Attachment Flashcards
(185 cards)
What are the 2 types of caregiver infant interactions ?
- Reciprocity
- Interactional synchrony
What is reciprocity ?
A 2 way behaviour that is produced as a response to the other person’s behaviour.
The caregiver + infant are active contributors in the interaction so are responding to one another.
However, this doesn’t tell us anything about the quality of these interactions (child throwing a toy and caregiver responding)
Brazelton (1979) suggested that it was imported for the development of communication later on.
What is interactional synchrony ?
The timing + pattern of the interaction.
Any interaction that has interactional synchrony is also reciprocal, but the interaction is rhythmic, has a mutual focus, and includes the infant and caregiver mirroring each other’s behaviour.
It also shows their emotions.
This tells us about the quality of the interaction as they move in the same pattern.
How is the overlap between reciprocity and interactional synchrony seen ?
Reciprocity is apart of synchrony
However, synchrony is more about emotion and behaviours.
Meltzoff and Moore’s 1977 research
They carried out an observation on babies as young as 2 weeks old (but Meltzoff repeated this with a baby who was 42 mins old and found the same results)
Adults would show 1/3 expressions, and a hand gesture and the child’s response was filmed and identified by independent observers who didn’t know what the child had just seen.
The behavioural categories included mouth opening, termination of mouth opening, tongue protrusion, termination of tongue protrusion.
Each observer scored the tapes twice so that inter observer reliability could be calculated.
All the scores were greater than 92.
An association was found between the expression/gesture the adult had displayed and the babies actions.
This could be used to show the existence of reciprocity from a very young age.
Which research shows how the level of interactional synchrony helps predict attachment types ?
Isabella et al ‘s 1991 research
Isabella et al ‘s research :
Observed mother-infant interactions at 3,9,12 months and assessed the quality of their attachments using the strange situations and found 2 important findings:
- Good interactional synchrony (well timed + reciprocal + mutually rewarding) leads to secure attachments
- Minimally involved mothers who were unresponsive + intrusive led to insecure attachments
These show that :
1. Interactional synchrony is the biggest predictor of secure attachments and research is now starting to just focus on this rather than reciprocity when looking at caregiver infant interactions
2. An overstimulating mother (shows too much reciprocity) led to insecure attachments
How does research support reciprocity and Interactional synchrony ?
research shows the existence of reciprocity as a type of caregiver-infant interaction from a very early age.
Metzoff and Moore carried out an observation on children as young as 2 weeks old in which adults displayed one of three facial expressions and a handgesture and the child’s response was filmed and identified by independent observers who had no knowledge of what the children had just seen. The behavioural categories were mouth opening, termination of mouth opening, tongue protrusion, termination of tongue protrusion.
An association was found between the expression/gesture the adult displayed and the babies actions, suggesting that the baby was imitating the adult.
This research shows the existence of reciprocity in care-giver infant interactions and that they occur at a very young age, suggesting that reciprocity is an innate behaviour (nature) rather than something that has been learnt (nurture) and so must be a universal phenomena in care-giver infant interactions.
How does research show the use of controlled observations in caregiver infant interactions ?
A strength of caregiver- infant interactions is that most of the research uses controlled observations.
These controlled observations are filmed from multiple angles, recorded, with independent researchers observing the behaviour and the babies don’t know or care that they are being observed.
This ensures that very fine detail of behaviour can be recorded, the films can be watched later, multiple times and the baby’s behaviour does not change in response to being observed.
This means that the findings into caregiver-infant interactions are valid and so gives us faith in the concepts of reciprocity and interactional synchrony themselves and with inter-rater reliability as high as 0.92 also shows the reliability of the observers.
How does care giver and infant interactions research lack reliability ?
A weakness of the research in reciprocity such as Meltzoff and Moore’s study is the issue of replicibility.
Research such as Koepke et al (1983) have failed to replicate the findings of Meltzoff and Moore’s study. Koepke did not find a clear association between infant behaviour and that of the adult models
Furthermore, Marian et al (1996) found that infants could not distinguish between live and videotaped interactions with their mothers, suggesting that they were not actually responding to the adult
These studies have failed to replicate Meltzoff and Moore’s findings, therefore their results may lack reliability and may have limited usefulness in explaining caregiver infant interactions
What are the issues/debates on research into caregiver infant interactions (socially sensitive) ?
Research into caregiver-infant interactions has said to be socially sensitive.
Interactional synchrony suggests that in order for secure/strong attachments to be formed, the mother needs to present from birth to develop this sensitive responsiveness to their child.
Children whose mothers return to work soon after the child’s birth restrict the opportunities for achieving interactional synchrony.
This research has implications for certain social groups (e.g. working mothers) as this suggests their attachments may not be as secure if work is preventing interactional synchrony from taking place.
The 4 stages of attachment were based off of which study ?
Schaffer and Emerson’s 1964 longitudinal study in Glasgow
What was the method of the longitudinal study ? (S+E)
60 babies (31 male, 29 female) from Glasgow the majority from skilled working class backgrounds.
They were visited at home every month for the 1st year and then at 18 months.
Mothers were interviewed to measure the infants level of attachment asking questions about how their infants responded to 7 situations e.g. adult leaving the room (separation anxiety).
observations were conducted to investigate the level of distress the presence of a stranger caused (stranger anxiety).
What were the findings of the longitudinal study ? (S+E)
Specific attachment (signs of separation anxiety) 50% of infants by 7 months,
80% by 40 weeks
and almost 30% displayed multiple attachments.
By one year 78% had developed multiple attachments
with 33% having five or more multiple attachment figures.
What are the 4 stages of attachment and at which ages do they start/end ?
- Pre attachment (birth to 3 months)
- Indiscriminate attachment (3 to 7/8 months)
- Discriminate attachment (7/8 months onwards)
- Multiple attachments (9 months onwards)
What is the pre attachment stage ?
Babies smile more + are more sociable from 6 weeks
Can tell people apart + like human company
Form stronger attachments, but these don’t progress much as they can easily be comforted by any individual.
No fear of strangers shown.
What is the indiscriminate attachment stage ?
recognise bonds with their caregivers through reciprocal + interactional synchrony
their behaviour to inanimate objects (teddies) and animate ones (faces) are similar
towards the end, they start to be more content in the presence of peole and are more easily calmed by familiar adults
no stranger anxiety
What is the discriminate attachment stage ?
Show separation anxiety, ‘protest’ by crying when primary caregivers leave.
Have now formed a specific attachment.
Show stranger anxiety
What are multiple attachments ?
Formed shortly after forming specific attachments.
29% form this within a month (according to the study) towards friends/family.
Evaluation of the stages of attachment : pre attachment stage may be incorrect
it assumes that the infant’s emotional responses are not directed to a specific person, but research shows this might not be the case.
Bushnell (1989) presented 2 day old babies with either their mother’s face or the face of a female stranger until they spent 20 seconds focusing on them.
2/3 infants preferred their mother’s face over the stranger’s.
This shows that schaffer’s pre-attachment stage is incorrect, as the 2 day babies world have been at the start of the stage.
shows that even young children respond to one specific person in a unique way.
Evaluation of the stages of attachment : stages are based on longitudinal research
this is a strength of the stages.
Schaffer observed the Glasgow babies once a month for a year, and then at 18 months
This gave him time to clearly observe the stages the babies went through and at what time.
This enhances the research’s validity as the research is longitudinal.
This allows us to improve our understanding of the dynamic processes that shape a child’s development.
Evaluation of the stages of attachment : stages aren’t generalisable to all babies
research was only carried out on 60 working class babies fam Glasgow.
there was a limited number of babies, the study was limited to one country and from a limited background.
this can be further supported when looking at attachments in same cultural contexts around the world as multiple caregivers could be the norm.
many psychologists believe that babies form multiple altachmends from the outset (pre - attachment stage)
so the stages wouldn’t apply for these children.
this makes us question the universality of his stages of attachment.
Evaluation of the stages of attachment : data could have been unreliable
mathers reporting their infant interactions could have been biased towards displaying themselves in a positive light.
some could have been less responsive to their child’s needs, thus less likely to report them to prevent themselves from being seen badly.
demand characteristics may have occurred as they could have told the researcher what they wanted to hear; lacks validity.
however: mundane realism occurred (everyday conditions) , so conclusions could be argued
to have a high validity.
what is the role of the father in today’s society ?
traditionally, fathers played secondary attachment figures (according to S+E).
they played traditional roles as the bread earner while mothers stayed home + created close bonds.