used to examine the inter-observer reliability of the observations. Recent research by Koepke et al. (1983) failed to replicate the findings of Meltzoff and Moore. This lack of research support suggests that the results of Meltzoff and Moore are unreliable and more research is required to validate their findings. 

A criticism of Meltzoff and Moore’s research is that recent research has found that only securely attached infants engage in interactional synchrony. Isabella et al. (1989) found that the more securely attached the infant, the greater the level of interactional synchrony. This suggests that not all children engage in interactional synchrony and that Meltzoff and Moore’s original findings may have overlooked individual differences which could be a mediating factor.