Interactional Synchrony

Interactional synchrony refers to the coordinated timing and dynamics between a caregiver’s and an infant’s social behaviors during interpersonal exchanges. This synchrony is a dance of sorts relying on the caregiver’s sensitive responsiveness to the child’s cues.

Interactional synchrony is a form of rhythmic interaction between infant and caregiver, built on mutual focus and the mirroring of emotion or behavior.

It also involves reciprocity: the back-and-forth, turn-taking quality of every exchange between them. Infants coordinate their actions with caregivers in a kind of conversation.

From birth, babies move in rhythm with an adult. It can almost look like they are taking turns.

The infant and caregiver can each anticipate how the other will behave, and can draw out a particular response from them. For example, a caregiver who laughs at their infant’s giggle and tickles them in response is experiencing synchronized interaction.

Interactional synchrony develops best with full caregiver attention.

It means playful stimulation when the infant is alert. It also means easing off when a fussy infant needs a break. That message is, in effect: “Cool it, I just need space.”

Many see synchrony as a building block of secure attachment.

Characteristics of a synchronous parent-child relationship include:

Behavioral Synchrony

• Matched affect and touch: Partners show contingent and responsive matching of positive facial expressions, emotions, gazes, and affectionate behaviors like hugging or kissing.
• Vocal synchrony: Partners coordinate vocal exchanges with rhythmic, synchronous conversations and vocalizations. The parent and infant have a conversation-like exchange of vocalizations and gestures where there is reciprocal turn-taking and affect matching. For example, the parent may smile, coo or touch the baby gently, eliciting babbles, smiles, and limb movements in return.
• Joint engagement: In coordinated joint engagement, the parent and infant remain actively focused on and involved with each other for extended stretches. For example, they may gaze into one another’s eyes, play peek-a-boo, or share attention on a toy.

Physiological Synchrony

Physiological synchrony refers to the coupling or coordination of biological processes between the caregiver and infant.

Biological synchrony may facilitate behavioral abilities like appropriately timed conversational turn-taking (McFarland et al., 2020).

When attachment relationships are strong, researchers observe synchronous patterns in things like:

• Heart rate rhythms – When mothers and infants interact, their heart rates speed up and slow down together in coordinated rhythms over time. This physiological linkage supports bonding.
• Hormonal activity – Levels of hormones like oxytocin, the neuropeptide linked to social bonding, and cortisol rise and fall together. For example, oxytocin levels may increase at matched times during affectionate contact.
• Brain activity – Brain imaging shows synchronized activity patterns in areas related to empathy, emotion processing, or understanding others when mothers interact with infants.

Implications

By coordinating behavior, physiology, and communication signals with caregivers in a predictable “dance,” infants are guided in establishing foundations for social communication, emotion regulation, and language.

Specifically, research suggests interactional synchrony facilitates language development in areas such as:

• Vocalization – Synchrony provides contingent parental responses to infant vocalizations, reinforcing communicative intent and encouraging further vocal attempts (Bloom et al., 1987; Tamis-LeMonda et al., 2001).
• Turn-taking – The rhythmic coordination of gazes, affect, and vocal patterns during synchrony may scaffold infants’ ability to engage in early conversational exchanges (Bateson, 1975; Bloom, 1998).
• Joint attention – Synchrony helps focus infant attention on the same object or event as the parent, building skills in shared reference critical for language (Carpenter et al., 1998; Tomasello, 1988).
• Emotion regulation – The matching of positive affect and arousal levels during synchrony supports infants’ developing ability to effectively communicate needs and feelings (Feldman, 2015; Jaffe et al., 2001).

Breakdowns in synchrony from conditions like maternal depression or stress can disrupt this process (Reck et al., 2004).

Evidence

• Meltzoff and Moore (1977) tested whether infants just two to three weeks old could imitate an adult’s facial and manual gestures. Their matching responses could not be explained by simple conditioning or by a fixed reflex response to the stimulus.
  
  The adult model demonstrated facial expressions or sequenced finger movements. Researchers initially blocked infants from responding by placing pacifiers in their mouths during the display. They then removed the pacifiers and filmed the infants’ reactions, finding the infants produced matching expressions and hand gestures in response.
• Piaget (1962) believed infants under 1 year just displayed pseudo imitation based on operant conditioning rewards. Meltzoff and Moore’s result challenged that view.
• Murray and Trevarthen (1985) showed 2 month olds interacting with their mother in real time versus a non-responsive pre-recorded tape. Infant distress when the mother was non-responsive supported the view that infants expect real-time, contingent responding.

Does Neonatal Imitation Replicate? Oostenbroek et al. (2016)

Meltzoff and Moore’s finding is famous.

But it has proven hard to replicate. Tongue protrusion happens spontaneously in newborns, so it is hard to separate genuine imitation from a coincidental burst of movement.

Aim: The stakes are high here. Oostenbroek et al. (2016) set out to give the neonatal-imitation claim a definitive, longitudinal test, using proper control models that earlier small studies lacked.

Method: 106 infants took part. They saw eleven gestures: nine social, two non-social. Responses were scored across the first nine weeks.

Results: Infants were just as likely to produce a gesture in response to a non-matching control model as to the matching one. Earlier positive results appeared only when the data were restricted to match older, smaller study designs.

Conclusion: No innate imitation module survived this test. Whether newborns truly imitate is now genuinely unsettled, though older infants still clearly coordinate with responsive caregivers.

Research links secure infant-parent attachment to more synchronous interactions:

• Isabella et al. (1989) observed around 30 mother-infant dyads at home, coding how well-timed, reciprocal and mutually rewarding their naturalistic interactions were.
• Found higher levels of behavioral and emotional synchrony in dyads with secure attachments. Security was classified with Ainsworth’s Strange Situation assessment, which observes how infants respond to brief separations.
• Suggests attachment security promotes synchronous parent-infant coordination

Critical Evaluation

• Observing infants: What researchers see is only hand movements or facial expressions. It is hard to know what is really happening from the infant’s own perspective.
• Replication problems: Tongue protrusion happens naturally in newborns for many reasons, making genuine imitation hard to distinguish from coincidence. A large 2016 study, using proper controls, found no evidence of neonatal imitation at all.
• Correlation, not causation: Synchronous dyads tend to be securely attached, but this does not prove synchrony causes security. Infant temperament or maternal mental health could drive both.
• Social sensitivity: Framing a mother’s responsiveness as the origin of her child’s security risks unfairly blaming caregivers for later insecurity.

Emotional Attunement

Interactional synchrony can facilitate emotional attunement. Coordinated nonverbal behaviors may help caregiver and infant better understand and connect with each other’s emotional states.

What Attunement Looks Like

Attunement is a subtle process. The parent is “tuned in” to the child’s emotional needs.

A caregiver needs to notice the tiny, quick changes in a baby’s emotions. They then show, through facial expression, voice tone and body language, that they understand and share that feeling.

When this goes smoothly, attunement helps a child feel truly understood, accepted, and supported by their caregiver.

It gives the infant real practice. This matching of positive affect is what researchers usually mean by emotional attunement. Over time, they learn what it feels like to have their own feelings regulated by someone else.

That experience is thought to become internalized as the child’s own capacity for self-regulation. This matters. Feldman (2007) sees it as one of synchrony’s biggest long-term benefits.

Ruptures and Repair

No caregiver is perfectly attuned all the time. Ordinary misunderstandings, called “mis-attunement” or “relationship ruptures”, are a normal part of interaction.

These bumps in the road can even strengthen the bond, provided the caregiver repairs them the right way.

Caregivers only need to get the timing right about one-third of the time for a strong bond to develop.

What matters developmentally is not avoiding rupture altogether. It is the caregiver’s capacity to notice the mismatch and re-establish coordination afterward.

Experiencing rupture and repair may itself teach an infant something important: that disruptions in a relationship can be set right.

This reframes what “good parenting” really means. It is not about constant, perfect mirroring, but about being responsive enough, and willing to repair the inevitable mismatches.

The Importance of Fathers

Fathers matter too. Research shows the paternal brain changes in ways similar to the maternal brain, helping them provide sensitive caregiving (Abraham et al., 2014; Feldman, 2015; Swain, 2011).

The Paternal Brain

Fathers show increased gray matter volume and functional activation in regions linked to motivation, empathy, emotion regulation and decision-making around childcare (Abraham et al., 2014; Kim et al., 2014).

Abraham and colleagues (2014) used fMRI to compare brain responses in mothers, heterosexual fathers, and homosexual fathers viewing images of their own child versus an unrelated child.

All parent groups showed similar activation. Subcortical reward and motivation regions responded, along with areas for emotion processing, social perception, and executive function.

Complementary Parenting Styles

Research also finds real differences in how mothers and fathers synchronize with infants. Mothers tend toward predictable, moderate positive affect attuned to the infant’s cues.

Fathers, by contrast, show sudden bursts of high energy. This happens especially during social play (Feldman, 2003).

In an observational study, Feldman (2003) described fathers as exhibiting bursts of high-intensity stimulation, contrasting with the gentler, lower-key affect modulation of mothers. These complementary styles help infants cope with a wider range of emotion-regulation challenges.

Disruptions in Synchrony

Disruptions in synchrony stemming from maternal mental health issues like postpartum depression can interfere with infants’ building effective emotion regulation capacities, often leading to withdrawal or coping deficits.

This illustrates the importance of synchronous, contingent caregiver-infant interactions for socioemotional development.

Disruptions in parent-infant synchrony can interfere with the development of infants’ emotion regulation capacities (Reck et al., 2004). This has been demonstrated in research on postpartum depression.

Depressed mothers show less synchronous interactions with their infants. They show decreased engagement, fewer vocal responses, less emotional attunement, and more intrusive behaviors (Field, 2010; Reck et al., 2004).

Reck and colleagues (2004) tested this using the still-face paradigm. They compared mothers with postpartum depression to non-depressed controls.

The still-face paradigm has a simple design. After a period of normal interaction, the parent suddenly presents a blank, unresponsive face, and the infant’s reaction is scored (Tronick, Als & Brazelton, 1978).

Infants of depressed mothers showed less positive engagement and more withdrawal, such as turning away. Their emotion regulation was poorer than the control group’s during the still-face period.

The mother’s depression disrupted her typical, contingent responses. This, in turn, hurt the infant’s own coping and self-soothing during the stressor (Reck et al., 2004).

References

Abraham, E., Hendler, T., Shapira-Lichter, I., Kanat-Maymon, Y., Zagoory-Sharon, O., & Feldman, R. (2014). Father’s brain is sensitive to childcare experiences. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 111(27), 9792-9797.

Adamson, L. B., & Frick, J. E. (2003). The still face: A history of a shared experimental paradigm. Infancy, 4(4), 451-473.

Feldman, R. (2003). Infant–mother and infant–father synchrony: The coregulation of positive arousal. Infant Mental Health Journal: Official Publication of The World Association for Infant Mental Health, 24(1), 1-23.

Feldman, R. (2007). Parent–infant synchrony and the construction of shared timing; physiological precursors, developmental outcomes, and risk conditions. Journal of Child psychology and Psychiatry, 48(3‐4), 329-354.

Feldman, R. (2007). On the origins of background emotions: From affect synchrony to symbolic expression. Emotion, 7, 601–611.

Feldman, R. (2015). Sensitive periods in human social development: New insights from research on oxytocin, synchrony, and high-risk parenting. Development and Psychopathology, 27(2), 369-395.

Feldman, R. (2017). The neurobiology of human attachments. Trends in Cognitive Sciences, 21(2), 80-99.

Field, T. (2010). Postpartum depression effects on early interactions, parenting, and safety practices: A review. Infant Behavior and Development, 33(1), 1-6.

Feldman, R., Magori‐Cohen, R., Galili, G., Singer, M., & Louzoun, Y. (2011). Mother and infant coordinate heart rhythms through episodes of interaction synchrony. Infant Behavior and Development, 34, 569–577

Isabella, R. A., Belsky, J., & von Eye, A. (1989). Origins of infant-mother attachment: An examination of interactional synchrony during the infant’s first year. Developmental Psychology, 25(1), 12.

Jaffe, J., Beebe, B., Feldstein, S., Crown, C. L., Jasnow, M. D., Rochat, P., & Stern, D. N. (2001). Rhythms of dialogue in infancy: Coordinated timing in development. Monographs of the Society for Research in Child Development, 1-149.

Kim, P., Feldman, R., Mayes, L. C., Eicher, V., Thompson, N., Leckman, J. F., & Swain, J. E. (2014). Breastfeeding, brain activation to own infant cry, and maternal sensitivity. Journal of Child Psychology and Psychiatry, 52(8), 907-915.

Kinreich, S., Djalovski, A., Kraus, L., Louzoun, Y., & Feldman, R. (2017). Brain-to-brain synchrony during naturalistic social interactions. Scientific Reports, 7(1), 1-12.

Kuchirko, Y., Tafuro, L., & Tamis LeMonda, C. S. (2018). Becoming a communicative partner: Infant contingent responsiveness to maternal language and gestures. Infancy, 23, 558–576.

Lindsey, E. W., & Caldera, Y. M. (2015). Shared affect and dyadic synchrony among secure and insecure parent–toddler dyads. Infant and Child Development, 24(4), 394-413.

Madigan, S., Deneault, A.-A., Duschinsky, R., Bakermans-Kranenburg, M. J., Schuengel, C., van IJzendoorn, M. H., Ly, A., Fearon, R. M. P., Eirich, R., & Verhage, M. L. (2024). Maternal and paternal sensitivity: Key determinants of child attachment security examined through meta-analysis. Psychological Bulletin, 150(7), 839–872.

McFarland, D. H., Fortin, A. J., & Polka, L. (2020). Physiological measures of mother–infant interactional synchrony. Developmental psychobiology, 62(1), 50-61.

Meltzoff, A. N., & Moore, M. K. (1977). Imitation of facial and manual gestures by human neonates. Science, 198(4312), 75-78.

Meltzoff, A. N., & Moore, M. K. (1989). Imitation in newborn infants: Exploring the range of gestures imitated and the underlying mechanisms. Developmental psychology, 25(6), 954.

Murray, L., & Trevarthen, C. (1985). Emotional regulation of interactions between two-month-olds and their mothers In: Feild TM, Fox NA, editors. Social Perception in Infants. Norwood.

Oostenbroek, J., Suddendorf, T., Nielsen, M., Redshaw, J., Kennedy-Costantini, S., Davis, J., Clark, S., & Slaughter, V. (2016). Comprehensive longitudinal study challenges the existence of neonatal imitation in humans. Current Biology, 26(10), 1334-1338.

Piaget, J. (1962). The relation of affectivity to intelligence in the mental development of the child. Bulletin of the Menninger clinic, 26(3), 129.

Reck, C., Hunt, A., Fuchs, T., Weiss, R., Noon, A., Moehler, E., … & Mundt, C. (2004). Interactive regulation of affect in postpartum depressed mothers and their infants: an overview. Psychopathology, 37(6), 272-280.

Smith, P. (1989). The relation between preschool father-infant interaction and infant sociability. Early Child Development and Care, 51(1–2), 109-116.

Swain, J. E. (2011). The human parental brain: In vivo neuroimaging. Progress in Neuro-Psychopharmacology and Biological Psychiatry, 35(5), 1242-1254.

Tronick, E. Z., Als, H., & Brazelton, T. B. (1978). Mutuality in mother-infant interaction. Journal of Communication, 28(2), 74-79.