attachment Flashcards
Outline reciprocity
From birth babies and their mothers (or other caregivers) spend a lot of time in intense and highly pleasurable interaction. An interaction is said to shows reciprocity when each person responds to the other and elicits a response from them.
For example - a caregiver might respond to their baby’s smile by saying something and then this in turn elicits a response from the baby.
This kind of reciprocal interaction is also sometimes called ‘turn-taking’
Outline two aspects of reciprocity
alert phases:
When babies signal that they are ready for interaction e.g. eye contact. Research shows that mothers typically pick up on and respond to their baby’s alertness around two-thirds of the time, although this varies according to the skill of the mother and external factors such as stress. From around 3 months this interaction tends to become increasingly frequent and involves both mother and baby paying close attention to each other’s verbal signals and facial expressions.
Active involvement:
- Traditional views of childhood have portrayed babies in a passive role, receiving care from an adult.
- Babies as well as caregivers actually take quite an active role
- Both parties can initiate interactions and they appear to take turns in doing so. Brazelton et al. described this interaction as a ‘dance’ similarly to how in couple’s dance each partner responds to the other’s moves
outline what is meant by the term interactional synchrony
Two people are said to be ‘synchronised’ when they carry out the same action simultaneously. Interactional synchrony can thus be defined as ‘the temporal co-ordination of micro-level social behaviour’. It takes place when caregiver and baby interact in such a way that their actions and emotions mirror the other
Outline 2 studies of interactional synchrony
Meltzoff and Moore observed the beginnings of interactional synchrony in babies as young as two weeks old. An adult displayed one of three facial expressions or one of three distinctive gestures. The baby’s response was filmed and labelled by independent observers. Babies’ expression and gestures were more likely to mirror those of the adults more than chance would predict - i.e. significant association
It is believed that interactional synchrony is important for the development of caregiver-infant attachment. Isabella et al observed 30 mothers and the quality of mother-baby attachment. They found that high levels of synchrony were associated with better quality mother-baby attachment e.g. emotional intensity of the relationship
Strengths and weaknesses of caregiver interactions
- strength - filmed in a lab
this means that other activity that might distract the baby can be controlled and that observations can be recorded and analysed later - unlikely that researchers will miss seeing key behaviours - more than one observer can record data and establish inter-rater reliability of observations - finally, babies don’t know they’re being observed so their behaviour doesn’t change in response to observation - a problem with overt observations
= good reliability and validity - hard to interpret babies behaviour
lack co-ordination and much of bodies are immobile - movements observed are small hand movements or subtle changes in expression - difficult to be sure whether a baby is smiling or farting - difficult to determine what is taking place from a baby’s perspective - e.g. don’t know whether a movement e.g. hand twitch is random or triggered by something the caregiver has done
= cannot be certain behaviours seen have a special meaning - simply observing behaviour doesn’t tell us its developmental importance
Feldman points out - ideas like synchrony + reciprocity simply give names to patterns of observable caregiver and infant behaviour - these are robust phenomena - can be reliably observed - may not be particularly useful in understanding a child’s development - purpose of these behaviours unknown
= cannot be certain from observational research alone that reciprocity and synchrony are important for a child’s development
COUNTER
isabellas research
What are the stages of attachment
Schaffer + Emerson
Stage 1: Asocial Stage
- first few weeks of life - observable behaviour towards humans and inanimate objects = similar - ‘asocial’ - but they didn’t believe entirely asocial because at this stage babies still show signs that they prefer to be with other people - tend to show a preference for familiar people and more easily comforted by them - baby is forming bonds with certain people which forms the basis of later attachments
Stage 2: Indiscriminate attachment
2-7 months - display more obvious and observable social behaviours - clear preference of humans/inanimate objects - recognise and prefer company of familiar people - but usually accept cuddles and comfort from any person = ‘indiscriminate’ - don’t show separation anxiety when caregivers leave presence or stranger anxiety in presence of unfamiliar people
Stage 3: Specific attachment
- 7 months - display classic signs of attachment towards one particular person e.g. anxiety directed towards stranger especially when attachment figure absent and anxiety when separated from their attachment figure - baby said to have formed a specific attachment = primary attachment figure - not necessarily individual who spends most time with but one that offers most interaction and responds to the baby’s ‘signals’ with the most skill - mother in 65% cases
Stage 4: multiple attachments
- shortly after they start to show attachment behaviour e.g. stranger anxiety towards one person they usually extend this behaviour to multiple attachments with older people whom they regularly spend time - secondary attachments - Schaffer and Emerson observed 29% of children formed secondary within a month of forming a primary attachment - by 1 year majority of babies developed multiple attachments
Outline research into the stages of attachment
Schaffer & Emerson aimed to investigate the formation of early attachments: the age at which they developed, their emotional intensity and to whom they were directed.
They studied 60 babies (31 male, 29 female) from working class families in Glasgow.
The babies and their mothers were visited at home every month for the first year and again at 18 months.
The mothers were asked questions about the kind of protest their babies showed in 7 everyday situations, such as separation and the presence of a stranger.
Between 25 and 32 weeks of age about 50% of the babies showed signs of separation anxiety towards a particular adult, usually the mother.
Attachment tended to be to the caregiver who was more interactive and sensitive to infant signals and facial expressions.
By the age of 40 weeks 80% of the babies had a specific attachment and almost 30% displayed multiple attachments.
Evaluate research into the stages of attachment
- high external validity
- observations made by parents during ordinary activities and reported to researchers - alternative would be researchers present recording observations - may have distracted babies and made them feel more anxious - potentially seeking more comfort with a familiar person than they would typically do in an everyday setting.
= highly likely they behaved naturally when being observed
COUNTER
issues with asking mothers to be ‘observers’ - unlikely to be objective and could have been bias of what they noticed and reported = might not have noticed signs of anxiety / misremembered it
= even if babies acted naturally their behaviour may not have been accurately recorded
- validity of measures used to assess attachment in asocial stage
- young babies = poor ordination - fairly immobile - if babies < 2 months old felt anxiety in everyday situations they might have displayed this in quite subtle hard to observe ways - difficult for mothers to observe and report back to researchers on signs of anxiety and attachment in this age group
= babies may actually be quite social but because flawed methods appear asocial - real world application in day care
- asocial and indiscriminate stages day care = straightforward - can receive comfort from any skilled adult - research tells us that day care, especially starting day care with an unfamiliar adult may be problematic during the specific attachment stage.
= use of day care can be planned using Schaffer and Emerson’s stages
Outline research into the role of the father as attachment figures
- Evidence suggests fathers are much less likely to become infants’ first attachment figure compared to mothers
- Schaffer and Emerson found majority of infants first became attached to mother around 7 months - 3% of cases father = sole object of attachment - 27% cases father was join first object of attachment with the mother
- however it appears fathers go on to become important attachment figures - 75% infants studied by Schaffer and Emerson formed an attachment w father by 18 months - protested when father walked away = sign of attachment - Grossmann et al - longitudinal study - infants attachments studied until into their teens - looked at both parents’ behaviour and its relationship to the quality of their baby’s later attachments to other people - quality of attachment with mothers but not fathers was related to attachments in adolescence - fathers = less important attachment to mothers
However - found the quality of the fathers’ play with babies was related to the quality of adolescent attachments - suggests fathers have a different role from mothers - one that is to do with play and stimulation and less to do with emotional development - infants’ relationship with their primary attachment figure forms basis of all later close emotional relationships - evidence suggests that when fathers take on role of primary caregiver they are able to adopt the emotional role more typically associated with mothers
- Field filmed 4-month-old-babies in face-to-face interaction with primary caregivers mothers, secondary caregiver fathers and primary caregiver fathers. Primary caregiver fathers like mothers spent more time smiling, imitating and holding babies than the second caregiver fathers = part of reciprocity and interactional synchrony - process of attachment formation.
seems fathers have the potential to be the more emotion-focused primary attachment figure - can provide the responsiveness required for a close emotional attachment but perhaps only express this when given the role of primary caregiver.
evaluate research into the role of fathers in attachments
- real world application that can be used to offer advice to parents.
- Many cultures have pressured couples into believing false assumptions of who the primary caregiver should be and what role a father or mother must take on. Mothers may feel forced to stay at home and care for the children, similarly to how fathers may feel pressured to focus on work and provide the income for the family instead of having involvement in their children’s care.
- used to offer reassuring guidance to parents, for example; heterosexual parents can be informed that fathers are capable of becoming primary attachment figures– reducing parental anxiety around the role of fathers. - Bias in the research due to preconceptions about how fathers should behave as a result of normalised stereotypes. For example, in everyday advertising, the woman is regularly seen to be the one changing nappies, cooking meals and doing the washing, subconsciously implementing this gender role idea into our heads. These stereotypes may cause unintentional observer bias whereby observers ‘see’ what they expect to see rather than recording objective reality.
- limitation as it means the findings tells us little about the role of the father in attachment - key behaviours indicating that father can serve an emotional development role may not be noted - findings vary based off of the methodology used. Grossman et al is an example of a longitudinal study which suggested the father’s role as a secondary attachment figure in a child’s upbringing is important in a child’s development, involving play and stimulation. However, this theory is contradicted by the fact children growing up with single mothers or lesbian-parent families do not develop differently to those in two-parent heterosexual families as proven by McCallum and Golombok in 2004 and other studies. This means the question as to whether father’s play a significant role in a child’s upbringing remains unanswered and can produce socially sensitive research that suggests that lesbian or single-mother household children miss a key part of development.
