- Created by: JSetters
- Created on: 02-05-18 15:46
Caregiver infant interactions
AO1: Reciprocity- Responding to the action of another with a similar action, elicits a response. Not necessarily the same. Jaffe et al 'conversation. Interactional synchrony- Tend to mirror what the other is doing. Meltzoff & Moore- Adult and infants as young as 2-3 weeks, Adult displays 1 of 3 facial expressions while the infant has dummy in mouth. Dummy then removed and response filmed. Association found between infant behaviour and that of the adult model. Later study on infants as young as 3 days suggests behavioural responses are innate. Intra+Inter observer reliabilty could be calculated, all scores above 0.92
AO3: Infant testing problems- Infants' mouths are in constant motion, behvaiours being tested are those that occur How do we know which behaviours are being imitated and which are just general activity. M&M countered this by having response filmed and then observed by an observer who didn't know what was being imitated. Increase internal validity.
Failure to replicate- Koepke et al failed to replicate findings by M&M but they argued it was less carefull controlled. May have to be generalised with caution. Marian et al replicated Murray et al and found infants couldn't distinguish live and video taped interactions. Infants aren't responding to the adult. Marain acknowledge problem may be with procedure.
Individual differences- Isabella et al more strongly attached pares showed bigger IS, suggests relationship between closeness of synchrony and attachment strength. Heimann found thos ehwo showed a lot of imitation form birth have a better quality of attachment at 3 months. Isn't clear whether imitation is cause or effect of the early synchrony.