Attachment Flashcards
Features of caregiver infant interaction
- sensitive responsiveness
- imitation
- Interactional synchrony
- reciprocity
- motherese
Sensitive responsiveness
The caregiver responds appropriately to signals from the infant
Imitation
The caregiver copies the caregivers actions and behaviour, for example Melzoff and Moore found infants between 2 and 3 weeks of age appeared to imitate the facial expressions and hand gestures of the experimenter
Interactional sychrony
Infants react in time with the caregivers speech, resulting in a conversational dance, Condon and Sander provided evidence for this as they showed that babies do not move in time with adult conversation
Reciprocity
Interaction flows back and forth between caregiver and infant
Motherese
The slow high pitched way of taking to infants however there is no evidence to support that this influences the
strength of an attachment between parent and infant
Attachment AO1
An emotional bond between two people in a two way process that endures over times which leads to certain behaviour such as clinging and proximity seeking and how this can protect the infant
Reciprocity AO1
When a parent and child respond to each others signals, response to each others action from response which the response is not necessarily coping the action, an example is if a baby cries the mum gives it a cuddle
Brazelton
1979, proves why reciprocity is important as it helps later communications and helps the caregiver anticipate the infants behaviour and responds to appropriately to protect the infant. It also lays foundation for later communication and attachment, which helps the infants social development and protects the baby
Interactional synchrony AO1
Caregiver and infant interact by mirroring each others actions and responses and emotion
Meltzoff and Moore
1977, conducted first observational synchrony research
Meltzoff and Moore conduct of research
A controlled observation on 48 infants as young as two weeks old which were imitated facial expressions by the caregiver and they waited to see if they would respond to this, the caregiver preforms the behaviour instructed by researcher and they record the infants reaction. Observer had knowledge of, the categories they made a tally of them, took count of infants behaviour, it was repeated twice to improve reliability
Meltzoff and Moore findings
They found an association between the infant behaviour and the caregivers model, which showed reactions must be innate (from birth) and behaviour can be learned. Over 90% of later study in 1983 which was done with infants of just 3 days old showed that they could imitate the reactions which shows the significance of the research
Conclusion of Meltzoff and Moore research
Due to the age of the infants Interactional synchrony must be innate as the observers had no knowledge to make sure its objective and also the behaviour was put into categories to make more objective and increase both inter-rater reliability and intra-rated reliability
Piaget research
Contradicting Meltzoff and Moore, He proposed Interactional synchrony was developed at the end of the first year due to response training and that imitation only occurs as it’s rewarding for the infant and therefore it’s learnt and not innate
Murray and Trevarthen conduct of research
1985, Supporting Meltzoff and Moore, 2 month old infants interact with caregiver in real time via a video monitor, then played a tape of the caregiver so caregiver was not responding to the infant
Murray and Trevarthen results
The infant showed acute distress, infant tries to attach to caregiver interest, gained none so turned away shows infant was explicating a response rather that displaying a rewarded response, this supports that responses are innate
Evaluation of Meltzoff and Moore - problems with infant behaviour
Limiting - mouths are in fairly constant movement and expressions that are tested occur regularly which makes it difficult to distinguish between general activity and imitated behaviour
Supporting - to overcome problems Meltzoff and Moore measured infant behaviour by filming then asked an observer to judge infant behaviour, the person judging had no idea the behaviour being imitated, increase internal validity of data
Evaluation of Meltzoff and Moore - failure to replicate
Limitations - other studies have struggled to match the findings, eg: koepke et al. failed to replicate the data but Meltzoff and Moore argues that there’s was more carefully controlled, Marian et al. replicated study by Murray and Trevarthen and found infants couldn’t distinguish from the video tape, suggests not responding to the caregiver
Supports - Marian et al. acknowledged that problems may lie within the procedure rather than the ability to imitate their caregivers
Evaluation of Meltzoff and Moore - behaviour intentional
Supports - response of infants to imitate objects, Abravanel and Deyoung observed infants behaviour when interacting with two objects, one opening mouth and one stimulating tongue movements, infants median age of 5 to 12 weeks made little response to object to conclude infants do not imitate everything they see only a social response to humans
Schaffer and Emerson - the Glasgow baby study
1964, researchers asked the mothers of 60 babies about the types of protests their baby makes in separation, such as mother leaving the room, looking into the babies attachment to the caregiver and strangers anxiety
Schaffer and Emerson findings
They found that between 25-32 weeks about 50% of babies showed signs of separation anxiety to caregiver known as specific attachment, attachment tended to be with the person who was the most interactive and sensitive to infants signals and facial expressions (Interactional synchrony), by 40 weeks 70% of infants had specific attachment and 30% had multiple attachment, based on findings developed 4 stages of attachment
Stage 1 of the Glasgow baby study
Indiscriminate stage or asocial stage
A first few weeks to a month, the baby is recognising and bonding with its caregiver however baby responds to human objects and humans in a similar manner
Stage 2 of the Glasgow baby study
Indiscriminate and beginnings of attachment and occurs at 2-7 months, babies display more of the observable social behaviour, they prefer people to inamate objects, they show preferences for familiar adults, babies seem, happier in presence in these individuals, in this stage babies normally accept cuddles from any adult and do not usually snow any stranger anxiety or separation anxiety
Stage 3 of the Glasgow baby study
Discriminate, specific attachment around 7 months , the majority of infants begin to display stranger anxiety to the biological mother (60 % of cases), the baby has formed a specific attachment this will be with the person who best cares and responds to the infants needs and signals
Stage 4 of the Glasgow baby study
Multiple attachment occurs around 8 months plus, infants start to have secondary attachment with people it sees on a regular basis, 29% of infants nada secondary attachment within a month of specific attachment,by the age of 1 year majority of infants would have formed multiple secondary attachments
Evaluation of Schaffer and Emerson - unreliable data (ao3)
Limitation - based on mothers instinct, some mothers may be less sensitive to infants protests (self-reported data) this makes the data subjective and psychologist want the study to be objective
Evaluation of Schaffer and Emerson - biased sample (ao3)
Limitation - first sample was biased in many ways, all only from working class, findings maybe only apply to that social group and the study was completed in 1960s parental care has changed more women go to work and dads stay home has quadrupled in last 25 years
