attachment 1.1 Flashcards
Caregiver-infant interactions in humans: reciprocity and interactional synchrony. Stages of attachment identified by Schaffer. Multiple attachments and the role of the father.
attachment
formation of a strong, reciprocal, emotional bond between an infant and a caregiver
first attachment is usually our primary caregiver, although we do continue to form attachments throughout our life
how do we know an attachment has formed?
Maccoby’s (1989)’s four main characteristics:
seeking proximity, wanting to be near
distress when separated
pleasure when reunited, joyful when with eachother
general orientation, the infant is generally always aware of caregiver and makes frequent contact
why do we form attachments?
infants are physically helpless
they’re born with primitive reflexes such as sucking or grasping to help them survive
short term security
seeking interactions is innate and infants use social releasers
our first attachment is used as a template for future relationships
how does Brazeleton et al (1975) describe reciprocity?
as a dance since each partner responds to each others moves
reciprocity
the infant and their caregiver are able to reliably produce responses in eachother
these responses aren’t necessarily similar like interactional synchrony
two way and mutual, taking turns like a conversation
Tronick et al (1975)
asked mothers who had been enjoying a dialogue with their child to stop expressing any emotion or response
the child desperately tries to provoke a response until they become upset
what does Trevathen (2014) suggest about reciprocity?
turn taking in the infant-adult interaction is important for the development of social and language skills
interactional synchrony
where a baby mirrors the actions of another person, in terms of their facial expressions and body movements
the actions move in synchrony
how does Feldman (2007) describe interactional synchrony?
as a coordination of micro-level social behaviour
imitation
infant mimics/copies the adult’s behaviour
sensitive responsiveness
adult attends sensitively to infant’s communications
Meltzoff and Moore (1997)’s aim
to identify imitation (interactional synchrony) between caregivers and infants
Meltzoff and Moore (1997)’s procedure
infants aged between 12 and 27 days old were shown facial gestures (e.g. sticking tongue out) and manual gestures (e.g. waving fingers) to see if the infant would imitate the behaviour
the adult showed one of three different gestures to assess the response and a dummy was placed in the infant’s mouth to prevent a direct response
following the display, the dummy was removed
all responses were recorded on video
Meltzoff and Moore (1997)’s results
infants as young as 12 days old could imitate both facial and manual gestures
Meltzoff and Moore (1997)’s conclusion
the ability to imitate serves as an important building block for later development therefore must be innate
how does Meltzoff and Moore (1977) support the idea of interactional synchrony?
as the baby was deliberately copying facial and hand gestures of the adult model
how is high control a strength of caregiver infant interactions?
often highly controlled observations
for example, Meltzoff and Moore made use of technology to capture the micro sequences of behaviours that the infants displayed
this involves filming, often from different angles, the very fine details of expressions and movements that can be recorded and analysed later which can only be done in a highly controlled situation
internally valid
how is no demand characteristics a strength of caregiver-infant interactions?
we change our behaviour when being observed, for example trying hard to act how the observers expect or don’t expect
however infants who are a few days/weeks old don’t have a clue
they don’t know they’re being observed so behaviour is more natural
more ecologically valid
how is intentionality a weakness of caregiver-infant interactions?
it’s difficult to draw conclusions about the role of caregiver infant interactions in the development of attachment because it’s difficult to determine the infant’s intention
this is because what’s being observed is just hand movements or changes in facial expressions
the infant is limited in it’s ability to communicate and only has a few things that it can actually do
researcher needs to make inference about behaviour, hard to be certain about what is taking place from infant’s POV
how is observer bias a weakness of caregiver infant interactions?
observational research, potential problem of bias with observer’s interpretation
e.g. they may observe an infant’s behaviour and interpret it as a direct response to the adult’s behaviour because that is what they’re hoping to find
this raises questions about validity and weakens understanding of caregiver infant interactions
however there is a way to deal with this which Meltzoff and Moore did, had an independent observer who was not aware of the aims of the study to judge the infant’s behaviour on the film
how are practical issues a weakness of caregiver infant interactions?
infant behaviour makes it difficult to observe their behaviour because you can’t control it and have to wait for a period of time when you can observe them
e.g. may have booked baby and caregiver to come in at 3pm but baby decided to sleep instead
this results in fewer observations of infants done and for a shorter period of time due to their waking hours
explain how practical application is a strength of caregiver infant interactions
it has drawn attention to the important behaviours needed to help the development of an infant
the research into caregiver infant interaction encourages mothers to engage in social interaction and respond to behaviours of their child in an appropriate and timely manner
it has pointed to importance of these interactions for the benefit of the child’s development, notably in areas such as empathy and language
explain how being socially sensitive is a weakness of caregiver infant interactions
research emphasises the importance of interactional synchrony between a mother and an infant and suggests that a child may not develop as well if it doesn’t receive high levels of it
Isabella Rambeski’s research suggested that low levels of interactional synchrony can lead to insecure attachment
mothers who return to work shortly after their child is born may be negatively impacted as there are less opportunities for interactional synchrony
therefore research into caregiver infant interactions could put pressure on mothers to not to return to work when they need to
or may have less time due to looking after other children and can’t give as much attention which can lead to guilt
Schaffer and Emerson (1964)’s aim
they aimed to investigate the formation of early attachment, in particular the age at which they developed, their emotional intensity and to whom they were directed
Schaffer and Emerson (1964)’s procedure
sample of 60 babies (31m 29f) from Glasgow with majority working class families
it was a longitudinal study where the babies and mothers were studied every month for the first year and then again at 18 months
used observations and interviews
they assessed separation anxiety/ protest through infant being left alone in a room, left in the pram outside the shops, left in the cot at night etc.
also assessed stranger anxiety with the researcher starting home visits by approaching the infant to see if they got distressed
researchers asked questions about the kind of protest their babies showed in 7 everyday situations
Schaffer and Emerson (1964)’s results
they found between 25-52 weeks about 60% of babies showed separation anxiety towards their caregiver (usually the mother)
attachment tended to be to the caregiver who was most interactive and sensitive to the infant’s signals and facial expression (reciprocity). this wasn’t necessarily the person who the infant spend the most time with
by 40 weeks 80% of babies had a specific attachment to the primary caregiver and almost 30% displayed multiple attachments e.g. father, grandparents etc.
Schaffer and Emerson (1964)’s conclusion
there is a pattern of attachment common to all infants which is biologically controlled
furthermore, attachments are more easily made with those who are sensitive, for example recognising and responding appropriately to an infant’s needs rather than those spending the most time with a child
