Attatchment Flashcards
What is attachment
an emotional tie or bond between two people, usually a primary caregiver and a child.
The relationship is reciprocal (shared), which means that it is a two-way relationship
Why care givers and Inca to are subjects of research
they provide an insight into the type and nature of attachment.
Reciprocity
when an infant responds to the actions of another person in a form or turn-taking. With reciprocity, the actions of one person (i.e. the primary caregiver) elicits a response from the other (i.e. the infant
Brezelton et al 1975
describe this interaction (reciprocity)as a ‘dance’ because when a couple dance together they each respond to one another’s movements and rhy
reciprocity as a caregiver– infant interaction
Where the interaction between both individuals flows back and forth
Feldman 2007
reciprocity increases in frequency as the infant and caregiver pay increasing attention to each other’s verbal and facial communications
What happens when caregiver pays attention to infants behaviour
Lay the strong foundations for attachment to develop later between the caregiver and infant.
Interactional synchronicity
When infants mirror the actions or emotions of another person
Example of interactional synchronicity
Facial expressions
Copying adults behaviour
Interactional synchronicity with care giver and infant
child will move their body or carry out the same act as their caregiver simultaneously and the two are said to be synchronized (in ‘sync’)
How babies brains develop
Neurons number increases connections increases as time goes by from few weeks geststation and to 2 years
Who studied synchronicity in 1983
Meltzoff and Moore
What did meltzoff and Moore propose
some primitive capacity for matching the acts of others (Meltzoff & Moore, 1977, 1983a). Such an ability would be an important building block for subsequent social and cognitive development.
They claim that intentional interaction is innate.
Aim of meltzoff and moore
To examine Interactional synchronicity in infants they wanted to find out if these interactions were innate
Methods of meltzoff and moore
Using a controlled observation, an adult model displayed one of three facial expressions, or a hand gesture. To start with, the child had a dummy placed in his/her mouth to prevent a facial response. Following the display from the adult model, the dummy was removed and the child’s expressions were filmed.
Results of meltzoff and moore
There was a clear association between the infants’ behaviour and that of the adult model.
Later research by Meltzoff and Moore (1983) found the same findings in three day old infants
Conclusions of meltzoff and moore
These findings suggest that Interactional synchrony is innate and reduces the strength of any claim that imitative behaviour is learned
Evaluate points of meltzoff psychology research
Methodological problems with Meltzoff’s research.
2. Recent research found that only secure attachment engage in
interactional synchrony
3. Lack of reliability
Methodological problems of meltzoff and Moore peel
P: There are methodological problems with studying interactional synchrony using observational methods.
E: There is the possibility of observer bias where the .
E: To addres should be used to examine the inter- of the observations. Recent research by Koepke et al. (1983) failed to replicate the findings of Meltzoff and Moore.
L: This lack of research support suggests that the results of Meltzoff and Moore are unreliable and more research is required to validate their findings
Kaitz et al
found that there are certain behaviours that are innate. For example, they found that tongue protrusion may be a prepackaged motor programme that simply is released by the adult’s behaviour. This means that it has an intentional
Criticism of meltzoff and Moore
only securely attached infants engage in interactional synchrony.
Peel for meltzoff criticism
E: Isabella et al. (1989) found that the more securely attached the infant, the greater the level of interactional sync hrony.
E:
interactional and that Meltzoff and Moore’s original findings may have overlooked individual differences which could be a mediating factor.
L: Therefore, this is a limitation because it
This suggests that not all children engage in
synchrony
may be that
attachment type
is what
causes interaction
rather than being
innate as Meltzoff and Moore claimed.
Isabella et al
Isabella et al. (1989) found that the more securely attached the infant, the greater the level of interactional sync hrony.
E:
interactional and that Meltzoff and Moore’s original findings may have overlooked individual differences which could be a mediating factor.
Who researches stages of attachment
Schaefer and Emerson