Elsevier

Developmental Review

Volume 22, Issue 4, December 2002, Pages 555-592
Developmental Review

Dyadic synchrony: Its structure and function in children’s development

https://doi.org/10.1016/S0273-2297(02)00500-2Get rights and content

Abstract

In this review we examine empirical and theoretical work in three eras—infancy, toddlerhood, and early childhood—and for each era describe the structure of dyadic synchrony in interactions involving children and their caregivers, as well as offer speculation about its developmental function for the child. We review divergent literatures dealing with synchrony-related constructs which, together, suggest that although the structure and function of synchrony change throughout the course of early development, the ability to achieve synchrony may represent a crucial developmental achievement for significant dyadic relationships, one that facilitates social, emotional, and cognitive growth for the child.

Section snippets

An introduction to the notion of dyadic synchrony

Synchrony-related constructs have been defined in the research literature in a variety of ways, most often in reference to mother–infant interaction. Constructs we consider close to our notion of synchrony include those that focus on mutual responsiveness, variously termed “reciprocal responsiveness” (Ainsworth, Bell, & Stayton, 1974), “contingent responsivity” (Clarke-Stewart, 1973), “reciprocity” (Belsky, Rovine, & Taylor, 1984) “mutuality” or “mutual contingency” (Maccoby & Martin, 1983;

Structure of synchrony in infant–caregiver interactions

The majority of empirical and theoretical work relating to dyadic synchrony concerns infants in the first year of life and their mothers. Our reading of the literature concerning this era leads to the conclusion that infant-caregiver synchrony is a phenomenon that consists of three necessary components—a maintained, shared focus of attention, temporal coordination, and contingency—and is achieved primarily via attunement on the part of the caregiver.

Maintained engagement. Dyadic synchrony can

Is there synchrony beyond infancy?

One of the principal goals of this review is to consider whether the notion of dyadic synchrony is meaningful beyond the infancy era. We propose that synchrony remains a salient developmental construct, in the sense that children and caregivers can achieve an optimal interactional style that facilitates significant development within the child as well as in the caregiver–child relationship. We further suggest there is some continuity between its early and later structures and functions. For

Structure of synchrony in toddler–caregiver interactions

In the child’s toddler years, the structure of child–caregiver synchrony in many ways is similar to that in the infant period, in that it still involves prolonged, coordinated, and contingent interactions. However, we propose synchrony differs in at least two ways. First, the child becomes a more active interactional partner, with interactions taking on the appearance of a mutually affiliative dialogue. Second, caregivers use a broader array of information, scaffolding skills, and other

Dyadic synchrony in early childhood

As children get older, there is reason to believe dyadic synchrony still characterizes some interactions with caregivers. Additionally, as children’s social circles broaden, interactions with significant others such as siblings and friends may also be characterized as synchronous or nonsynchronous. There have been a few studies of the kind of synchrony we have been describing among adolescent and adult populations (e.g., Gross & McCallum, 2000), but these studies of older samples typically have

Issues for future research

There are gaps in the interactional style literature that should be addressed if the study of dyadic synchrony is to move beyond the infancy era in a systematic way. Several questions have already been raised in this review, such as whether synchrony is an all-or-none phenomenon vs. something that functions in a more continuous manner; whether synchronous interactions are purely dyadic vs. something where individual behaviors can meaningfully be disentangled; whether contingency is a central

Conclusion

Despite the field’s limitations, the evidence presented here suggests that synchrony represents a significant achievement of close dyadic relationships. The capacity to foster its emergence, prolong its duration, and engender its future reemergence may reflect a developmental milestone for child–caregiver dyads, one that looks and functions slightly differently yet is still significant at each early developmental period. Researchers and theorists are therefore encouraged to consider the nature

References (174)

  • L.E. Bahrick et al.

    Intersensory redundancy guides attentional selectivity and perceptual learning in infancy

    Developmental Psychology

    (2000)
  • R. Bakeman et al.

    Coordinating attention to people and objects in mother–infant and peer–infant interaction

    Child Development

    (1984)
  • J.M. Barth et al.

    Parent–child relationship influences on children’s transition to school

    Merrill-Palmer Quarterly

    (1993)
  • D. Baumrind

    Child care practices anteceding three patterns of preschool behavior

    Genetic Psychology Monographs

    (1967)
  • D. Baumrind

    The contributions of the family to the development of competence in children

    Schizophrenia Bulletin

    (1975)
  • B. Beebe et al.

    Rhythmic communication in the mother–infant dyad

  • B. Beebe et al.

    The kinesic rhythm of mother–infant interactions

  • J. Belsky et al.

    The Pennsylvania Infant and Family Development Project: III. The origins of individual differences in infant–mother attachment: Maternal and infant contributions

    Child Development

    (1984)
  • F.J. Bernieri

    Coordinated movement and rapport in teacher–student interactions

    Journal of Nonverbal Behavior

    (1988)
  • F.J. Bernieri et al.

    Interactional synchrony and rapport: Measuring synchrony in displays devoid of sound and facial affect

    Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin

    (1994)
  • F.J. Bernieri et al.

    Synchrony, pseudosynchrony, and dissynchrony: Measuring the entrainment process in mother–infant interactions

    Journal of Personality and Social Psychology

    (1988)
  • Z. Biringen

    Direct observations of maternal sensitivity and dyadic interactions in the home: Relations to maternal thinking

    Developmental Psychology

    (1990)
  • B. Black et al.

    Links between communication patterns in mother–child, father–child, and child–peer interactions and children’s social status

    Child Development

    (1995)
  • C.L. Booth et al.

    Synchrony in mother–infant interaction: A comparison of measurement methods

    Child Study Journal

    (1984)
  • M.H. Bornstein et al.

    Maternal responsiveness to infants in three societies: The United States, France, and Japan

    Child Development

    (1992)
  • J. Bowlby

    Attachment and loss: Vol. I: Attachment

    (1982)
  • T.B. Brazelton

    Four early stages in the development of mother–infant interaction

  • T.B. Brazelton et al.

    Four early stages in the development of mother–infant interaction

    Psychoanalytic Study of the Child

    (1979)
  • T.B. Brazelton et al.

    The origins of reciprocity: The early mother–infant interaction

  • Bretherton, I. (1985). Attachment theory: Retrospect and prospect. In I. Bretherton & E. Waters (Eds.), Monographs of...
  • Brownell, C., Etheridge, W., & Hungerford, A. (1995). Relations between maternal behavior and toddlers’...
  • J.S. Bruner

    Child’s talk

    (1983)
  • R.B. Cairns

    Social development: The origins and plasticity of interchanges

    (1979)
  • Carrillo, S., & Harrist, A. W. (1997, April). Contribution of father–child interaction style to children’s interaction...
  • M. Censullo et al.

    An instrument for the measurement of infant–mother synchrony

    Nursing Research

    (1987)
  • P.F. Chappell et al.

    Mutual regulation of the neonatal–maternal interactive process: Context for the origins of communication

  • E.D. Chapple

    Movement and sound: The musical language of body rhythms in interaction

  • K.A. Clarke-Stewart

    Interactions between mothers and their young children: Characteristics and consequences

    Monographs of the Society for Research in Child Development

    (1973)
  • J.F. Cohn et al.

    Mother–infant face-to-face interaction: Influence is bidirectional and unrelated to periodic cycles in either partner’s behavior

    Developmental Psychology

    (1988)
  • G.M. Collis

    Describing the structure of social interaction in infancy

  • W.S. Condon et al.

    Synchrony demonstrated between movements of the neonate and adult speech

    Child Development

    (1974)
  • S.B. Crawley et al.

    Developmental changes in the structure of mother–infant play

    Developmental Psychology

    (1978)
  • P.M. Crittenden

    Relationship at risk

  • C.L. Crown et al.

    Mathematical models for coordinated interpersonal timing in mother–infant interactions in the first year of life

    Journal of Psycholinguistic Research

    (1996)
  • K. Deater-Deckard et al.

    Parent–child mutuality in early childhood: Two behavioral genetic studies

    Developmental Psychology

    (2001)
  • M.S. De Wolff et al.

    Sensitivity and attachment: A meta-analysis on parental antecedents of infant attachment

    Child Development

    (1997)
  • S.L. Dickstein

    The effects of the presence of a friendly dog on anxiety and rapport development (Doctoral dissertation, Hofstra University)

    Dissertation Abstracts International

    (1998)
  • E.A. Di Paolo

    Behavioral coordination, structural congruence and entrainment in a simulation of acoustically coupled agents

    Adaptive Behavior

    (2001)
  • E. Dromi

    The development of prelinguistic communication: Implication for language evaluation

  • P. Dunham et al.

    Optimal social structures and adaptive infant development

  • Cited by (352)

    View all citing articles on Scopus

    The authors contributed equally to this manuscript. Appreciation is expressed to Rebecca S. Bigler, Inge Bretherton, Laura Hubbs-Tait, Ruth Joy-Bryant, Jacqueline Mize, Gregory S. Pettit, Patricia A. Self, and Robert G. Wahler for helpful comments at various stages of this project.

    View full text