A newborn baby is unable to support itself and so must develop attachment bonds with adults who can provide it with food, shelter, and protection.
And obviously a baby can’t speak with a caregiver to develop these bonds, but there are several ways infants and caregivers communicate that help develop an attachment between them.
This post looks at some features of caregiver and baby interactions that form attachment bonds:
Reciprocity
Interactions between caregivers and infants are not simply one-way, they are reciprocal.
Reciprocity refers to two-way sequential communication where each person responds to the other’s signals to sustain an interaction.
Like a conversation, reciprocity involves turn-taking. For example, you might pull a funny face, the baby laughs, and then you laugh back. Research shows that infants take an active role in these interactions, actively sending signals (such as crying, smiling, or reaching) to elicit responses from their caregiver.
These kinds of reciprocal interactions strengthen the emotional connection between infant and caregiver.
Evaluation:
- Supporting evidence: Brazelton et al (1975) described reciprocal interactions as a “dance” where each partner responds to the other’s moves. They noted that infants play an active role, using subtle cues to initiate, maintain, or temporarily disengage from interactions, showing that infants are not passive recipients of care.
- Methodological limitations: An ongoing issue in caregiver-infant research is that infants are in constant motion. As such, it’s difficult to determine whether an infant’s response (such as a smile, twitch, or arm movement) is a deliberate reciprocal action or an automatic or accidental reflex. This makes it difficult to draw firm conclusions.
Interactional synchrony
The reciprocal interactions between infant and caregiver described above are somewhat synchronised. So, interactional synchrony is when a caregiver and infant interact in such a way that their actions and emotions mirror each other simultaneously and in real-time.
Feldman (2007) defined interactional synchrony as “the temporal co-ordination of micro-level social behaviour.” Unlike basic reciprocity – which is sequential turn-taking like a conversation – synchrony relies on precise timing and a shared rhythm.
So, for example, a caregiver may move their head or widen their eyes at the exact same instant the infant moves their head or smiles – acting as if they are synchronised dancers moving to the same beat.
Evaluation:
- Supporting evidence: For example, Condon and Sander (1974) analysed video recordings of infants interacting with their caregivers and found the infants moved and reacted to the caregivers in a rhythm similar to adult speech. These observations support the concept of interactional synchrony. Further, interactional synchrony may play a role in the formation and strengthening of attachments: Isabella et al (1989) found interactional synchrony behaviours were correlated with secure attachment styles.
- Descriptions vs. explanations: Although studies like Condon and Sander and Isabella et al describe the occurrence of interactional synchrony, they don’t fully explain how or why it happens. In other words, these observations only show that interactional synchrony correlates with secure attachment – but this doesn’t show that synchrony causes attachment or is merely a byproduct of it.
Mimicking
Caregiver-infant interactions also involve mimicking – where an infant intentionally copies the facial expressions or body movements of a caregiver.
While interactional synchrony focuses on the shared timing and rhythm of an interaction, mimicking focuses on the exact copying of specific actions. Infants automatically pay close attention to human faces and begin copying basic expressions long before they learn to speak, using imitation as an early form of non-verbal social communication.
So, for example, if an adult sticks out their tongue or opens their mouth wide, an infant will observe the gesture and copy it by sticking out their own tongue or opening their mouth in response.
Evaluation:
- Evidence supporting mimicking: Meltzoff and Moore (1977) conducted a controlled observation with infants as young as 12 to 21 days old. An adult model displayed one of three facial expressions (such as tongue protrusion or mouth opening) or a hand gesture. Video footage showed that infants copied the adult’s exact expressions significantly more often than would occur by chance, suggesting that the ability to mimic is innate rather than learned.
- Innate response or operant conditioning? Psychologists disagree over whether early mimicking is truly intentional social behaviour. For example, Piaget (1962) argued that true imitation only develops toward the end of the first year, suggesting that early copying is simply pseudo-imitation – a result of operant conditioning where the infant repeats a movement simply because it attracts attention or reward from the caregiver.
Physical contact
Caregiver-infant interaction also relies heavily on physical contact – direct skin-to-skin touch, holding, and physical closeness between a baby and their caregiver.
Unlike vocal or visual interactions, physical contact provides immediate sensory comfort and emotional security. Early touch helps regulate the baby’s physiological state – such as heart rate and stress levels – while encouraging the release of oxytocin (the ‘bonding hormone’) in both the baby and the caregiver.
So, for example, placing a newborn directly onto a mother’s bare chest immediately after birth enables it to hear the mother’s heartbeat and feel her warmth, calming the baby down.
Evaluation:
- Supporting evidence: Klaus and Kennell (1977) compared mothers who had extended physical contact with their babies (several extra hours of skin-to-skin contact per day in hospital) to mothers who only held their babies during routine feedings. One year later, mothers who had extended physical contact were observed to cuddle their infants more and make more eye contact, suggesting early bodily touch strengthens long-term maternal attachment.
- Practical applications: Research into the importance of physical contact directly led to changes in hospital practices. In modern maternity wards, newborns are routine-placed on the mother’s chest immediately after birth (so-called ‘Kangaroo care’) rather than being swept away to be weighed and wrapped, significantly improving early bonding outcomes.
- Overstated necessity: A limitation of early physical contact research is that it overemphasised the idea of a critical period. Later studies show that adoptive parents and mothers who missed early skin-to-skin contact due to medical complications still go on to form strong, secure attachments, demonstrating that bodily touch immediately after birth is helpful, but not strictly mandatory.
Motherese
Caregiver-infant interactions are also characterised by motherese (also called caregiverese or infant-directed speech) – the simplified and exaggerated cutesy pattern of language adults naturally adopt when talking to babies.
More specifically, motherese features a higher pitch, melodic intonation, slower tempo, and simplified vocabulary compared to normal adult conversation. It’s not designed to teach formal grammar, but rather to capture the infant’s attention, communicate emotional intent, and make adult speech easier for a baby’s developing brain to process.
So, for example, instead of simply saying, “I am going to prepare your food now”, a caregiver might say in a high-pitched, sing-song voice, “Is it time for yummy-nummies? Yes it is! Yum yum!” while widening their eyes and exaggerating their facial expressions.
Evaluation:
- Supporting evidence: Fernald and Mazzie (1991) demonstrated that adults consistently use exaggerated pitch contours when identifying key objects to infants. Research shows that babies naturally pay far more attention to infant-directed speech than adult-directed speech, showing a clear preference for the melodic, high-pitched contours of motherese.
- Lack of causal link to attachment: A major limitation of motherese as a feature of attachment is that there is little evidence to suggest it directly strengthens the emotional bond. While motherese helps capture attention and aids early language acquisition, research indicates that sensitive responsiveness – responding promptly and accurately to an infant’s needs – is what drives attachment quality, not the tone of voice used or the words said.
- Cultural bias: Motherese is not a universal human trait across all cultures. For example, in many non-Western cultures, such as the Kaluli tribe of Papua New Guinea, adults speak to infants using normal (i.e. adult-directed) speech rather than ‘baby talk’. If children in these cultures still form secure and healthy attachments, this suggests motherese can’t be a necessary or vital component of caregiver-infant attachment.