Attatchment Flashcards
What is attachment?
An attachment is a close two-way emotional bond between two individuals where each individual sees the other as essential for their own emotional security. It endures over time and serves to protect the infant.
Define proximity
People try to stay physically close to those they are attached to
Define separation anxiety
People are distressed when an attachment figure leaves their presence
Define stranger anxiety
The infant is distressed when in close proximity to strangers / people they don’t know
Define reunion behaviour
The infant shows pleasure when reunited with the attachment figure.
What problems do researchers face when conducting attachment research?
Infants have little control, over their movements when they are that immature and their bodies are almost immobile when they are very small. The movements are just small hand/limb movements or facial expressions. Also difficult to determine what is going on in the baby’s mind. Therefore we cannot be certain that the behaviours seen in care-giver infant interactions have a special meaning.
What are caregiver-infant interactions, and why are they important?
Caregiver-infant interactions refers to the communication between a caregiver and infant. It is believed that these interactions have important functions for the child’s social development and form the basis of the attachment between the two. Particularly, the more responsive or sensitive they are to each other’s signals, the deeper the bond.
Give the technical definition of reciprocity.
Reciprocity is a caregiver-infant interaction. It is a two-way or mutual process - each party responds to the other’s signals to sustain (continue) the interaction (turn-taking). An interaction is reciprocal when each person responds to the other and the behaviour of each party elicits a response from the other. Both the caregiver and infant can initiate interactions.
Explain why reciprocity is important for the infant.
Lays the foundation for later attachment and communications
Give the technical definition of interactional synchrony.
Interactional synchrony is when a caregiver and infant reflect the actions and emotions of the other in a coordinated (synchronised) way. They mirror each other in terms of their facial and body movements.
Explain two ways in which interactional synchrony is important for the infant.
For them to begin to acquire an understanding of what other people are thinking and feeling which is fundamental for social relationships.
Important for the development of mother-infant attachments
How is reciprocity different to interactional synchrony?
In reciprocity the responses aren’t necessarily similar.
Describe Meltzoff and Moore’s procedure and results (study of interactional synchrony)
Observed I.S in infants as young as 2 weeks. An adult display one of three facial expressions - inants response filmed and identifed by independent observers (couldn’t see adult showing facial expression). Behaviour is innate (3 day babies) and intentional.
Meltzoff suggested that through interactional synchrony, infants begin to acquire an understanding of what other people are thinking and feeling which is fundamental for social relationships.
What did Isabella et al. (1989) find about interactional synchrony?
Isabella et al. (1989) observed 30 mothers and infants together and assessed the degree of synchrony. They found high levels of synchrony were associated with better quality of mother-infant attachment.
Studies of caregiver-infant interactions are generally well-controlled. How? Why is this important?
Observations of mother-infant interactions are generally well-controlled procedures, with both the mother and infant being filmed, often from multiple angles. The angles often include those that mean that the researcher analysing the video footage cannot see what the other person in the video is doing. Additionally, babies don’t know or care that they are being observed.
As babies don’t know or care that they are being observed, this reduces the likelihood of demand characteristics and social desirability bias which are normally a problem for observational research. Recording the interactions ensures that fine details can be recorded and later analysed. As angles can be used where the caregiver can’t be seen, this reduces the likelihood of researcher bias. Together, this ensures that the research has good internal validity and so we can make valid conclusions about the importance of caregiver-infant interactions. It also means that the research can be replicated to check reliability of the results.
Counterargument: it is difficult to study infants’ behaviour because their mouths are in fairly constant motion. The expressions being tested in research (e.g. tongue sticking out, yawning, smiling) occur frequently. This makes it difficult to distinguish between general activity and specific imitated behaviours. As such, we can’t be certain that the interactions are deliberate and so have a special meaning.
Why can’t we be certain that caregiver-infant interactions have a special meaning?
Ignore
Feldman points out that interactional synchrony and reciprocity simply describe behaviours that occur at the same time. They are robust phenomena that can be reliably observed, but this may not be particularly useful as it doesn’t tell us their purpose (why they are done).
Therefore, we can’t understand why infants reciprocate and imitate their caregivers, so we can’t be certain that they have a special meaning.
Counterargument: there is evidence that reciprocity and interactional synchrony are helpful in the development of mother-infant attachment, as well as stress responses, empathy, language and moral development (e.g. Isabella et al.). Therefore, it seems that they may have a special meaning.
What evidence is there to suggest they do have a special meaning?
Meltzoff and Moore’s study along with Isabella et al.’s study support the importance of interactional synchrony in social development and attachment. This suggests that interactional synchrony may have a special meaning as it is important for the development of attachment and to help infants to begin to acquire an understanding of what other people are thinking and feeling, which is fundamental for social relationships.
Pseudo-imitation is a problem for studies of caregiver-infant interactions. What is this and why is it a problem?
Ignore
Many studies involving observation of the interactions between mothers and infants have shown the same patterns of interaction (reciprocity and interactional synchrony). However, what is being observed is merely hand movements or changes in expression. Therefore, it is extremely difficult to know what is taking place from the infant’s perspective e.g. are they doing what they are doing deliberately? Other researchers have suggested that infants may instead be showing pseudo-imitation. This is the idea that the infant isn’t truly imitating the behaviour of the caregiver. Instead, they are repeating a behaviour that has been rewarded (the caregiver often smiles and laughs when they imitate). Therefore, the infant has not consciously translated what they see into a matching movement.
Consequently, we can’t conclude that we fully understand the meaning of caregiver-infant interactions and we can’t know for certain that they have a special meaning.
Counterargument: Abravanel and DeYong (1991) observed infant behaviour when ‘interacting’ with two objects, one simulating tongue movements and the other mouth opening/closing. They found that the infants made little response to the objects. This suggests that infants don’t imitate everything they see; it is a specific social response to other humans. Therefore, the interactions may have a special meaning.
How can research on caregiver-infant interactions be considered socially sensitive?
Research into mother-infant interaction is socially sensitive because it suggests that children may be disadvantaged by particular child-rearing practices. In particular, mothers who return to work shortly after a child is born restricts the opportunities for achieving interactional synchrony which has been found to be important in developing caregiver-infant attachment. This suggests that mothers should not return to work so soon and as such has socially sensitive implications. It could create guilt in mothers who need to return to work soon after the birth of their child. However, the research is important in that it suggests that the interactions have a special meaning and may have implications later on in life. These two opposing viewpoints need to be carefully considered when conducting and publishing such research.
What is Schaffer’s stages of attachment?
Some psychologists have suggested that attachment isn’t as straightforward as it’s not there and then it suddenly is. They said that it actually develops in stages or steps. This is Schaffer’s stages of attachment. They are a description of how attachment develops that Schaffer developed from his research with Emerson.
What is the asocial stage?
The first stage is called the asocial stage, which isn’t really an asocial stage even though Schaffer and Emerson used that term. Babies in the first few weeks of life are said to be in this stage. During this stage the baby recognises and starts to form a bond with its carers. However, the baby’s behaviour towards non-human objects and humans is quite similar. Babies show some preference for familiar adults, in that those individuals find it easier to calm them. Babies are also happier when in the presence of other humans. During this stage, reciprocity and interactional synchrony play a role in establishing the infant’s relationship with others.
What is the indiscriminate attachment stage?
From 2-7 months babies display more observable social behaviour. They show a preference for people rather than inanimate objects and recognise and prefer familiar adults. They can distinguish between familiar and unfamiliar people. At this stage babies usually accept cuddles and comfort from any adult, and they do not usually show separation or stranger anxiety. Their attachment behaviour is therefore said to be indiscriminate because it is not different towards any one person, which is where the name of the stage came from.
What is the specific attachment stage?
The third stage is called ‘specific attachment’ and occurs from 7 months. The majority of babies start to display anxiety towards strangers and to become anxious when separated from one particular adult (the biological mother in 65% of cases). Equally, they show especial joy at reunion with that particular adult and are most comforted by them. At this point the baby is said to have formed a specific attachment. This adult is termed the primary attachment figure. This person is not necessarily the person the child spends most time with them, but the one who offers the most interaction and responds to the baby’s ‘signals’ with the most skill.
What is the multiple attachments stage?
The final stage is known as ‘multiple attachments’. Shortly after babies start to show attachment behaviour towards one adult, they usually extend this attachment behaviour to multiple attachments with other adults with whom they regularly spend time. These relationships are called secondary attachments. In Schaffer and Emerson’s study, 29% of the children had secondary attachments within a month of forming a primary (specific) attachment. By the age of 1 year the majority of infants had developed multiple attachments.
What is the problem with studying the asocial stage?
Ignore
The first stage of attachment is called the ‘asocial’ stage, but many important interactions take place in these weeks. The problem is that babies that are young have poor coordination and are generally pretty much immobile. It is therefore very difficult to make any judgements about them based on observations of their behaviour. There just isn’t much observable behaviour. This does not mean that the child’s feelings and cognitions are not highly social. It just means that the research evidence can’t be relied upon and so may not provide as strong support for the theory as previously thought. As such, from the research, it is difficult to strongly support the validity of the stages of attachment theory.
The theory is considered to be inflexible. How? Why is this a problem?
One difficulty with stage theories is that they suggest that development is inflexible. In this case, it suggests that normally specific attachments come before multiple attachments. In some situations and cultures, multiple attachments may come first. This is a problem because the stages become a standard by which families are judged and may then be classed as abnormal. However, this is because the stage model tells us less about how attachments develop in other cultures and situations beyond those studied in Schaffer and Emerson’s study (i.e. The theory is not externally valid).
Why might the theory apply less to collectivist cultures? Why is this a problem?
Schaffer’s stages of attachment
Ignore
In collectivist cultures, people are more focused on the needs of the group rather than the individuals (unlike individualist cultures like ours). In such societies, we might expect multiple attachments to be more common. Research supports this. It has been found that the closeness of attachment with mothers was almost twice as common in family-based sleeping arrangements compared to communal environments. This suggests that the stage model applies specifically to individualist cultures and so lacks external validity. It may tell us less about how attachments develop in other cultures.
What is the problem researchers face when measuring multiple attachments? Why is this a problem for the theory?
There may be a problem with how multiple attachments are assessed. Just because a baby gets distressed when an individual leaves the room does not necessarily mean that the individual is a ‘true’ attachment figure. Children have playmates as well as attachment figures and may get distressed when they leave, but this does not signify attachment. This is a problem for the stages because their observation does not leave us a way to distinguish between behaviour towards secondary attachment figures and playmates. Consequently the results may not be validly measuring multiple attachments, and so cannot be taken as strong support for the validity of the theory.
Describe the procedure and results of Schaffer and Emerson’s (1964) study that led to the development of Schaffer’s stages of attachment
Procedure:
They used a sample of 60 babies from Glasgow, with the majority being from working-class families. 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 the infant being left alone in a room, left in the pram outside the shops, left in the cot at night etc. They also assessed stranger anxiety with the researcher starting home visits by approaching the infant, to see if they got distressed.
Findings:
25-32 weeks about 50% of babies showed separation anxiety towards a particular adult (usually the mother), joy at reunion with that person and are most comforted by that person and begins to display stranger anxiety - signs that a specific attachment has been formed. Attachment tended to be to the caregiver who was most interactive and sensitive to the infants’ signals and facial expression (reciprocity). This wasn’t necessarily the person with whom the infant spent most time. In 65% of the children, the first specific attachment was to the mother, and in a further 30% the mother was the first joint object of attachment. Fathers were rarely the first sole object of attachment (3%) but 27% of them were the joint first object.
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. In 75% of the infants studied, an attachment was formed with the father by the age of 18 months. This was determined by the fact that the infants protested when their father walked away (separation anxiety)
Conclusion:
This suggests that 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. Primary attachments are more likely to be with the mother rather than the father. Fathers are more likely to be secondary attachment figures.
What stages of attachment does Schaffer and Emerson’s study support and how?
Ignore
Stages 3 and 4
50% of infants showed a specific attachment to a primary attachment figure between 25 and 32 weeks
By 40 weeks almost 30% displayed multiple attachments and in 75% of infants attachment formed to father by 18 months
How does Schaffer and Emerson’s study support the role of the father?
Shows they are likely to be secondary attachment figures
Explain one strength and one weakness of Schaffer and Emerson’s study.
Weakness: The sample was biased in a number of ways. All the families were from the same district and social class in the same city, at a time over 50 years ago. Child-rearing practices vary from one culture to another and one historical period to another. For instance, more women now go out to work so many children are cared for outside of the home, and more fathers choose to stay at home and care for their children. Therefore, the results of the study do not necessarily generalise well to other social and historical contexts and so may not tell us as much about how and when attachments develop today (i.e. Not strong support for the stages of attachment today). Counterargument: However, the sample size of 60 babies and their carers was good considering the large volume of data gathered on each participant. Therefore, the results may have some external validity and so tell us something about how and when attachments develop (stages of attachment).
Strength: The study was carried out longitudinally. This means that the same children were followed-up and observed regularly. This suggests that the results will be of a higher internal validity than a cross-sectional study would have been because they do not have the confounding variable of individual differences between participants (participant variables). Therefore, the conclusion about how and when attachments develop is valid and so is strong support for the stages of attachment theory.
What is the role of the father?
To be the main male caregiver
What do infants turn to mothers for?
To seek comfort and nurturing
What do infants turn to fathers for?
Play
Why might the role of the father be different to the role of the mother?
Fathers are more playful, physically active and generally better at providing challenging situations for their children.
Fathers excite children, encouraging them to take risks whilst still keeping them safe. This provides them with a secure environment to learn to be brave.
What evidence do we have that fathers are more likely to be secondary attachment figures?
Schaffer and Emerson - mothers typically PAF, but in 75% of those studied, attachments to father by 18 months.
Describe evidence that supports that fathers’ role as secondary attachment figures is important for an infant’s development.
Grossman’s study found that fathers as secondary attachment figures had an important role in their child’s development. They found that the quality of father’ play with infants was related to the quality of adolescent attachments. This suggests that fathers have a different role in attachment - one that is more to do with play and stimulation, and less to do with nurturing.
Describe evidence that fathers can be primary attachment figures.
In Schaffer’s and Emerson’s study there was 3% of fathers that were that primary attachment figure and 27% of them were the joint first option
Why is it difficult to determine the role of fathers in attachment from research?
Ignore
Research into the role of fathers in attachment is confusing because researchers who study them ask different research questions. Some are interested in understanding the role of fathers as secondary attachment figures whereas others are more concerned with the father as a primary attachment figure. The former have tended to see fathers behaving differently from mothers and having a distinct role. The latter have tended to find that fathers can take on a ‘maternal’ role. These inconsistent findings are a problem because it means that psychologists cannot easily answer the seemingly straightforward question of: ‘what is the role of the father?’
What evidence is there to undermine that fathers play an important role as secondary attachment figures?
Other studies have found that children growing up in single-parent or same-sex parent households do not develop any differently from those in two-parent heterosexual families. This would seem to suggest that the father’s role as a secondary attachment figure is not important because those without fathers develop as well as those with fathers. Counterargument: however, the lines of research may be in conflict. It could be that fathers typically take on a distinctly separate role in two-parent heterosexual families, but that parents in single parent and same-sex parent families simply adapt to accommodate the role played by fathers. This means that fathers adopt a distinctive role when present, but families can adapt to not having a father.
Freeman et al. (2010) found that male children are more likely to prefer their father as an attachment figure than female children. How does tis undermine the theory?
Ignore
This could suggest that fathers do not play a significant role in their children’s lives. This could create distress for fathers and may even lead to reduced rights for fathers in legal proceedings and wider society.
How is research on role of the father socially sensitive?
The claim that children without fathers are no different from those with fathers suggests that the father’s role is secondary. This poses huge ethical issues as it is socially sensitive research. This could suggest that fathers do not play a significant role in their children’s lives. This could create distress for fathers and may even lead to reduced rights for fathers in legal proceedings and wider society.
How is knowing about the role of the father beneficial to the economy?
The research on role of the father can be used to offer advice to parents. Parents and prospective parents sometimes agonise over decisions like who should take the primary caregiver role. Mothers may feel pressured to stay home because of stereotypical views about the roles of mothers and fathers. Equally, fathers may feel pressured to focus on work rather than parenting. In some families, this is not the best economical decision. Therefore the research can offer reassuring advice to parents. For example, heterosexual parents can be informed that fathers are quite capable of becoming primary attachment figures (Field’s research). Also, same-sex parents and single-mother families can be informed that not having a father around does not affect their child’s development as they can take on the nurturing and play roles. This supports the external validity of the research because it can be used to reduce parental anxiety about the role of fathers.
What is imprinting?
Imprinting is an innate readiness to develop a strong bond with the mother, which takes place during a specific time in development (often the first few hours after birth/hatching). If it doesn’t happen at this time, it probably won’t happen i.e. there is a critical period. It is irreversible and long-lasting.
Describe Lorenz’s procedure and results.
Procedure: Lorenz (1952) first observed the phenomenon of imprinting when he was a child and a neighbour gave him a newly hatched duckling that then followed him around. As an adult researcher Lorenz set up a classic experiment in which he randomly divided a large clutch of goose eggs. Half the eggs were hatched with the mother goose in their natural enviroment. The other half hatched in an incubator where the first moving object they saw was Lorenz.
Results: The incubator group followed Lorenz everywhere wheras the control group, hatched in the presence of their mother, followed her. When the two groups were mixed up the control group contiuned to follow the mother and the experimental group followed Lorenz. This phenomenon is called imprinting - whereby bird species that are mobile from birth (like geese and ducks) attach to and follow the first moving object they see. Lorenz identified a critical period in which imprinting needs to take place. Depending on the species this can be as brief as a few hours after birth. If imprinting does not occur within that time Lorenz found that chicks did not attatch themselves to a mother figure.
What conclusions can we draw from Lorenz’s study about human attachment?
Babies do not imprint instantly like birds, but the same concepts and importance of attachment holds true.
Bowlby developed a theory of attachment which suggests there is a critical period for developing an attachment in humans (about 2 years). If an attachment has not developed during this period, then the child will suffer from irreversible developmental consequences e.g. reduced intelligence and increased aggression.
Why are Lorenz’s results about attachment unlikely to generalise to humans?
The mammalian attachment system seems to be quite different from that in birds e.g. mammalian mothers show more emotional attachment to young than birds do [you need to add examples here from L1 about humans showing reciprocity and interactional synchrony], and mammals may be able to form attachments at any time (although less easily than during infancy). This means that it may not be appropriate to try to generalise any of Lorenz’s ideas to humans. As such, Lorenz’s study may have low external validity and may not tell us as much about human attachment as we may have previously thought. For instance, it may be that the consequences for missing the critical period of attachment are not as severe (or more severe) in humans compared to the animals in Lorenz’s study.
