attachment Flashcards
(10 cards)
reciprocity
how two people interact. mother-infant interaction is reciprocal in that both infant and mother respond to each other’s signals and each elicits a response from the other
- from birth, babies and their mothers spend a lot of time in intense and pleasurable interaction
- babies have periodic ‘alert phases’ and signal that they are ready for interaction
- from 3 months, this interaction tends to be increasingly frequent and involves close attention to each other’s verbal signals and facial expressions
interactional synchrony
+
Meltzoff and Moore
+
Isabella et al
mother and infant reflect both the actions and emotions of the other and do this in a co-ordinated way.
Meltzoff and Moore
- observed interactional synchrony in infants as young as 2 weeks
- an adult displayed one of three facial expressions/ gestures
- the child’s response was filmed and identified by independent observers
- an association was found between the expression/ gesture displayed and the action of the babies
Isabella et al
- observed 30 mothers and infants together an assessed the degree of synchrony
- the researcher also assessed the quality of mother-infant attachment
- they found high levels of synchrony were associated with better quality mother-infant attachment
attachment
a close two way emotional bond between two individuals in which each individual sees the other as essential for their emotional security
what do people display when they’re attached (3)
proximity: try to stay physically close
separation distress: distressed when attachment figure leaves their presence
secure-base behaviour: even when we are independent of our attachment figures, we make regular contact with them.
–> infants display secure base behaviour when they regularly return to their attachment figures whilst playing.
reciprocity/ interactional synchrony evaluation
*difficult to know what is happening when observing infants
- many studies involving observation of interactions between mothers and infants have shown same pattern of interaction
- however, what is being observed = hand movements/ changes in expression
- it is therefore difficult to be certain about what is taking place from the infant’s perspective, i.e. is this imitation conscious and deliberate
*controlled observation captures fine detail
- observations usually involve interactions being filmed from multiple angles
–> this ensures that fine details of behaviour can be recorded and analysed
- babies don’t know that they’re being observed, so their behaviour does not change in response to controlled observation, which is generally a problem for observational research
—> so this type of research has good validity
*observations don’t tell us the purpose of synchrony/ reciprocity
- feldman points out that synchrony simply describes behaviours that occur at the same time
- they can be reliably observed, but this does not tell us their purpose
- however, there is some evidence that reciprocal interaction and synchrony are helpful in the development of mother-infant attachment, as well as helpful in stress responses
parent-infant atachment
SCHAFFER AND EMMERSON
SCHAFFER AND EMMERSON found that that the majority of babies did become attached to their mothers first, and within a few weeks formed secondary atttachments to other family members
- in 75% infants studied, an attachment was formed with the father by 18 months
- this was determined by the fact that infants protested when their fathers walked away
the role of the father
GROSSMAN
- GROSSMAN
carried out a longitudinal study looking at both parent’s behaviour and its relationship to the quality of children’s attachment in their teens - quality of infant attachment with mothers but not fathers was related to children’s attachments in adolescence, suggesting that father attachment was less important
- however, the quality of fathers’ play with infants was related to the quality of adolescent attachments
- this suggests that fathers have a different role in attachment- one more to do with play and stimulation, less to do with nurturing
fathers as primary caregivers
TIFFANY FIELD
- 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 smiling, imitating and holding hands than secondary
- this behaviour appears to be important in building an attachment with the infant
- so it seems that fathers can be the more nurturing attachment figure
- the key to attachment relationships = the level of responsiveness, not the gender of the parent
attachment figures- evaluation
*Inconsistent findings on fathers
- those interested in studying the role of the father as a secondary attachment figure tend to see fathers behaving differently from mothers and having a distinct role
- those interested in fathers as primary attachment figures tend to find that fathers can take on a ‘maternal ‘ role
*If fathers have a distinct role, why aren’t children without fathers different?
GROSSMAN found out that fathers as secondary attachment figures had an important role in their children’s development
- however, other studies have found that children growing up in single/ same sex families do not develop any differently than 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 the primary attachment figure may just be due to traditional gender roles, in which women are expected to be more caring and nurturing
- or, it could be that female hormones e.g. oestrogen, create higher levels of nurturing and therefore women are biologically pre-disposed to be the primary attachment figure
*Socially sensitive research
- research into mother-infant interaction = socially sensitive because it suggests that children may be disadvantaged by particular practices e.g. mothers who return to work shortly after a child is born, restrict the opportunities for achieving interactional synchrony
- this suggests that mothers should not return to work so soon and has socially sensitive implications
SCHAFFER AND EMMERSON - stages of attachment experiment
+ evaluation
- investigated the formation of early attachments; the age at which they develop, their emotional intensity and to whom they were directed
method
- 60 babies from Glasgow, majority from skilled working class families
- babies and mothers were visited at their home every month for the first year, and again at 18 months
- the researchers asked the mother questions about the kind of protest the babies showed in seven, everyday separations to measure the infant’s attachment
- also assessed stranger anxiety- the infant’s anxiety response to unfamiliar adults
findings
- between 25-32 weeks old, 50% showed separation anxiety towards a particular adult, usually the mother (specific attachment)
- attachment tended to be to the caregiver who was most interactive and sensitive to the infant signals and facial expressions i.e. reciprocity
—> this was not necessarily the person with whom the infant spent the most time.
- by the age of 40 weeks, 80% of the babies had a specific attachment and almost 30% displayed multiple attachments.
*
evaluation
*good external validity
- carried out in families’ own homes and most of the observation (other than stranger anxiety) was done by parents during ordinary activities and reported to researchers later
—-> so behaviour was unlikely to be affected by the presence of observers
*longitudinal design
- the same children were followed up and observed regularly
- different to a cross-sectional design, where different children are observed at different ages
- longitudinal design has better internal validity- does not have the confounding variable of individual differences between participants
*limited sample characteristics
- 60 children = large sample size
- all families involved were from the same district and social class and the same city at the same time
- child rearing practices vary between cultures and historical periods
- it is hard to generalise the results to other social and historical contexts
*S+E used limited behavioural measures of attachment
- used simple behaviours- stranger and separation anxiety- to define attachment
