the role of the caregiver evaluation Flashcards
what does it mean when we say that it is hard to know what is happening when observing infants
many studies including observation of interactions between mothers and infants have shown the same patterns of interaction (Gratier 2003).
However, what is being observed is merely hand movements or changes in expression
it is extremely difficult to know whether these hand signals are conscious or deliberate
This means that we cannot really know for certain behaviours seen in mother-infant interaction has a special meaning
why is it a strength that observations of mother-infant interactions are generally well-controlled
observations of mother- infant interactions are generally well - controlled procedures, with both mother and infant being filmed, often from multiple angles
This ensures that very fine details of behaviour can be recorded and later analysed
Furthermore,babies don’t know they are being observed so the behaviour does not change in response to controlled observation which is generally a problem for observational research
This is a strength of this line of research because it means the research has good validity
what does it mean when we say that observations don’t tell us the purpose of sychrony and reciprocity
Feldman (2012) points out that synchrony (and by implication reciprocity) simply describe behaviours that occur at the same time
These are robust phenomena in the sense that they can be reliably observed, but this may not be useful as it does not tell us the purpose
However, there is some evidence that reciprocal synchrony are helpful in the development of mother-infant attachment, as well as helpful in stress responses, empathy, language and development
what does it mean when we say that there are inconsistent findings on the role of the father
Research into the role of the father in attachment is confusing because different researchers are interested in different research questions
One one hand, some psychologists are interested in understanding the role of the father as secondary attachment figures whereas others are more concerned with the father as primary attachment figure
The former have tended to see fathers behaving different from mothers and having separate a distinct role
The latter have tended to find that fathers can take on a “maternal role”
This is a problem because it means psychologists cannot easily answer a simple question: “ what is the role of the father?”
if a father has a distinct role why aren’t children without fathers different
The study Grossman found that fathers as secondary attachment figures had an important role in their children’s development
However, other studies (e.g. MacCallum and Golombok 2004) have found that children growing up in single or same sex families 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
why don’t fathers generally become primary attachments
The fact that fathers tend not to become primary attachment figure could simply be that the result of the traditional gender roles in which women are expected to be more caring and nurturing what men
Therefore, fathers don’t feel they should act like that
On the other hand, it could be that female hormones ( such as oestrogen) create higher levels of nurturing and therefore women are biologically pre-disposed to be the primary attachment figure
This question is a question of nature vs nurture and both sides could be argued
