caregiver-infant interactions ☑️

attachment

close two-way emotional bond between two individuals where one individual sees the other as essential for their own emotional security.

reciprocity

caregiver-infant interactions is reciprocal; caregiver and baby respond to each others signals ‘turn-taking’

-alert phases - signal showing they’re ready for interaction (feldman and eidelman’s 2007 show mothers respond to baby’s alertness 2/3 of time - varies factors like stress, skill etc.)

from roughly 3 months, this interaction becomes increasingly frequent, where mother and baby pay close attention to each others verbal signals and facial expressions.

-active involvement- babies and caregivers both actively initiate interactions in turns, described by t. berry brazelton et al. (1975) as a dance where they respond to each others moves.

interactional synchrony

‘coordination of microlevel social behaviour’ where their actions and emotions mirror eachother.

-meltzoff and moore (1977) adult model displayed 1 of 3 facial expressions / distinctive gestures. baby’s response was more mirrored than chance could predict.

isabella et al (1989) high levels of synchrony associated with better quality mother-baby attachment

caregiver-infant interactions

evaluation: strengths

-caregiver-infant interactions are usually filmed in labs, where variables are controlled and filming allows for later analysis so unlikely to miss key behaviours, >1 observer established inter-rater reliability of observations.

-no demand characteristics due to babies not aware of research, increasing validity as natural behaviours are displayed

caregiver-infant interactions

evaluation: limitations

-hard to interpret behaviour as young babies lack coordination + are mostly immobile so only small hand movements or subtle expression changes. difficult to determine baby’s perspective; can’t be certain that behaviours have a special meaning.

-simply observing a behavior doesn’t show its developmental importance. feldman (2012) may not be useful in understanding child development when the purpose or importance is unclear

counterevidence: isabella et al. (1989) interactional synchrony predicted the development of a good quality attachment, showing their importance in development

role of the father

-the role of the father in the development of attachment has often been neglected

-longitudinal research: takes place over a long period of time (months/ years)

the role of the father

attachment to fathers

-evidence suggests fathers are much less likely to become a babies first attachment figure compared to mothers (in schaffers and emerson’s research, 3% were primarily attached to their fathers and 27% had joint mother and father attachment figure.

-however most fathers become important attachment figures within 18 months (75%), determined by babies protesting in their fathers absence.

the role of the father

distinctive role for fathers

-grossman et al. (2002) longitudinal study where babies attachments were observed into teens, and looked at their parents’ behavior and relationship to the quality of their baby’s later attachment to others

-quality of a babies attachment with mothers but not fathers was related to attachment in adolescence, suggesting attachment to fathers is less important.

-counterpoint: found that quality of fathers play with babies related to quality of adolescent attachments, suggesting fathers have a different role from mothers, with play and stimulation rather than emotional development

the role of the father

fathers as primary attachment figures

-suggested that when fathers take on the role of primary caregiver they are able to adopt the emotional role more typically associated with mothers.

field (1978) 4 month olds interaction with their PCG mothers, PCG fathers and SCG fathers filmed. babies were shown to smile and play more with both sets of primary caregivers than the ones with their secondary caregiver fathers.

the role of the father

evaluation: strengths

-real world applications: used to offer advice to parents (prevent agonising over who’s the primary caregiver as they both have beneficial things to offer)

-helps with single mother and lesbian relationships as having a father doesn’t necessarily stunt development, reducing parental anxiety about the role or the father

the role of the father

evaluation: limitations

-confusion over study’s aim; to see if fathers have a distinct role from mothers or to see if fathers can take on a maternal role, making it difficult to answer ‘what is the role of the father?’

-findings vary depending on methodology used: if fathers have an important distinct role in their children’s development, we would expect children growing up in a single mother or lesbian household to turn out differently, meaning the question to whether fathers have a distinctive role remains unanswered

counterpoint: it could be considered that single mother or lesbian families adapt to accommodate the role played by fathers

schaffer’s stages of attachment

-rudolf schaffer and peggy emerson (1964) develop an account of how attachment behaviours change as babies get older. they proposed four identifiable stages of attachment:

• stage 1: asocial stage

• stage 2: indiscriminate attachment

• stage 3: specific attachment

• stage 4: multiple attachments

schaffer and emerson’s research (1964)

60 glasgow babies in skilled working class families visited monthly for 18 months, asking mothers questions about babies protest to separation to measure the babies’ attachment: identified four distinct stages in development

stage 1: asocial stage

-in first few weeks, behaviour towards humans and inanimate objects are fairly similar, although not entirely asocial as they appear to prefer to be with people.

-they show a preference for comfort and company of familiar people and faces as at this stage, they’re forming bonds with certain people which form basis of later attachments.

stage 2: indiscriminate attachment

(from 2-7 months), baby displays more obvious and observable social behaviours. clear preference for beings with humans than inanimate objects

-they recognise and prefer the company of familiar people, but usually accept comfort from anyone.

-don’t usually show separation anxiety when caregiver leaves presence or stranger anxiety in the presence of unfamiliar people.

stage 3: specific attachment

(from around 7 months), majority display classic signs of attachment towards a primary attachment figure, including stranger anxiety, when parent is absent, and separation anxiety/distress

-primary attachment figure provided them with the most interaction and respond to signals with the most skill (usually the mother (65%))

stage 4: multiple attachments

usually extend attachment behaviour to multiple attachments with other regular, familiar people (secondary attachments)

29% formed secondary attachments within a month of forming primary attachments and by age 1, majority of babies developed multiple attachments

schaffer’s stages of attachment

evalution: strengths

-most observations were made by parents during ordinary activities and reported to the researcher therefore display of natural behaviour and high external validity

counterpoint: issues with mothers observing; bias and subjective in what they noticed and reported (chance of behaviour not being accurately recorded)

-practical application in daycares: in asocial and indiscriminate attachment stages, daycare is likely to be straightforward as babies can be comforted by any skilled adult but on starting with a unfamiliar adult can be problematic - parents use of daycare can be planned using schaffers stages

schaffers stages of attachment

evaluation: limitations

-poor evidence of the asocial change: young babies have poor co-ordination and are fairly immobile so if they experienced anxiety in everyday situations, they’d subtly display it, making it hard for mothers to observe and report back to researchers on signs of anxiety - appearing to be asocial from flawed methods

types of attachment

mary ainsworth’s (1970) strange situation study

ainsworth and bell (1970) observed key attachment behaviours by assessing quality of baby’s attachment to primary caregiver

procedure: controlled, structured lab observation with two way mirror and playroom to measure the security of attachment displayed towards a caregiver.

— predetermined behaviours selected to judge attachment: proximity seeking, exploration and secure base behaviour, stranger anxiety, separation anxiety / distress, response to reunion

ainsworth’s strange situation

procedure order cues

1. mother + baby entered unfamiliar room

2. baby is encouraged to explore - tests exploration and secure base

3. stranger enters + approaches the pair - tests stranger anxiety

4. mother leaves room - tests stranger and seperation anxiety

5. mother returns (reunion) and stranger leaves - tests reunion behaviour

6. mother leaves + stranger returns - tests stranger anxiety

7. mother returns and reunited with baby - tests reunion behavior

ainsworths ‘strange situation’ types of attachment study

findings

-secure attachment (type B) - 61%: explore happily + regularly return to mother. moderate separation distress and stranger anxiety. require and accept mothers comfort in reunion stage

-insecure avoidant (type A) - 21% explore freely without showing secure base behaviour or seeking proximity. show little to no reaction when caregiver leaves + little stranger anxiety. little effort to make contact with mother/ aggressive at reunion

-insecure-resistant (type C) - 14% seek greater proximity and explore less. highest levels of stranger and separation anxiety but resist comfort and reunion

strange situation

evaluation: strengths

-94% inter-rater reliability: bick et al (2012) due to operationalised, controlled conditions. behaviors (hesitations, crying due to strangers) involve large easy to observe movements, so assessed attachment types doesn’t depend on subjective judgments.

-predicts numerous later outcomes: a large body of research shows type b tend to have better outcomes; better in school, less involvement in bullying (mccormick et al 2016). better mental health in adulthood (ward et al 2006), suggesting strange situation measures something real and meaningful in a babys development

strange situation

evaluation: limitations

-cultural bias: not a valid measure of attachment in other cultures as based on western values. japanese study by takahashi (1990): babies displayed high level of seperation anxiety so a disproportionate number were classified as type A, suggests due to the rare mother-baby seperation - inappropriate to measure outside west.

other attachment types

ainsworth and solomon (1986) identified a type D (disorganised) attachment style, a mix of restraint and avoidant behaviours. unusual, generally cause by neglect or abuse, most will experience psychological disorders by adulthood.