wk3= does quality of caregiving matter more than type of caregiving

Question 1

plan

Answer 1

1. introduction
2. type of caregiving (bio)
   3type of caregiving (non-bio)
3. The sensitivity hypothesis

Question 2

1a. introduction

Answer 2

What is attachment?
Bowlby= a secure base from which a child can make sorties into the outside.
Problem with attachment studies
Whilst Bowlby never claimed attachments were only formed between mothers and their children, a vast number of studies only consider the importance of this relationship + Look at heterosexual.biological samples. Whilst Bowbly simply talks about the importance of an early caregiver, the narrow number of studies makes generalising beyond very difficult. Family types are growing , with75% of women in full time employment, unable to act as the sole provider of care

Question 3

1b. introduction

Answer 3

Essay
This essay will look at the importance of mothers in raising a securely attached baby and if their role is indeed significant. Finding quality to be more important make generalisation of attachment work much easier, and relive stress of the mother

Question 4

2a. type of caregiving (bio)

Answer 4

Evidence
changing family structures = type of caregiver may be less important than how they behave. 15% children now raised in single-parent households, including single-father homes, attachment research had to expand beyond the traditional mother–infant focus. Fox (1991) , meta-analysis of 11 studies SS = 64% of children were securely attached to their father. rate comparable to mother–infant pairs/ same normativity pattern . This challenges the idea that biological mothers hold a uniquely privileged role in fostering secure attachment.

Question 5

2b. type of caregiving (bio)

Answer 5

Suggestions/ limitations
However, the current evidence base on non-maternal caregivers , especially fathers, = limited so direct comparisons difficult. Kelly (2018) = attachment theory historically grounded in Western, middle-class samples, which often assume nuclear family structures and prioritise maternal sensitivity. In cultures where caregiving is distributed across multiple family members, this framework = undervalue secure attachments formed with fathers, siblings, or grandparents. If attachment were studied more inclusively, we might observe even higher rates of secure attachments with non-maternal caregivers, further supporting the view that caregiving behaviours , particularly sensitivity , are more influential than caregiver type.
Implications
Findings support a shift away from mother-centred models toward behaviour-focused frameworks like the sensitivity hypothesis.

Question 6

3a. type of caregiving (non-bio)

Answer 6

May want to extend research out to families that aren’t bio related e.g. assisted reproduction . Gave rise to concerns in the 1980’s.Idea that child born to these situations wont have the same degree of security relationship than they would in a bio related parent.
Evidence
Golombok 1995 comapre different families formed different ways = no difference in degree of security rep, regardless of bio background

Question 7

3b. type of caregiving (non-bio)

Answer 7

Implications + evidence
Suggest even further that it may indeed be the type of caregiving one receives. Can extend this to gay relationships . Golombok 1997 again looked at rep measure of attachment + lesbian mothers + single mothers. Matched IN terms of SES = higher secure attachment than heterosexual.
Suggestions + implications
Suggests not having 2 parents heterosexual household doesn’t form any impediment to forming a secure attachment . helpful in advancing the rights of lgbtq families, informing law changed. They speculate why we see this difference with heterosexual couples is that gay families may have had to try much harder to get adopted/ more obstacles. This means they have more responsive, sensitive caregiving . sensitivity seems to be leading these connections

Question 8

4a. the sensitivity hypothesis

Answer 8

Sensitivity = early attachment security is dependent on caregivers responsiveness to children’s signals
Sensitivity hypothesis
Fearson et al 2018= points out attachment theory claims causes of variation in attach,ent security are environmental , cargeivers sensitity is the primary environmental determinant. This overall implies =casual factor + environmental
Improving caregiver sensitivity
being aware of the signals that an infant is giving, Being able to interpret these signals too, It is also about responding in a way that is appropriate. Improving ability means attachment security isn’t set in stone by type of caregiver you have

Question 9

4b. the sensitivity hypothesis

Answer 9

Evidence
Bakermans-Kranenburg 2003 meta analysis longitudinal. Investigated increasing sensitivity of caregiver through intervention studies _ if had effect on security. possible to improve caregiver sensitivity from t1 to t2 when you get training AND improved sensitivity causes changes in attachment security. So strong evidence it is a causal factor. Effect size is small though so may not be a primary determinant. Stams 2002 found temperament to sig correlate with attachment .
Adoptive parent sensitivity.
Stams 2002 looked at sensitivity within adoptive parents, do genetics play role? No same strength of association between sensitivity and attachment . Intergenerational transmission of attachment (caregivers attachment security showed more sensitive caregiving, in tun child also showed secure attachment) mediating mechanism of sensitivity. Found within adoptive families showing no genetic association and effects of sensitivity are clearly environmental