Caregiver-infant interactions
RECIPROCITY + Filmed in a lab.
When each person responds to the other and elicits Can control any possible distractions and
a response from them. baby doesn’t know they’re being
E.g., baby smiles – caregiver says something – elicits observed – no response to demand
response from baby. characteristics.
Essential part of conversation – otherwise people Films can be analysed later – unlikely to
would talk over each other. miss key behaviours and more than one
Alert phases: observer can record data – inter-rater
Babies periodically have these – signal they are reliability.
ready for interaction (eye contact). Good reliability and validity.
Feldman and Eidelman (2007): mothers pick
up/respond to baby’s alertness 2/3 of the time. - Hard to interpret behaviours.
Finegood (2016): varies according to skill of mother Lack co-ordination/bodies mostly
and external factors (stress). immobile – movements being observed
Feldman (2007): from around 3 months it increases are subtle (hand movements/changes in
in frequency and mother/baby pay attention to each expression) – hard to know if baby is
other’s signals. smiling or passing wind.
Active involvement: Don’t know what is happening from
Babies as well as caretakers take an active role. baby’s perspective – hand twitch may be
Both can initiate interactions. random, rather than triggered by
Brazelton et al (1975): describe interaction as dance caregiver.
– partners respond to moves. Certain behaviours seen may not have a
special meaning.
- Observing behaviour doesn’t tell us about
INTERACTIONAL SYNCHRONY developmental importance.
‘Temporal co-ordination of micro-level social Feldman (2012): ideas like synchrony just
behaviour’ give names to patterns of observable
Caregiver and baby reflect actions/emotions of the behaviours in interactions.
other in a synchronised way. Can be reliably observed BUT we don’t
Meltzoff and Moore (1977): know the purpose of the behaviours –
Filmed interactions in a lab – independent observers may not be useful in understanding
labelled babies’ responses. development.
Starts as early as 2 weeks old. Can’t be certain that
Adult displayed 1 of 3 facial expressions/1 of 3 reciprocity/synchrony are important in
gestures. development.
Significant association between adults’ and babies’ - Counterargument – Isabella et al – high levels
expressions/gestures. of interactional synchrony associated with
Link to attachment: better quality attachment
Isabella et al (1989)
Interactional synchrony important in development of
attachment.
Observed mothers and babies - assessed synchrony
and quality of attachment.
High levels of synchrony associated with better
quality attachment.
RECIPROCITY + Filmed in a lab.
When each person responds to the other and elicits Can control any possible distractions and
a response from them. baby doesn’t know they’re being
E.g., baby smiles – caregiver says something – elicits observed – no response to demand
response from baby. characteristics.
Essential part of conversation – otherwise people Films can be analysed later – unlikely to
would talk over each other. miss key behaviours and more than one
Alert phases: observer can record data – inter-rater
Babies periodically have these – signal they are reliability.
ready for interaction (eye contact). Good reliability and validity.
Feldman and Eidelman (2007): mothers pick
up/respond to baby’s alertness 2/3 of the time. - Hard to interpret behaviours.
Finegood (2016): varies according to skill of mother Lack co-ordination/bodies mostly
and external factors (stress). immobile – movements being observed
Feldman (2007): from around 3 months it increases are subtle (hand movements/changes in
in frequency and mother/baby pay attention to each expression) – hard to know if baby is
other’s signals. smiling or passing wind.
Active involvement: Don’t know what is happening from
Babies as well as caretakers take an active role. baby’s perspective – hand twitch may be
Both can initiate interactions. random, rather than triggered by
Brazelton et al (1975): describe interaction as dance caregiver.
– partners respond to moves. Certain behaviours seen may not have a
special meaning.
- Observing behaviour doesn’t tell us about
INTERACTIONAL SYNCHRONY developmental importance.
‘Temporal co-ordination of micro-level social Feldman (2012): ideas like synchrony just
behaviour’ give names to patterns of observable
Caregiver and baby reflect actions/emotions of the behaviours in interactions.
other in a synchronised way. Can be reliably observed BUT we don’t
Meltzoff and Moore (1977): know the purpose of the behaviours –
Filmed interactions in a lab – independent observers may not be useful in understanding
labelled babies’ responses. development.
Starts as early as 2 weeks old. Can’t be certain that
Adult displayed 1 of 3 facial expressions/1 of 3 reciprocity/synchrony are important in
gestures. development.
Significant association between adults’ and babies’ - Counterargument – Isabella et al – high levels
expressions/gestures. of interactional synchrony associated with
Link to attachment: better quality attachment
Isabella et al (1989)
Interactional synchrony important in development of
attachment.
Observed mothers and babies - assessed synchrony
and quality of attachment.
High levels of synchrony associated with better
quality attachment.
