Attachment Flashcards
A01: Attachment
Attachment can be defined as an emotional relationship between two people in which each seeks closeness and feels more secure when in the presence of the attachment figure.
A01: define reciprocity
Reciprocity - caregiver-infant interaction is a two-way/mutual process; each party responds to the other’s signals to sustain interaction (turn-taking). The behaviour of each party elicits a response from the other.
A02: examples of reciprocity
-Babies have ‘alert phases’ and signal they are ready for interaction (i.e. making eye contact)
-Feldman and Eidelman (2007) suggest that mothers (typically) pick up on and respond to alertness (2 thirds of time)
A01: interactional synchrony
refers to how a parent’s speech and infant’s behaviour become finely synchronised so that they are in direct response to one another.
• Two people are said to be synchronized where they carry out an action/ reflect the same emotions at the same time.
A03: controlled procedures (strength)
A strength of observations into caregiver-infant interactions, is that they generally use well-controlled procedures with both the mother and infant being filmed.This ensures the very fine details of behaviour can be recorded and later analysed. Furthermore, babies don’t know or care that they are being observed, so their behaviour does not change in response to controlled observations. Therefore the research has good validity
A03: what is meant by the interactions (limitation)
A weakness of observing infant interactions is that it is difficult to know what they mean by these interactions. For example, you might observe hand movements or changes in expression, but it is difficult to know if this imitation of adult signals is deliberate or not. This means we can not really know for certain that behaviours seen in
caregiver-infant interaction have a special meaning.
A03: socially sensitive ( limitation)
A weakness of research into mother-infant interaction, is that it could be considered unethical, as it is socially sensitive. Isabella et al (1989) found that high levels of
synchrony were associated with better quality mother-infant interactions. This suggests that mothers should not return to work so soon, as they may be considered a ‘bad mother’ or alternatively may be made to feelguilty for returning to work.
A03: purpose of synchrony and reciprocity (limitation)
A weakness of observations is that they don’t tell us the purpose of synchrony and reciprocity. So we are able to describe these terms and reliably observe them, but this may not be particularly useful as it does not tell us their purpose. However, there is some evidence that reciprocal interaction and synchrony are helpful in the development in attachment.
A01: stages of attachment
• Stage 1: Asocial stage
• Stage 2: Indiscriminate attachments
• Stage 3: Specific attachments
• Stage 4: Multiple attachments
A02: Schaffer and Emerson sample (stages of attachment)
60 babies = 31 boys + 29 girls
All from Glasgow
Majority from working class families
A02: Schaffer and Emerson Procedure (stages of attachment)
This was a longitudinal study where the babies and mothers were studied every month for the first year and then again at 18 months. They
used observations and interviews with the mothers. 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, they assessed stranger anxiety with the researcher starting home visits by approaching the infant, to see if they got distressed
A02: Schaffer and Emerson Findings/Conclusions (stages of attachment)
• By 25-32 weeks, 50% showed separation anxiety
• By 40 weeks, 80% had a specific attachment to primary caregiver and 30% displayed multiple attachments
Conclusion:
• Their findings show how attachment behaviour can change as a baby gets older.
• Supporting the idea that there are 4 distinct stages of attachment
A03: strength of Schaffer and Emerson
One strength of the Schaffer and Emmerson’s study is that it has good external validity. Schaffer and Emmerson’s study was carried out in the family’s own homes and most of the observation (other than stranger anxiety) was done by parents during ordinary activities. This means that the behaviour was not affected by external observers (demand characteristics) so would have been natural. Therefore as the study took place largely in every day settings, it could be said to have good external validity.
A03: Issue of (S&E) study
One issue is that the data collected was based on self-reports of the mothers who reported. intensity of protest when separated and who was it directed towards as well as the observer noting stranger anxiety when they visited the house. This means that it is impossible to be totally convinced that what was reported was true. People often in self-reports often want to show a good side. Additionally, the longitudinal design meant that using the same participants over and over meant that there was less chance of participant variables affecting the study, however, it may have also caused participant fatigue. Therefore as we can’t be sure that everything reported was true, this raises issues of the validity of the data collected by Schaffer and Emmerson.
A03: limitations of sample (S&E)
One problem is that the Glasgow study had limited sample characteristics. The problem is that all of the 60 families involved were from the same district, social class and at a time over 50 years ago is a problem. Therefore, you can’t generalise to other cultures, for example collectivist cultures, where multiple attachments from a very early age are more the norm. The results may also be outdated and not relevant in today’s society.
