AO3 Evaluation

AO3 Evaluation

1. Problems in testing infants using observations

   • There is reason to have some doubt about the findings of research on the facing page because of the difficulties in reliably testing infant behaviour. Infants' mouths are in fairly constant motion and the expressions that are tested occur frequently (tongue sticking out, yawning, smiling). This makes it difficult to distinguish between general activity and specific imitated behaviours. To overcome these problems Meltzoff and Moore measured infant responses by filming infants and then asking an observer to judge the infants' behaviour from the video. The person doing the judging had no idea what behaviour was betng imitated. This certainly increased the internal validity of the data.

2. Individual differences

   • An important feature of interactional synchrony is that there is some variation between infants. Isabella et al (1989) found that more strongly attached infant—caregiver pairs showed greater interactional synchrony. You will learn more about attachment in the rest of this chapter, but it basically suggests a relationship between closeness of synchrony and strength of attachment. Heimann (1989) showed that infants who demonstrate a lot of imitation from birth onwards have been found to have a better quality of relationship at three months. However, it isn't clear whether the imitation is a cause or an effect of this early synchrony.

3. The value of the research

   • The importance of this imitative behaviour is that it forms the basis for social development. Meltzoff (2005) has developed a 'like me' hypothesis of infant development based on his research on interactional synchrony. He proposes that first there is the connection between what the infant sees and their imitation of this. Second, infants associate their own acts and their own underlying mental States. Third, infants project their own internal experiences onto others performing similar acts. As a result infants begin to acquire an understanding of what other people are thinking and feeling. Such an understanding relates to what is called a Theory of Mind — understanding the mental states of other people, This is fundamental for conducting social relationships.

4. Is the behaviour intentional

   • Another method used to test the intentionality of infant behaviour IS to observe how they respond to inanimate objects. Abravanel and DeÞng (1991) observed infant behaviour when 'interacting' with two objects, one simulating tongue movements and the other mouth opening/closing. They found that infants of median age 5 and 12 weeks made little response to the objects. They concluded that this shows that infants do not just imitate anything they see — it is a specific social response to other humans.

5. Failure to replicate

   • Other studies have failed to replicate the findings of studies on the facing page. For example, a study by Koepke et al. (1983) failed to replicate Meltzoff and Moore's findings; Meltzoff and Moore counter argued that the research by Koepke et al, failed because it was less carefully controlled. Marian et al. (1996) replicated the study by Murray and Trevarthen and found that infants couldn't distinguish live from videotaped interactions with their mothers. This suggests that the infants are actually not responding to the adult. However, Marian et al acknowledge that the problem may lie with the procedure rather than the ability of infants to imitate their caregivers. Is the behaviour intentional? Another method used to test the intentionality of infant behaviour is to observe how they respond to inanimate objects. Abravanel and Depng (1991 ) observed infant behaviour when 'interacting' with two objects, one simulating tongue movements and the other mouth opening/closing. They found th