Caregiver-infant interactions in humans Flashcards
reciprocity
This refers to the turn-taking behaviour that takes place during a conversation. Here, the behaviour of one person results in a response from the other person, even though the behaviours may not necessarily be the same.
Even in the absence of verbal language we see infants and their caregivers demonstrating reciprocity. For example, when a caregiver coos at an infant the infant might respond with a gurgle, and so on.
This behaviour is thought to be hugely important in the development of later communication skills. The regularity of the response allows the caregiver to anticipate the infant’s behaviour and respond appropriately and sensitively. This is the foundation of a secure attachment between infant and caregiver.
interactional synchrony
This refers to the co-ordinated behaviour we see between an infant and their caregiver. It is broader than reciprocity as it focuses on both behaviour and emotions. The infant and caregiver are said to be in tune with each other.
Not only are interactions reciprocal but the behaviours or actions are often mirrored. For example, when a caregiver smiles at an infant they smile back, when the caregiver sticks their tongue out the infant responds by sticking their tongue out too.
Research: reciprocity and interactional synchrony
Aim – Meltzoff and Moore conducted the first study to investigate
interactional synchrony in caregiver-infant interactions.
Procedure – In this controlled observation, an adult model displayed one of three facial expressions or a hand movement. A dummy was placed in the infant’s mouth during the display to prevent a response. The dummy was then removed and the infant’s response was filmed. The film was then judged by an independent observer who made notes on all instances of facial movements.
Findings – They found that there was an association between the infant behaviour and that of the adult model in infants as young as only three days old.
Conclusions – This observation ruled out the possibility of the imitation behaviours being learned overtime, suggesting that the response (interactional synchrony) must be innate.
Evaluation, caregiver-infant interactions strength
Research studies into caregiver-infant interactions tend to use observations. A strength of this is that it is possible to use well controlled procedures, with both mother and child being filmed, often from multiple angles. This ensures very fine details of behaviour can be recorded and later analysed and so improves the accuracy of the conclusions drawn.
- Furthermore, another strength is that these observations are deemed to very reliable. High inter-observer reliability has been found in some studies – in one analysis, Meltzoff obtained a correlation coefficient of + 0.92. This means that we can be confident that the observations taken were agreed upon by the researchers.
Evaluation, caregiver-infant interactions, limitations
However, there are reasons why it is not possible to draw firm conclusions from such research about caregiver-infant interactions: One reason is that infants move their mouths and wave their arms constantly (this is because they have very poor motor control when they are born). This is an issue for researchers investigating intentional behaviour. We cannot be certain that the infants are engaging in interactional synchrony or reciprocity, as some of the behaviour may occur by chance and we cannot be certain that the infant is intending to be reciprocal or synchronous. This questions the accuracy of the conclusions drawn in relation to reciprocity and interactional synchrony and suggests that psychologists should be cautious when interpreting findings from this research.
- Another reason why it is difficult to draw firm conclusions about caregiver-infant interactions is that it is impossible for the research to show cause and effect. This is because it would be ethically impossible to manipulate the amount or type of caregiver interaction to determine the effect on the attachment. As a result, researcher have to rely on observations which do not provide us with a cause and effect conclusion and we are therefore uncertain about the impact of caregiver-infant interactions on the attachment bond.
- A final weakness of this observational research is that it is socially sensitive. The research suggests that infants’ social development may be disadvantaged if they lack opportunities to achieve interactional synchrony. This may be the case if mothers return to work shortly after a child is born and she therefore spends less time with her child. This is a weakness because it implies that mothers should not return to work so soon; a socially sensitive implication.
Evaluation, caregiver-infant interactions, practical application
A strength of research into infant-caregiver interactions is that it has practical applications. Therapists work with parents and infants who have experienced disruption in their attachment formation, such as when children are adopted and attachments with foster carers need to be transferred to adoptive parents. Research has helped to recognise the importance of reciprocity and interactional synchrony in attachments. For example, caregivers are encouraged to mirror and share their child’s emotion by imitating facial expressions and engaging in reciprocal behaviour in response to music, showing the importance of these in healthy caregiver-infant interactions.
Research: Stages of attachment
Schaffer and Emerson:
Aim – Schaffer and Emerson conducted a longitudinal study to investigate the development of attachments.
Procedure –
* Sixty infants from mainly working-class families in Glasgow were studied over the course of their first year.
* The mothers were visited monthly and were asked to report their infant’s response to separation in seven everyday situations (e.g. being left alone or with others).
* They also reported any protest from the infant on these occasions by rating it on a scale and to whom this protest was directed.
Findings – They used the findings from this study to describe how attachment develops. Schaffer identified four stages of attachment (see below).
Conclusions – They concluded that it is the quality of the relationship and interactions that are important to the formation of strong emotional bonds and healthy attachments, not the quantity (amount of time spent with the infant).
Stage 1: Asocial
From birth until about two months, infants respond in the same way to all objects.
Towards the end of this period, they begin to show a preference for social stimuli (e.g. a smiling face) and seem to be more content when they are with people.
Reciprocity and interactional synchrony play a role in building bonds and relationships with others.
Stage 2: indiscriminate attachment
At around four months infants become much more social; they enjoy being with people.
As well as being able to distinguish between animate and inanimate objects they also recognise familiar people.
However, they show no real preference for anyone in particular and are happy in the presence of strangers.
Stage 3: specific attachment
By seven months infants begin to demonstrate separation anxiety when they are left by a particular person and joy on reunion with that person. They have formed a specific attachment to this primary attachment figure and are most comforted by them. They also begin to display stranger anxiety, another sign that a specific attachment has been formed.
The primary attachment figure is not necessarily the person who spends the most time with the infant but the person who responds quickly and sensitively to the infant’s needs.
Stage 4: multiple attachments
Shortly after the main attachment is established, the infant develops a wider circle of multiple attachments.
These attachments are formed with their other parent, grandparents, siblings, other relatives, and friends/neighbours and can be identified by the separation anxiety that also occurs when left by these people.
By the age of one year, the majority of infants had formed multiple attachments (known as secondary attachments).
PAPER 1: Attachment
Evaluation of research into the stages of attachment, strength
A strength of Schaffer and Emerson’s research is how the data was collected. The study took place in the families’ own homes and most of the observations were done by parents. This is a strength because the babies’ behaviour would be unaffected by the research and there is an excellent chance that the observed behaviours of the infants in the study were natural.
Evaluation of research into the stages of attachment, limitations
However, some researchers have suggested that there are methodological issues with Schaffer and Emerson’s research.
One issue is the use of the self-report method to collect data on the development of attachments. The mothers were asked to report their infants’ responses but these reports may not have been accurate. Mothers might have under or overemphasised certain interactions. This is a weakness because the data collected may not be accurate and therefore, the stages of development described by Schaffer may not be correct.
Another issue of this research is that the sample was biased as the study included only working-class mothers and their babies meaning that the sample is not representative of all mothers and their babies. This is a weakness because the findings cannot be confidently generalised to other people eg we can’t be sure that similar patterns in attachment formation would be seen in middle-class mothers and their babies.
Furthermore, we might argue that this research lacks temporal validity. This means that the findings may no longer be meaningful, as the way in which childcare has changed since the research was conducted. One reason why so many of the
infants demonstrated a primary attachment to the mother, may be because
at this time, many women were discouraged from entering the workforce. This is a weakness as Schaffer and Emerson’s stages of attachment may no longer give us an accurate account of how attachments develop today.
- A further weakness of the research into the development of attachment is that it suffers from cultural bias in that it only applies to western, individualist cultures. In collectivist cultures, there is more emphasis on the needs of the group rather than the individual (as in individualist cultures). In such cultures many things, including child care, are often shared. This is a weakness because the stages of attachment are not universal; they are not true for everyone. In these societies, discriminate (ie specific) attachments are less common and multiple attachments are more likely.
- A final weakness of Schaffer’s research into the stages of attachment is that it could be regarded as being socially sensitive. For example, the model suggests that single attachments come before multiple attachments but in some situations or cultures multiple attachments may come first. This is a problem because families may be unfairly and inaccurately labelled as abnormal by this criterion when in fact they are completely normal.
Multiple attachments: one primary attachment vital
Bowlby (1950s) suggested that a single, primary attachment relationship is vital for the healthy psychological development of a child. He emphasized this as mainly being the role of the mother.
However, we have to remember that Bowlby was working in the 1950s when gender roles were very stereotypical. Bowlby viewed the father’s main as supporting the mother financially, so that she could devote herself to childcare. He also suggested that the father should offer emotional support, through love and companionship in order to create the right atmosphere for the baby to thrive. The view that childcare is deemed to be part of a mother’s role can be seen as outdated. Therefore Bowlby’s ideas about multiple attachments could be criticised for lacking temporal validity – the findings don’t really apply in society today.
Multiple attachments: are possible
Not everyone agrees that a single attachment is vital. Schaffer argues that infants are capable of multiple attachments and suggested that fathers and mothers have an important role to play.
Many of the babies from the Schaffer and Emerson study had multiple attachments by 10 months old, including attachments to mothers, fathers, grandparents, siblings and
neighbours. By 18 months 31% had five or more attachments. The mother was the main attachment figure for about half of the children at 18 months old and the father for most of the others.
Attachments are often structured in a hierarchy, whereby an infant may have formed three attachments but one may be stronger than the other two, and one may be the weakest.
