Attachment; Caregiver-Infant Interactions

Question 1

What is attachment?

Answer 1

• A close-two way emotional bond between two individuals who sees the other as essential for their own emotional security
• Endures over time and serves to protect an infant

Question 2

How do we recognise attachment?

Answer 2

• Proximity - people try to stay close to those they are attached too
• Separation distress - people are distressed when an attachment figure leaves their presence
• Secure-base behaviour - even when we are independent, we tend to make contact regularly with attachment figures; we regularly return to them while playing so they are a base from which to explore

The infant therefore seeks closeness and feels more secure when in the presence of an attachment figure

Question 3

Caregiver-Infant interactions

Answer 3

• A caregiver is a person who provides care for an infant
• An infant usually refers to a child’s first year of life, although some psychologists also include the second year of life in infancy
• Caregiver-infant interactions refer to the communication between a care-giver and an infant, and 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

Question 4

What is reciprocity?

Answer 4

Reciprocity is a caregiver-infant interaction; from birth, the infant and caregiver spend a lot of time together interacting

• Infants have alert phases and signal that they are ready for interaction
• From around 3 months, these become more frequent and involve close attention to each other’s verbal signals and facial expressions
• This interaction is a mutual process, with each party responding to the signals of the other to sustain 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, and both the caregiver and infant can initiate these interactions
• Reciprocity is thought to be an important precursor to later communications, and as infant signals are regular, it enables the caregiver to anticipate the infant’s behaviour and respond appropriately; this sensitivity lays the foundation for later attachment

Question 5

What is interactional synchrony?

Answer 5

• When a caregiver and infant reflect the actions and emotions of the other in a co-ordinated and synchronised way; they mirror each other in terms of their facial and body movements
• This is different to reciprocity as the responses are not necessarily similar

Question 6

Meltzoff’s and Moore’s Study - 1977

Answer 6

• Observed the beginnings of interactional synchrony in infants as young as two weeks old
• An adult displayed one of three facial expressions or one of three distinctive gestures and the infant’s response as filmed and identified by independent observers using a number of behavioural categories
• The observers did not know what the infants had seen as they were filmed from an angle that meant they could only see the child
• An association was found between the expression or gesture the adults had displayed and the actions of the babies
• In a follow-up study in 1983, they demonstrated this in 3 day old babies which rules out the possibility of this being a learned behaviour and suggests it is innate
• Strengths - controlled, use of angles makes it unbiased, valid, detailed
• Weaknesses - lacks ecological validity as it is an unnatural environment for the mother and infant which could affect behaviour

Question 7

What is believed about interactional synchrony?

Answer 7

• It is important for the development of mother-infant attachments
• Isabella et al (1989) observed 30 mothers and infants together and assessed a degree of synchronicity, finding high levels of synchrony were associated with better quality mother-infant attachment

Question 8

Evaluation of Caregiver-infant interactions - Strengths of supporting research and real-world applications

Answer 8

1. Observations of mother-infant interactions are generally well-controlled procedures, with both mother and infant being filmed, often from multiple angles which include those that mean the researcher analysing video footage cannot see what the other person in the video is doing - additionally, babies do not know or care that they are being observed
   - This avoids demand characteristics or social expectation affecting results as the baby is not trying to impress the researcher - this increases validity
   - The use of multiple angles and recording allows observation of results to be analysed repeatedly to find nuances in expression and and the angle itself reduces researcher bias as they cannot see the mother, creating good internal validity
2. Research into mother-infant interactions is socially sensitive because it suggests that children may be at a disadvantage by particular child-rearing practices, such as mothers returning to work shortly after a child is born, restricting opportunity for achieving interactional synchronicity which is important in developing caregiver-infant attachment
   - This suggests that mothers should not return to work so quickly after birth, and therefore has social implications - it could create guilt in mothers who need to return to work in order to generate income, and the research is important as it suggests interactions have a special meaning and may have later implications in life
   - These two opposing viewpoints need to be carefully considered when conducting and publishing such research

Question 9

Evaluation of Caregiver-infant interactions - Weaknesses of supporting research

Answer 9

1. (2) Feldman points out that synchrony and reciprocity simply describe behaviours that occur at the same time - they are robust phenomena that can be studied and reliably observed but this may not particularly be useful as it does not tell us their purpose
   - It only helps us identify what is happening, rather than why, and so the research is less useful in understanding the use or impact of these interactions beyond assumptions and theorising
   - We cannot understand why infants reciprocate and imitate their caregivers, so we cannot be certain they have a special meaning other than acting as an indication of learning
2. (3) Many studies involving the observation of these attachments have shown similar patterns of interaction; however, what is being observed is merely changes in expression of hand movements and so it is extremely difficult to know what is taking place from the perspective of the infant (are they doing it deliberately?) Other researchers have suggested that infants may instead be showing pseudo-imitation. This is the idea that the infant is not truly imitating behaviour of the caregiver, but are in fact repeating a rewarded behaviour (caregiver laughs and smiles when they imitate) and so arguably the infant has not consciously translated what they see into a matching movement
   - Although correlation is being made, causation is not certain - without the intelligence of the babies, we cannot gain a full picture of the cognitive process behind the interactions
   - Consequently, we cannot conclude that we fully understand the meaning of these interactions and we can’t know for certain they have a special meaning

Question 10

Contrasting arguments - evaluation

Answer 10

1 - It is hard to study infant behaviour because their mouths are in constant motion; the expressions being tested in research occur frequently, making it difficult to distinguish between general activity and specific limited behaviours and as such we cannot be certain that the interactions are deliberate and so have a special meaning

2 - There is evidence that reciprocity and synchrony are helpful in the development of mother-infant attachment as well as stress responses, empathy, language and moral development - therefore, it seems they may have a special meaning (know what they contribute too, not necessarily why they do)

3 - Abrabanel and DeYong (1991) observed infant behaviour when ‘interacting’ with two objects, one simulating tongue movements and the other a mouth opening and closing; they found that infants didn’t imitate everything they see and it is a specific social response to other humans and so they have special meanings

Question 11

The role of the father in attachment

Answer 11

• Infants turn to mothers to seek comfort and nurturing, and they turn to fathers for play
• 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, providing a secure environment to learn to be brave
• Fathers tend to be secondary attachment figures (Schaffer and Emerson 1964)

Question 12

Why are the roles of the father and mother different?

Answer 12

• It is possible that most men are just not psychologically equipped to form an intense attachment because they lack the emotional sensitivity that women offer
• This could be due to biological or social factors - the fact that fathers do not become the primary attachment figure could simply be the result of traditional gender roles, in which women are expected to be more caring and nurturing than men - fathers therefore feel they cannot act like that, making them more likely to be secondary attachment figures
• On the other hand, it could be that female hormones, such as oestrogen, create higher levels of nurturing and therefore women are biologically predisposed to be the primary attachment figure

Question 13

The importance of the father - Grossman (2002)

Answer 13

• Carried out a longitudinal study looking at both parent’s behaviour and its relationship to the quality of children’s attachment in their teens
• The quality of infant attachment to mothers, not fathers, was related to children’s attachments as adolescents, suggesting that father attachment was less important
• However, the quality of the father’s play with the infants was related to the quality of adolescent attachments, which 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

Question 14

The ability of the father to be a primary attachment figure

Answer 14

• There is some evidence to suggest that when fathers do take on the role of being a primary attachment figure, they adopt behaviours more typical to mothers
• Field (1978) filmed 4 month old babies in face-to-face interactions with primary caregiver mothers, secondary caregiver fathers and primary caregiving fathers
• Primary caregiver fathers, like mothers, spent more time smiling, imitating and holding infants that secondary caregiver fathers - this behaviour is suggested to be more important in building an attachment with the infant
• Therefore, fathers can be the more nurturing attachment figure, and the key to attachment relationships is the level of responsiveness, not the gender of the parent

Question 15

Schaffer and Emerson (1964) - Study Abstract

Answer 15

• A primary attachment figure is the person to whom an infant is most intensely attached and they are the person a child responds to most intensely at separation; they are usually the mother, but others can fulfil the role
• A secondary attachment figure is a person that an infant receives additional support from, providing an emotional support network and safety net
• Schaffer and Emerson found that the majority of babies did become attached to their mother first (7 months) and therefore the primary attachment figure is more likely to be the mother than the father
• They found that within a few weeks or a month of primary attachment, the infants formed secondary attachments to other family members including the father by the age of 18 months
• This was determined by the fact that the infants protested when their father walked away (separation distress) and so they are more likely to be a secondary attachment figure

Question 16

Schaffer and Emerson (1964) - Detailed Procedure

Answer 16

• Aimed to investigate the formation of early attachment, particularly the age at which they developed, their emotional intensity and to whom they were directed
• They used a sample of 60 babies (31 male and 29 female) from Glasgow, using mainly working-class families
• It was a longitudinal study, studying the mother and the baby for each month in the first year of their life and then again at 18 months
• Observations were conducted as well as interviews with the mothers, with questions being asked about whom the infants smiled at, whom they responded to, who caused distress etc
• Attachment was measured in two ways - separation protest, which was assessed through several everyday situations; the infants being left alone in a room, being left alone with others, left in the pram outside their house, left in the cot at night, being put down after being held and being passed by while sitting in a chair/cot/pram
• Stranger anxiety was also measured, which was assessed by the researcher starting each home visit by approaching the infant to see if this distressed the child

Question 17

Schaffer and Emerson (1964) - Detailed Findings

Answer 17

• Most infants showed separation protest when separated from their attachment figure and joy at reunion at between 6-8 months, with stranger anxiety being shown a month later (making specific attachment to a primary attachment figure)
• Strongly attached infants had mothers who responded to their needs quickly and gave more interaction opportunity - weakly attached infants had mothers who responded less quickly to and gave fewer opportunities for interaction (good reciprocity = better attachment)
• In 65% of children, the first specific attachment was to the mother, and in 30% the first object of the attachment was the mother - in just 3% of children the father was the first specific attachment but in 27% they were a joint first object of attachment
• Most infants went on to develop multiple attachments at 18 months, 87% had at least two attachments and 31% had multiple attachments - 75% of the infants studied, an attachment was formed with the father by 18 months, determined by protest against separation
• Attachments to different people were found to be of a similar nature, with infants behaving in the same way to different attachment figures

Question 18

Schaffer and Emerson (1964) - Conclusions

Answer 18

• There is a common attachment formation, suggesting it is a biologically controlled process
• Attachments form more easily with those who display sensitive responsiveness, recognising and responding appropriately to an infant’s needs, rather than those spending the most time with a child
• Multiple attachments are the norm and of similar quality, which opposes Bowlby’s ideas that attachment differs - they argue no evidence suggests that mothering cannot be shared

Question 19

Evaluation of S&E

Answer 19

Strengths:

• Study conducted with mundane realism in everyday conditions, giving the conclusions drawn about the formation of attachments have high validity (ecological)
• Good sample size promotes reliability (however, as it is not cross regional there are some confounding factors)

Weaknesses / limitations -

• Data collected with direct observation from the mothers and interviews, methods which are prone to bias and inaccuracy
• There were individual differences when attachments were formed, casting doubt on the process of attachment formation being exclusively biological in nature
• Also only studied one area at a different time - mothering styles have changed and so has the culture, and so there are relevancy issues

Question 20

Schaffer’s stages of attachment

Answer 20

• Based on their study, they proposed that attachments develop in four distinct stages
• These all help to explain how attachment is developed

The Four Stages are:

• Asocial stage
• Indiscriminate stage
• Specific attachment stage
• Multiple attachments stage

Question 21

Stage 1 - Asocial Attachment

Answer 21

• Behaviour between humans and nonhuman objects is quite similar
• Recognise specific faces
• Happier in the presence of humans than alone
• Preference for familiar individuals
• Smile at anyone
• Prefer faces to non-faces

Question 22

Stage 2 - Indiscriminate Attachment

Answer 22

• Recognise and prefer familiar people
• Smile more at familiar than unfamiliar faces
• Accept comfort from any adult
• Preference for people rather than inanimate objects

Question 23

Stage 3 - Specific Attachments

Answer 23

• Show separation anxiety
• Use familiar adults as a secure base
• Primary attachment to one particular individual - the person who shows the most sensitivity to their signals
• Show stranger anxiety

Question 24

Stage 4 - Multiple Attachments

Answer 24

• Form secondary attachments with familiar adults with whom they spend time

Question 25

Developing attachment - continued

Answer 25

• We can identify attachment has occurred when an infant shows stranger anxiety and separation protest
• Attachment is not present at birth - bonds are developed and characterised by an infant’s desire to keep close proximity and the expression of distress at separation; the caregiver provides a sense of security and comfort
• Interactions act as a means of developing and maintaining an attachment bond between the caregiver and infant

Question 26

The other types of communication used to develop attachment

Answer 26

1. Bodily contact
   - Physical interactions between carer and infant help form attachment bonds, especially in the period immediately after birth
2. Mimicking
   - Infants seem to have an innate ability to imitate carer’s facial expressions which suggests it is a biological device to aid the formation of attachment
3. Caregiverse
   - Adults who interact with infants use a modified form of vocal language that is high-pitched, song-like, slow and repetitive - this aids communication between carer and infant and serves to strengthen the bond

Question 27

Multiple attachments

Answer 27

• These are emotional bonds formed with several people
• It is disputed how the bonds differ and are relative to each other
• John Bowlby suggested that children had a prime attachment and although children had attachments to other people, these were of minor importance compared to their main attachment bond
• Rutter (1995) - Proposed a model of multiple attachments where they were all of equal importance, and all of them worked together to help form a child’s internal working model
• Multiple attachments are often formed to different people to different purposes e.g. the mother for loving care, father for unpredictable, exciting play and form bonds with other family members for emotional security

Question 28

Evaluation of the role of the father - Weaknesses of the distinct role

Answer 28

1. Research into the role of fathers in attachment is confusing because different researchers ask different 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, and the latter have tended to find fathers can take on a ‘maternal’ role.
   - This would suggest that the research confounds itself and clear conclusions cannot be made due to a lack of standardisation - the role of the father is more complex than some research suggests and so reliability is low with studies that ask different questions, and the role is based on the context of the situation and hard to quantify; especially with changing social roles that mesh with biological factors (no distinct role, but assist primary attachment figure or can take on their role)
2. 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 are not essential to development or are not significant to their child’s life - this could lead to distress and detachment in the father figure

Question 29

Evaluation of the role of fathers - Undermining the distinct role of fathers

Answer 29

1. Grossman’s study found that fathers as the secondary attachment figures had an important role in their child’s development, and 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 suggests that the fathers do not biologically have an affect on a child’s development and as long as both parental figures or the parent can perform the necessary roles and allow the child to make all necessary attachments, children develop fine - there is not impact on gender, as long as parenting is shared, and this can come from other family members as long as a child has a range of different attachments for different purposes
2. Freeman et al (2010) found that male children are more likely to prefer their father as an attachment figure
   - This would suggest that identification with a parent is more important for attachment than a biologically determined parental role, and so social context and biological factors influence primary attachment figures, it is not as distinct as some research suggests