Attachment Flashcards
(113 cards)
Attachment Definition
A close emotional relationship between two people, characterised by mutual affection and a desire to maintain proximity (closeness)
Attachment Behaviour
According to Maccoby (1980), in infancy and early childhood attachment is shown primarily by four kinds of behaviour:
- seeking to be near the other person
- showing distress in separation from that person
- showing relief or joy on reunion
- an orientation to the person (e.g. listening to the person’s voice and watching what they do
Reciprocity
The word reciprocal means two-way, or something that is mutual
Reciprocity (like non-verbal conversation) is a from of interaction between infant and caregiver involving mutual responsiveness, with both infant and caregiver involving mutual responsiveness, with both infant and parent actively responding to each other’s signals and eliciting a response from the other
For example, a parent might sing to their baby and this in turn elicits a smile from the baby
So, reciprocity as a caregiver-infant interaction is where the interaction between both infant and caregiver flows back and forth
Brezelton et al. (1975) describes this interaction as a ‘dance’
This is because when a couple dance together, they respond to one another’s movements
- just as we see in reciprocity as a caregiver-infant interaction
Alert Phase
Babies have active involvement in this interaction
Babies have periodic ‘alert phases’ in which they signal (e.g. through making eye contact) that they are ready for a spell of interaction
These alert phases increase in frequency from around three months old (Feldman 2007)
Research has shown that parents typically pick up on and respond to their baby’s alert phases around two-thirds of the time
Parents may fail to pick up on alert phases because:
- they are otherwise engaged
- they may fail to understand the cues for the alert phases, especially with younger babies or as first time parents
- they may misunderstand the cues and may think they want feeding
- the parents may be extremely fatigued, especially with newborns
The Still Face Study - Tronick 1975
Babies who were around 12 months old were studied
They get settled and engage and respond with their carer how they normally would
The mother is then to have a still face and not respond for two minutes
The babies started off by trying to gain their parent’s attention by pointing, smiling, waving their hands, etc
They then up it by starting to shout, scream and shriek
They then became extremely distressed
This shows that babies are active agents
- they are deliberately trying to elicit a response from the caregiver
After two minutes, the caregiver can begin interacting with the infant again, and they go back into interaction together
Interactional Synchrony
Interactional synchrony is when two people, such as an infant and caregiver, interact and mirror what the other is doing in terms of their facial and body movements (emotions and behaviours)
This starts at a very early age
- Meltzoff and Moore (1977) conducted the first observational study of interactional synchrony and found that infants as young as two weeks old imitated specific facial and hand gestures
Interactional Synchrony Study
A baby - with a dummy in their mouth to prevent a facial response - saw an adult model displayed one of three facial expressions or hand movements
- such as mouth opening or tongue protrusion
Following the display from the adult model, the dummy was removed and the child’s expressions were filmed
An association was found (by independent observers) between the expression or gesture the adult had displayed and the actions of the baby
The fact that the infants were so young when displaying imitation suggests that this behaviour is not learned but innate
In fact, later research by Meltzoff and Moore (1983) found the same finding in three-day-old infants
Strength of Research into Caregiver-Infant Interactions
One strength of research into caregiver-infant interactions is that a lot of the research is filmed and under controlled observations
This is a strength because:
- EVs are controlled for, such as distractions for the baby (e.g. other noises) can be controlled
- key behaviours are less likely to be missed, as it is being filmed
- more than one observer can record data - helps establish inter-observer reliability
- babies don’t know that they are being observed, so won’t change their behaviour in response to observations
- being recorded means that the Cyvill Burt affair cannot be repeated
This is a strength because the data collected in infant-care giver interaction research should have good reliability and validity
Caregiver-Infant Interaction Research Limitation - Interpreting Behaviour
One limitation of research into caregiver-infant interactions is that it is hard to interpret a baby’s behaviour
This is because:
- babies lack co-ordination
- is something done deliberately or is it done by chance?
- they might have been trying to copy a gesture, but it didn’t look similar enough
- we can’t check with the baby by asking
This is a limitation because we cannot be certain that the infants were actually engaging in interactional synchrony or reciprocity, as some of the behaviours may have occurred by chance
Research into Caregiver-Infant Interactions Limitation - Importance
A limitation of research into caregiver-infant interactions is that simply observing a behaviour does not tell us it’s development importance
- it tells us that’s babies do it, but not why they do it
For example, Feldman (2012) pointed out that ideas such as reciprocity and interaction synchrony simply give us names from observable behaviours rather than telling us the purpose of these behaviours
- descriptive no explanatory
This is a limitation because it means we cannot be certain from observational research alone that reciprocity and interactional synchrony are important for a child’s development
Research into Caregiver-Infant Interactions Strength - Importance and Applications
There is research evidence that shows us that reciprocity and interactional synchrony are indeed important for a child’s development
For example, Isabella et al (1989) found that at both 3 and 9 months that high levels of synchrony were associated with better quality (more secure) mother-baby attachments
This suggest that caregiver-infant interaction is probably important in the development of a secure attachment (which in turn has implications for attachments later in life)
This then provides us with practical applications of the research into caregiver-infant interactions
- parent skills training
For example, Crotwell et al (2013) found that a 10 minute parent-child interaction therapy improved interactional synchrony in 20 low income mothers and their pre-school children
This is a strength because it shows that research into caregiver interactions can help improve the future of a child
The Glasgow Babies (1964) - Method
Schaffer and Emerson (1964) carried out an observational study on 60 infants (31 male and 29 female) from skilled working-class families in Glasgow
The babies were aged between 5-23 weeks at the start of the investigation
The researcher’s visited the babies in their homes, every month for the first 12 months and then once again at 18 month
- this is na longitudinal study
The researchers interviewed the mothers and observed the children in relation to separation anxiety and stranger anxiety in a range of everyday activities
The Glasgow Babies (1964) - Key Findings
At around 25-32 weeks of age (6-8 months) 50% of the children showed separation anxiety
Separation anxiety may have been operationalised in categories such as:
- crying
- vocalisations
- moving towards where their mother was
By 40 weeks (10 months), 80% of children had a specific attachment and 30% had started to form multiple attachments
- with was usually to, but not always the primary caregiver (PCG)
Schaffer and Emerson’s Stages of Attachment - Stage 1
Asocial Stage
Age: Birth-2 months
Features: - very young infants are asocial in that many kinds of stimuli, both objects and people, produce a favourable reaction, such as a smile
- towards the end of this stage, they do display a preference for faces and eyes
Additional: - attention seeking behaviour such as crying or smiling is not directed at anyone in particular, suggesting attachments could be with anyone
Schaffer and Emerson’s Stages of Attachments - Stage 2
Indiscriminative Attachment
Age: 2 months-6 months
Features: - an infant now shows a preference for human company over non-human company
- they can distinguish between different people, but are comforted indiscriminately (by anyone) and do not show separation or stranger anxiety yet
Additional: - they can get upset when an individual ceases to interact with them
- from 3 months, infants smile at familiar faces
Schaffer and Emerson’s Stages of Attachment - Stage 3
Specific Attachment
Age: 7 months-12 months
Features: - an infant shows a preference for one care giver, displaying separation and stranger anxiety
- the infant looks to a particular person for security or protection
- the infant shows joy upon reunion and are comforted by their primary caregiver
Additional: - half of the children showed their specific attachment between 6-8 months
- the primary caregiver is not necessarily the individual that the child spends the most time or who feeds them
- it is instead the one who offers the most interaction and responds to the baby’s ‘signals’ with the most skill
- this is the baby’s mother 65% of cases, regardless of whether she is the food provider
Schaffer and Emerson’s Stages of Attachment - Stage 4
Multiple Attachments
Age: 12 months onwards
Features: - attachment behaviours are now being displayed towards several different people e.g. siblings, grandparents, etc
- these are sometimes referred to as secondary attachments
- the number of multiple attachments which develop depends on the social circle to whom the infant is exposed to
Additional: - Schaffer and Emerson observed that 29% of the children formed secondary attachments within a month of forming a specific attachment
- by the age of one, the majority of babies had developed multiple attachments
- by 18 months, only 13% of children were attached to only one person
Strengths of Schaffer and Emerson’s Research (Method)
It is carried out in the baby’s natural environment (no manipulation) - good external validity (ecolised)
Longitudinal in nature
Interviewed and observed - more detail to back it up
Nearly equal number of males and females
Schaffer and Emerson’s Research Limitations (Method + Sample)
Method:
- less control over EVs as naturalistic
- how much of a stranger was Schaffer in the end?
- social desirability bias during the interviews with mothers
- unconscious bias within observations in Schaffer
Sample:
- all from the same background + geographical area - lacks population validity
- relatively small sample
- no gender bias - relatively split
Schaffer and Emerson’s Research Strength (Practical Applications)
One strength of Schaffer and Emerson’s research is the practical applications in day care
For example, in the UK, lots of babies start attending day care at approx. 8 months (due to maternity leave ending) when they are in the specific attachment stage. They will be very stressed at the mother leaving and not easily comforted by the staff (strangers). So the advice might be to do ‘pre-visits’ tho ensure that they are used to the daycare staff, in the hope they will be less distressed
This is a strength because it means that day care provision can be planned using Schaffer and Emerson’s stages
Schaffer and Emerson’s Research Limitation (Validity)
One limitation of Schaffer and Emerson’s research is the validity of the measures used to assess attachment in the asocial stage
In this stage, barbie are 0-2 months old. This means they will massively lack co-ordination due to not being developed yet. This means that any movements and gestures made that may have been used as an indication of attachment may have been accidental and therefore not indicating anything. And then on the other side, as baby might have been trying to make a gesture or movement that would act as evidence of attachment, but they researcher might not have realised that this was what the baby intended, and therefore miss and not record it.
This is a limitation because it could well be that infants are more sociable and more discriminating in the asocial stage than proposed by Schaffer and Emerson
Attachment to Father
The most basic question we have to ask here is whether babies actually attach to their fathers, and if so, when?
Evidence certainly seems to suggest that, compared to mothers, fathers are much less likely to become a baby’s first attachment
For example, Schaffer and Emerson (1964) found that in only 3% of cases was the father the first sole object of attachment (although in 27% of cases the father was the joint first object of attachment with the mother)
However, as you would expect, most fathers go on to become important attachment figures
In 75% of infants studied an attachment was formed with the father my 18 months
This was determined by the fact that the infant protested when their father walked away (a sing of attachment)
Distinct Role for Fathers
A different, and better, question is whether male adult caregivers makes a unique contribution to early development
Grossman (2002) carried out a longitudinal study looking at both the parents’ behaviour and its relationship to the quality of the children’s attachment to other people when they were in their teens
Quality of attachment with mothers but not fathers was related to attachments in adolescence, suggesting that the father attachment was less important
However, Grossman also found that the quality of the fathers’ play was related to the quality of adolescent attachment
This suggests that the fathers have a different role in attachment from attachment
- one more to do with play and stimulation, and less to do with emotional support
This is a similar conclusion to Geiger (1996) who argued that while mothers are more often shown to be the main emotional figure in a child’s life, fathers are more playful, physically active and generally better at providing more challenging situations for their children
Fathers as Primary Attachment Figures
The primary attachment figure has a special emotional significance and forms the basis of later close emotional relationships
Some research has suggested that men lack emotional sensitivity to infant cues that some women offer spontaneously (Heermann, et al 1994)
This may be due to biological factors
- e.g. the female hormone hormone oestrogen underlines caring behaviour so women, generally, are more oriented towards emotional relationships to men
However, the view that men are ‘not emotional’ is outdated
More recent research by Gettler et al (2011) suggests that the mother is not the only parent who becomes hormonally adapted
- men’s testosterone levels drop, perhaps to help a man respond more sensitively to his child’s needs
There is also evidence that suggests that when fathers do take on the role of being primary caregiver, they adopt behaviours more typical of mothers (i.e. more “emotional”)
Field (1978) filmed 4 month old babies in face to face interaction with primary caregiver mothers, secondary caregiver fathers and primary caregiver fathers
Primary caregiver fathers, like mothers, spent more time smilie, imitating and holding infants than the secondary caregiver fathers
These are all parts of reciprocity and interactional synchrony, which is an important part of the process of attachment
So it seems that fathers do have the potential to be the more emotion-focused primary care figure
- they can provide the responsiveness required for a close emotional attachment it perhaps only express this when given the role of primary caregiver