AO3 Caregiver-infant interactions in humans: reciprocity and interactional synchrony. Stages of attachment identified by Schaffer. Multiple attachments and the role of the father

Internal validity in Meltzoff and Moore’s study

The study used a controlled observation method which means it is highly controlled making the results more likely to be internally valid.

Reliability in Meltzoff and Moore’s study

The research was filmed so it is possible to check for inter-rater-reliability, making it more likely that the results are reliable. A later replication suggested that babies as young as 3 days old displayed the same level of interactional synchrony, demonstrating reliability. This gives strong support to the role of these behaviours in forming attachments. However not all attempts to replicate this study have succeeded in doing so, casting some doubt on the reliability of the findings.

Generalisability in Meltzoff and Moore’s study

The controlled environment may reduce the generalisability of the findings to other situations as the research measures responses to an adult model who is not the caregiver. However, Schaffer and Emerson suggest that babies do not distinguish between people until 2 months 2 old so the research is likely to have measured a general infant behaviour and therefore is likely valid.

Validity of Tronick’s study

The study used the controlled observation method which is highly controlled and is therefore likely to be internally valid, offering support for the importance of interactional synchrony in forming attachments. However, the artificial environment may have impacted on the behaviour of the infant and so results may lack ecological validity.

Reliability of Tronick’s study

The study has been replicated many times meaning that the findings are reliable so more likely to be valid. The study was filmed allowing for careful observation and checking of inter-rater reliability which makes it more likely the results found are valid.

Ethical issues of Tronick’s study

There may be some ethical issues as the babies were caused distress during the still-face episode, although this was for a short time so is unlikely to be a serious issue

Practical application of Tronick’s study

The study suggests that there may be serious negative consequences for babies who are cared for by adults who are not always able to be responsive to them which is important to have, providing practical application

Poor validity in Schaffer and Emerson’s theory

It’s suggests that the reason Schaffer found ‘asocial’ behaviour very early on is because the babies have poor mobility and co-ordination, not necessarily because they are asocial. It may be that young babies cannot easily shown their attachments, suggesting Schaffer’s theory may not be valid.

Socially sensitive affect of Schaffer and Emerson’s stages

The theory suggests 4 stages that children go through in their attachment, but in some cultures, multiple attachments occur before single ones. Meaning parents may be judged on these inflexible stages and if they don’t follow them they may be judged as bad parents, which is socially sensitive.

Issues with population validity in Schaffer and Emerson’s study

All the families studied were from a similar area of Glasgow and from the same socio-economic background. Meaning results may not reflect the parenting of people from other areas, meaning there is likely issues with population validity

Poor temporal validity in Schaffer and Emerson’s theory

The study was conducted in 1960’s so may lack temporal validity as parenting styles and child-rearing practices of that time may not be the same as today. This means that Schaffer’s stage theory may be based on findings that are no longer valid.

Internal validity of Field’s study

This was a controlled observational study, which is likely to be internally valid as there is high levels of control over extraneous factors, meaning it’s likely to be true that father’s can be a primary attachment figure. However, in a controlled environment behaviour may be unnatural so the findings could possibly lack internal validity.

Reliability of Field’s study

The study was filmed which means the results can be checked, suggesting the findings have high reliability.

External validity of Field’s study

The study is support by Lamb who found that fathers who become primary attachment figures can quickly develop sensitive responsiveness and this is not something limited to mothers. This suggests Field’s study is externally valid.

Cause and effect in Grossman’s study

This is a correlational study, so it’s not possible to conclude that the mothers or fathers parenting caused the later attachment behaviour in children. Instead other factors may be involved.

Validity of Grossman’s study

The research is supported by many studies which have found that mothers have a nurturing role and fathers have a more playmate role, suggesting the findings are valid.

Drawing conclusions about the role of the father

It’s difficult to draw firm conclusions from research into the role of the father, because different studies take a different focus. This means it’s difficult to draw any firm conclusions over the role of the father in infant attachments as the research is so varied.

Determinism in role of the father

Research into biological sex differences supports the idea that fathers are secondary attachment figures. For example, oestrogen is linked to caring behaviour which may explain the heightened emotional sensitivity of mothers over fathers. This suggests that the primary attachment may be biologically determined to be with the mother rather than the father. This deterministic view is likely socially sensitive and exaggerate a small difference between genders making it alpha biased.

Invalid findings of research into the role of the father

Research into children raised in single parent and gay families have not shown there to be differences in how such children develop, this suggests that research that suggests that a father’s role is different to a mother’s may not be correct.