attachment Flashcards
(12 cards)
schaffer and emerson’s research procedure
- longitudinal study of 60 babies and mums in glasgow
- researchers visited babies once a month for the first year of their lives, and then again at 18 months.
- gave the mother 7 everyday scenarios and asked the mother to rank the baby’s separation anxiety in each one from a scale 1-3
schaffer and emerson’s findings
4 stages of attachment:
- asocial stage: similar behaviour towards objects and humans, slight preference for humans (first few weeks)
- indiscriminate attachment: preference for humans and recognition of familiar adults (2-7 months)
- specific attachment: attachment to one adult only. Stranger and separation anxiety may emerge. (7+ months)
- multiple attachments: will display separation anxiety towards other caregivers too (shortly after specifc stage)
A03 of schaffer and emerson’s research
strengths:
- high ecological validity because the situations asked about were everyday situations
limitations:
- low population validity- only conducted on babies in glasgow
- problems with interpreting behaviour in asocial stages
- mother’s ratings are subjective
- mother’s ratings may be affected by social desirability bias
strange situation procedure
- controlled observation designed to test attachment security
- a series of 7 “scenes” in which the babies respond to playing in an unfamiliar room, being left alone, being approached by a stranger and being reunited with their mother.
- assessed on stranger anxiety, separation anxiety, response on reunion and secure base behaviour
- observed through a 2 way mirror
strange situation findings
60-75% secure
20-25% avoidant
3% resistant
secure:
-moderate stranger and separation anxiety
-ease of comfort at reunion
-associated witb a responsive caregiver
insecure avoidant:
- low stranger and separation anxiety
- avoidance of the caregiver on reunion
- linked to an unresponsive caregiver
insecure resistant:
- high levels of stranger and separation anxiety
- resistance to be comforted on reunion
- linked with an inconsistent caregiver
strange situation A03
strengths:
- good inter-rate reliability: 94% agreement between observers, this is because of clear obserationalisation of target behaviours
- good predictive validity: attachment type predicts some future behaviours of children e.g involvement in bullying
limitations:
- imposed etic: operationalisation may be culture bound and unsuitable for classifying children from cultures with different norms and values.
- not fully valid: leaves out the disorganised attachment type, a mix of resistant and avoidant, inconistent patterns of behaviour
explanations of attachment: learning theory
- emphasis of the role of learning in the development of behaviour
- based around classical and operant conditioning
- classical conditioning: the baby associates the primary caregiver with producing pleasure, throuhg food
- operant conditioning: crying brings attention, attention stops crying
explanations of attachment: Bowlby’s monotropic theory overview
- evolutionary explanation, that attachment is inate to help us survive.
- babies without attachment would stray from their caregiver and be more likely to get harmed/die.
Bowlby’s monotropic theory: social releasers, critical period, IWM, laws of continuity and accumulated separations
monotropy- one particular attachment is different from others and the most important in development
social releasers- innate social behaviours that elicit and response from a caregiver
critical period- a time in which an attachment must for in order for any to form at all, bowbly proposed 2.5 years for humans.
IWM- mental representations of the world, such as relationships. IWM of relationships is like the primary attachment.
Law of continuity- the more consistent and predictable the care given by the caregiver is, the better the quality of attachment
law of accumulated separations- the more time cargivers and infants spend away from eachother the worse their attachment will be
research into caregiver-infant interactions
**meltzoff and moore*
- studied the concept of infant imitation
- adult model displayed facial expression or gestures to infants as young as 2-3 weeks old
- infants responses were observed and recorded
- results showed that infants were able to imitate the adult’s facial expressions as such as young age
isabella et al
- studied interactional synchrony
- observed 30 mother-infant pairs during the first year of the infants life
- focused on the caregiver’s responsiveness and the degree of synchronisation in their interactions
- assessed the infants attachment type using the SSP
- found a strong link between interactional synchrony and attachment being secure
- less responsive= less secure
- more responsive = more secure
brazelton still face
- how infants responded to social interaction
- normal interaction > still face phase > reunion phase
- babies would typically display attempts to reingage, distress, or widthdrawl
what does research into caregiver infant interactions show
meltzoff and moore:
- imitation helps infants engage in communication and bonding
- critical to developing secure attachments and emotional development
isabella:
- shows sensitivity and responsive caregiving is essential to form secure attachments
- high interactional synchrony builds a foundation for trust and a secure relationship
evaluation of research into caregiver infant interactions
strengths:
- lab setting: distractions can be minimised
- observation: can be filmed and recorded so researchers can look back at footage. can have other people watch the footage
limitations:
- lacks ecological validity: lab setting is not the babies normal environment, caregivers may act different
- inferences: infants are not fully coordinated and cannot speak, we have to draw inferences from behaviour which can be misinterpreted
