Please enable JavaScript.
Coggle requires JavaScript to display documents.
Research into Interactional Synchrony & Reciprocity - Coggle Diagram
Research into Interactional Synchrony & Reciprocity
Meltzoff & Moore:
Findings:
Infants as young as 2-3 weeks imitated specific facial and hand gestures
What this means:
Imitation is probably innate and aids the ability to form attachments
Isabella et al (1989):
Findings:
High levels of synchrony were associated with better quality mother - infant attachment
What this means:
Interactional synchrony is important for the development of attachment
Brazleton et al (1975):
Findings:
Both mother - child can initiate interactions and seem to take it in turns (analogy-dance)
What this means:
Interactional synchrony is an active process
Tronick et al (1975):
Findings:
'Still face' paradigm - after 3mins with an unresponsive mother, the baby tries to reciprocate then withdraws
What this means:
Babies need communication
Evaluation:
Observations are good ways of gaining info about infants and care givers
They gather lots of detail
Babies don't know they are being observed
Type of research has high validity
Synchrony and reciprocity may simply be behaviours that occur at the same time
They can be reliably observed
We don't know the purpose of these interactions
Further research is needed to explain this
The explanation of reciprocity and interactional synchrony isn't found in all cultures
Study found that in Kenya, some mothers and infants have fewer physical interactions but most infants are securely attached
Research may be ethnocentric ignoring attachments in other cultures
Reduces the validity of the research as all cultures should be taken into account