A strong, emotional bond between
two people. A two-way process
which endures over time
ATTACHMENT
Caregiver-infant interactions in humans:
RECIPROCITY – the process in which a behaviour is
matched during an interaction. Develops at an early
age (from 3 months, according to Feldman). Meltzoff &
Moore (1997) found that reciprocity is demonstrated by babies as young as 12
to 27 days
INTERACTIONAL SYNCHRONY – the process in which both a behaviour and an
emotion is matched during an interaction between an infant and caregiver, in
direct response to each other (taking turns)
ISABELLA ET AL. (1991) – hypothesized that caregiver-infant pairs with
stronger attachments would display more synchronous behaviour than pairs
with weaker attachments. Babies were observed at 3 and 9 months and their
theory was proven. Conclusion: different interactional behaviours predicted
attachment quality
Stages of attachment – Schaffer and Emerson (1964):
PROCEDURE – studied 60 babies from Glasgow at
monthly intervals for 18 months (longitudinal study). A
naturalistic study, babies observed in their own homes,
researchers measured stranger anxiety and separation
protest and mothers were asked to keep a diary of
behaviour.
FINDINGS – attachments were most likely to form with caregivers who were
sensitive to the baby’s signals, rather than the person they spend the most
, time with. They came up with the four ‘stages of attachment’ to describe
infant attachments:
ASOCIAL STAGE (up to 3 months) – predisposed to attach to any human,
respond equally to any caregiver, happier in the presence of humans
INDISCRIMINATE ATTACHMENTS (up to 7 months) – learn to distinguish
primary and secondary attachment figures but accept
care from anyone, no signs of spereation protest or
stranger anxiety
SPECIFIC ATTACHMENTS (7-9 months) – recognise
specific faces, primary attachment to one particular
individual, show separation protest and stranger anxiety
MULTIPLE ATTACHMENTS (9 months +) – increasingly independent, form
several secondary attachments
EVALUATION – good external validity (due to naturalistic observation), good
design (longitudinal study, so lack of individual differences, which increases
external validity), good sample size, but limited sample (from same place in
Glasgow, all from working class families, so poor generalisability),
ethnocentric (so only valid in individualistic societies), asocial stage disproved
by Bushnell et al. and Meltzoff & Moore
Role of the father:
SCHAFFER AND EMERSON (1964) – found that in 75% of the infants studied,
an attachment was formed with the father by the age of 18 months
(determined by separation protest, a sign of attachment)
GROSSMAN (2002) – carried out a longitudinal study looking
at parents’ behaviour and its relationship to the quality of
children’s attachments into their teens. They found that (1)
the quality of infant attachments with mothers was related
to children’s attachments in adolescence (2) the quality of
fathers’ play with infants was related to the quality of
adolescent attachments. They concluded that the mother’s role in attachment
relates to nurturing, and the father’s relates to play and stimulation
2
two people. A two-way process
which endures over time
ATTACHMENT
Caregiver-infant interactions in humans:
RECIPROCITY – the process in which a behaviour is
matched during an interaction. Develops at an early
age (from 3 months, according to Feldman). Meltzoff &
Moore (1997) found that reciprocity is demonstrated by babies as young as 12
to 27 days
INTERACTIONAL SYNCHRONY – the process in which both a behaviour and an
emotion is matched during an interaction between an infant and caregiver, in
direct response to each other (taking turns)
ISABELLA ET AL. (1991) – hypothesized that caregiver-infant pairs with
stronger attachments would display more synchronous behaviour than pairs
with weaker attachments. Babies were observed at 3 and 9 months and their
theory was proven. Conclusion: different interactional behaviours predicted
attachment quality
Stages of attachment – Schaffer and Emerson (1964):
PROCEDURE – studied 60 babies from Glasgow at
monthly intervals for 18 months (longitudinal study). A
naturalistic study, babies observed in their own homes,
researchers measured stranger anxiety and separation
protest and mothers were asked to keep a diary of
behaviour.
FINDINGS – attachments were most likely to form with caregivers who were
sensitive to the baby’s signals, rather than the person they spend the most
, time with. They came up with the four ‘stages of attachment’ to describe
infant attachments:
ASOCIAL STAGE (up to 3 months) – predisposed to attach to any human,
respond equally to any caregiver, happier in the presence of humans
INDISCRIMINATE ATTACHMENTS (up to 7 months) – learn to distinguish
primary and secondary attachment figures but accept
care from anyone, no signs of spereation protest or
stranger anxiety
SPECIFIC ATTACHMENTS (7-9 months) – recognise
specific faces, primary attachment to one particular
individual, show separation protest and stranger anxiety
MULTIPLE ATTACHMENTS (9 months +) – increasingly independent, form
several secondary attachments
EVALUATION – good external validity (due to naturalistic observation), good
design (longitudinal study, so lack of individual differences, which increases
external validity), good sample size, but limited sample (from same place in
Glasgow, all from working class families, so poor generalisability),
ethnocentric (so only valid in individualistic societies), asocial stage disproved
by Bushnell et al. and Meltzoff & Moore
Role of the father:
SCHAFFER AND EMERSON (1964) – found that in 75% of the infants studied,
an attachment was formed with the father by the age of 18 months
(determined by separation protest, a sign of attachment)
GROSSMAN (2002) – carried out a longitudinal study looking
at parents’ behaviour and its relationship to the quality of
children’s attachments into their teens. They found that (1)
the quality of infant attachments with mothers was related
to children’s attachments in adolescence (2) the quality of
fathers’ play with infants was related to the quality of
adolescent attachments. They concluded that the mother’s role in attachment
relates to nurturing, and the father’s relates to play and stimulation
2
