Romanian orphans: Rutter and Songua-brake
165 Romanian orphans, 111 adopted before 2 and 54 before 4
52 British control group (adopted before 6 months)
Examined based on physical, cognitive and social aspects
Romanian orphans were physically smaller, mentally retarded
Romanians adopted before 6 months caught up
Institutionalisation: Zeenah et al
100 children: 90% orphans, 10% never institutionalised (control)
3/4 of control - secure attachment
1/5 of exp - secure
2/3 of exp - disinhibited attachment
Romanian orphans ao3
+real world app: changed ways in which children are looked after
+ longitudinal: st and lt effects
-deprivation isn’t the only factor
-low ext validity: can’t generalised to others as conditions weren’t typical
What is an attachment?
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.
What is 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’
What is 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.
Caregiver infant interactions: Meltzoff & 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.
Caregiver–Infant Interactions AO3: Reliability of infant behaviour
P: One limitation of research into caregiver–infant interactions is the questionable reliability of testing infants’ behaviour.
E: Infants naturally move their mouths, hands and arms frequently, regardless of whether they are interacting with a caregiver.
E: This makes it difficult for researchers to determine whether behaviours such as imitation, reciprocity or interactional synchrony are intentional social responses or simply random movements.
D: As a result, the validity of conclusions drawn from these studies is weakened because we cannot be certain that the infants were genuinely engaging in synchrony or reciprocity; some of the recorded behaviour may have occurred by chance rather than social responsiveness.
Caregiver–Infant Interactions AO3: observer bias
P: A further limitation is that studies of interactional synchrony often rely on observational methods, which are vulnerable to researcher bias.
E: Observers may consciously or unconsciously interpret infant behaviour in ways that support their hypotheses, reducing the objectivity of the findings.
E: Although using multiple observers can improve inter‑observer reliability, the issue remains significant, especially given that some research has failed to replicate key findings. For example, Koepke et al. (1983) did not replicate Meltzoff and Moore’s results.
D: This inconsistency suggests that the original findings may lack reliability, and that more rigorous, replicable research is needed before strong conclusions about interactional synchrony can be drawn.
Caregiver–Infant Interactions AO3: Individual differences
P: Another criticism is that research may overlook individual differences, particularly the role of attachment type in interactional synchrony.
E: Isabella et al. (1989) found that securely attached infants showed higher levels of interactional synchrony compared to insecurely attached infants.
E: This indicates that synchrony is not a universal behaviour and may depend on the quality of the caregiver–infant relationship.
D: Therefore, Meltzoff and Moore’s conclusions may be incomplete, as they did not account for attachment as a mediating variable. This reduces the generalisability of their findings and suggests that synchrony may reflect relationship quality rather than innate social ability.
