Attachment
An attachment is a close two-way emotional bond between two individuals where each
individual sees the other as essential for their own emotional security. It endures over time
and serves to protect the infant.
Attachment is the formation of a strong, reciprocal emotional bond between an infant and a
primary caregiver. Attachment begins with interactions between infants and their
caregivers. It is the responsiveness of the caregiver to the infant’s signals that has profound
effects.
An attachment is a special type of affectional bond where, in addition to desiring closeness,
you feel a sense of comfort and security with the other person. The other person can also be
used as a safe base from which to explore the rest of the world.
Behaviours that indicate attachment (Maccoby, 1980):
Proximity Seeking (especially when stressed) – people try to stay physically close to
those they are attached to.
Separation Distress (and pleasure when reunited) – people are distressed when an
attachment figure leaves their presence.
Secure-base Behaviour – even when we are independent, we tend to make regular
contact with our attachment figures. We regularly return to them while playing so
they are a base from which to explore.
Therefore, the infant seeks closeness and feels more secure when in the presence of the
attachment figure.
Caregiver-Infant Interactions in Humans
Caregiver-Infant Interactions
A caregiver is any person who provides care for a child, e.g. a parent, grandparent, sibling,
other family member, childminder etc.
An infant is usually taken to refer to a child’s first year of life, although some psychologists
also include the second year.
Caregiver-Infant interactions refers to the communication between a caregiver and infant. It
is believed that these interactions have important functions for the child’s social
development, and form the basis of the attachment between the two. Particularly, the more
responsive or sensitive they are to each other’s signals, the deeper the bond.
Interaction 1: Reciprocity
From birth, infants and their caregivers spend a lot of time together interacting. Infants have
alert phases where they signal that they are ready for interaction. From around three
months, these become more frequent and involve close attention to each other’s verbal
signals and facial expressions (Feldman, 2007). Mothers respond 2/3 of the time (Feldman
and Eidelman, 2007).
Reciprocity is a caregiver-infant interaction. It is a two-way or mutual process – each party
responds to the other’s signals to sustain the interaction (turn-taking - the mother and baby
take turns in initiating interactions). Caregiver-infant interaction is reciprocal, i.e. each
person’s interactions affect the other. Brazelton (1975) describes this as a ‘dance’, as they
respond to each other’s moves/actions like a couple’s dance.
, An interaction is reciprocal when each person responds to the other and the behaviour of
each party elicits a response from the other. Both the caregiver and infant can initiate
interactions – the baby takes on an active role.
Reciprocity is thought to be an important precursor to later communications. Additionally, as
infant signals are regular, this enables the caregiver to anticipate the infant’s behaviour and
respond appropriately. This sensitivity lays the foundation for later attachment.
Interaction 2: Interactional Synchrony
Interactional Synchrony is when a caregiver and infant reflect the actions and emotions of
the other in a coordinated (synchronised) way. They mirror each other in terms of their facial
and body movements. Caregiver and infant signal synchronise, i.e. they occur together.
This is different to reciprocity as in reciprocity the responses aren’t necessarily similar.
Meltzoff and Moore (1977) observed the beginnings of interactional synchrony in infants as
young as two weeks old. An adult displayed one of three facial expressions or one of three
distinctive gestures. The infant’s response was filmed and identified by independent
observers using a number of behavioural categories. The observers did not know what the
infants had seen (the infants were filmed from an angle which meant that the adult couldn’t
be seen). An association was found between the expression or gesture the adult had
displayed and the actions of the babies – the babies copied what the adults displayed. In
1983, they demonstrated this in three-day old babies which rules out the possibility this
behaviour is learned and suggests it is therefore innate.
Meltzoff and Moore proposed that the infants’ imitations were intentional i.e. they were
deliberately copying what the caregiver was doing. Meltzoff suggested that through
interactional synchrony, infants begin to acquire an understanding of what other people are
thinking and feeling which is fundamental for social relationships.
It is believed that interactional synchrony is important for the development of mother-infant
attachments. Isabella et al. (1989) observed 30 mothers and infants together and assessed
the degree of synchrony. They found high levels of synchrony were associated with better
quality of mother-infant attachment.
Evaluation of Caregiver-Infant Interactions
Statement Strength or How does this impact our understanding of
weakness? caregiver-infant interactions?
Supporting or
undermining?
Real-world
application?
Observations of mother-infant Strength of As babies don’t know or care that they are
interactions are generally well-controlled research being observed, this reduces the likelihood of
procedures, with both the mother and supporting the demand characteristics and social desirability
infant being filmed, often from multiple ideas about bias which are normally a problem for
angles. The angles often include those caregiver-infant observational research. Recording the
that mean that the researcher analysing interactions interactions ensures that fine details can be
the video footage cannot see what the recorded and later analysed. As angles can be
other person in the video is doing. used where the caregiver can’t be seen, this
Additionally, babies don’t know or care reduces the likelihood of researcher bias.
that they are being observed. Together, this ensures that the research has
, good internal validity and so we can make valid
conclusions about the importance of caregiver-
infant interactions. It also means that the
research can be replicated to check reliability
of the results.
Counterargument: it is difficult to study infants’
behaviour because their mouths are in fairly
constant motion. The expressions being tested
in research (e.g. tongue sticking out, yawning,
smiling) occur frequently. This makes it difficult
to distinguish between general activity and
specific imitated behaviours. As such, we can’t
be certain that the interactions are deliberate
and so have a special meaning.
Feldman points out that synchrony and Weakness of the Therefore, we can’t understand why infants
reciprocity simply describe behaviours research reciprocate and imitate their caregivers, so we
that occur at the same time. They are supporting the can’t be certain that they have a special
robust phenomena that can be reliably ideas about meaning.
observed, but this may not be particularly caregiver-infant Counterargument: there is evidence that
useful as it doesn’t tell us their purpose interactions reciprocity and interactional synchrony are
(why they are done). It is hard to know helpful in the development of mother-infant
what is happening when observing attachment, as well as stress responses,
infants, and we don’t know whether their empathy, language and moral development.
imitations are conscious and deliberate. Therefore, it seems that they may have a
special meaning in developing relationships in
this way.
Many studies involving observation of the Weakness of the Consequently, we can’t conclude that we fully
interactions between mothers and infants research understand the meaning of caregiver-infant
have shown the same patterns of supporting the interactions and we can’t know for certain that
interaction (reciprocity and interactional ideas about they have a special meaning.
synchrony). However, what is being caregiver-infant Counterargument: Abravanel and DeYong
observed is merely hand movements or interactions (1991) observed infant behaviour when
changes in expression. Therefore, it is ‘interacting’ with two objects, one simulating
extremely difficult to know what is taking tongue movements and the other mouth
place from the infant’s perspective e.g. opening/closing. They found that the infants
are they doing what they are doing made little response to the objects. This
deliberately? Other researchers have suggests that infants don’t imitate everything
suggested that infants may instead be they see; it is a specific social response to
showing pseudo-imitation. This is the idea other humans. Therefore, the interactions may
that the infant isn’t truly imitating the have a special meaning.
behaviour of the caregiver. Instead, they
are repeating a behaviour that has been
rewarded (the caregiver often smiles and
laughs when they imitate). Therefore, the
infant has not consciously translated
what they see into a matching
movement.
Research into mother-infant interaction is Real-world This suggests that mothers should not return to
socially sensitive because it suggests that application work so soon and as such has socially sensitive
children may be disadvantages by implications. It could create guilt in mothers
particular child-rearing practices. In who need to return to work soon after the birth
particular, mothers who return to work of their child. However, the research is
shortly after a child is born restricts the important in that it suggests that the
opportunities for achieving interactional interactions have a special meaning and may
synchrony which has been found to be have implications later on in life. These two
, important in developing caregiver-infant opposing viewpoints need to be carefully
attachment. considered when conducting and publishing
such research.
Attachment Figures and The Role of the Father
Multiple Attachments – Attachments to two or more people.
Attachment to Fathers – Most children are attached to fathers by 18 months.
Father’s Role – Fathers offer play rather than comfort, which seems to contribute to
children’s attachment.
Fathers as Primary Caregivers – Fathers as primary carers smile, imitate and comfort like
mothers.
Attachment Figures
A primary attachment figure is the person to whom an infant is most intensely attached.
They are the person a child responds to most intensely at separation. This is usually the
mother, but other people can fulfil the role.
A secondary attachment figure is a person that an infant receives additional support from.
They provide an emotional safety net.
Schaffer and Emerson (1964) found that the majority of babies became attached to their
mother first (at around 7 months). Therefore, the primary attachment figure is much more
likely to be the mother than the father. They found that within a few weeks or month of the
primary attachment, the infants formed secondary attachments to other family members,
including the father. In 75% of the infants studied, an attachment was formed with the
father by the age of 18 months. This was determined by the fact that the infants protested
when their father walked away (separation distress). Therefore, fathers are more likely to be
secondary attachment figures.
The Role of Fathers
Fathers as attachment figures:
Infants turn to mothers to seek comfort and nurturing; they turn to fathers for play.
Fathers are more playful, physically active and generally better at providing
challenging situations for their children.
Fathers excite children, encouraging them to take risks whilst still keeping them safe.
This provides them with a secure environment to learn to be brave.
The importance of the father:
Grossman (2002) carried out a longitudinal study looking at both parents’ behaviour
and its relationship to the quality of children’s attachments into their teens. The
quality of infant attachment to mothers, but not fathers, was related to children’s
attachments in adolescence, suggesting that father attachment was less important in
children building relationships with other people. However, the quality of the father’s
play with infants was related to the quality of adolescent attachments. This suggests
that fathers have a different role in attachment – one that is more to do with play and
stimulation, and less to do with nurturing.
Fathers can be primary attachment figures:
There is some evidence that when fathers do take on the role of the primary
attachment figure, they adopt behaviours more typical of mothers. Tiffany Field
An attachment is a close two-way emotional bond between two individuals where each
individual sees the other as essential for their own emotional security. It endures over time
and serves to protect the infant.
Attachment is the formation of a strong, reciprocal emotional bond between an infant and a
primary caregiver. Attachment begins with interactions between infants and their
caregivers. It is the responsiveness of the caregiver to the infant’s signals that has profound
effects.
An attachment is a special type of affectional bond where, in addition to desiring closeness,
you feel a sense of comfort and security with the other person. The other person can also be
used as a safe base from which to explore the rest of the world.
Behaviours that indicate attachment (Maccoby, 1980):
Proximity Seeking (especially when stressed) – people try to stay physically close to
those they are attached to.
Separation Distress (and pleasure when reunited) – people are distressed when an
attachment figure leaves their presence.
Secure-base Behaviour – even when we are independent, we tend to make regular
contact with our attachment figures. We regularly return to them while playing so
they are a base from which to explore.
Therefore, the infant seeks closeness and feels more secure when in the presence of the
attachment figure.
Caregiver-Infant Interactions in Humans
Caregiver-Infant Interactions
A caregiver is any person who provides care for a child, e.g. a parent, grandparent, sibling,
other family member, childminder etc.
An infant is usually taken to refer to a child’s first year of life, although some psychologists
also include the second year.
Caregiver-Infant interactions refers to the communication between a caregiver and infant. It
is believed that these interactions have important functions for the child’s social
development, and form the basis of the attachment between the two. Particularly, the more
responsive or sensitive they are to each other’s signals, the deeper the bond.
Interaction 1: Reciprocity
From birth, infants and their caregivers spend a lot of time together interacting. Infants have
alert phases where they signal that they are ready for interaction. From around three
months, these become more frequent and involve close attention to each other’s verbal
signals and facial expressions (Feldman, 2007). Mothers respond 2/3 of the time (Feldman
and Eidelman, 2007).
Reciprocity is a caregiver-infant interaction. It is a two-way or mutual process – each party
responds to the other’s signals to sustain the interaction (turn-taking - the mother and baby
take turns in initiating interactions). Caregiver-infant interaction is reciprocal, i.e. each
person’s interactions affect the other. Brazelton (1975) describes this as a ‘dance’, as they
respond to each other’s moves/actions like a couple’s dance.
, An interaction is reciprocal when each person responds to the other and the behaviour of
each party elicits a response from the other. Both the caregiver and infant can initiate
interactions – the baby takes on an active role.
Reciprocity is thought to be an important precursor to later communications. Additionally, as
infant signals are regular, this enables the caregiver to anticipate the infant’s behaviour and
respond appropriately. This sensitivity lays the foundation for later attachment.
Interaction 2: Interactional Synchrony
Interactional Synchrony is when a caregiver and infant reflect the actions and emotions of
the other in a coordinated (synchronised) way. They mirror each other in terms of their facial
and body movements. Caregiver and infant signal synchronise, i.e. they occur together.
This is different to reciprocity as in reciprocity the responses aren’t necessarily similar.
Meltzoff and Moore (1977) observed the beginnings of interactional synchrony in infants as
young as two weeks old. An adult displayed one of three facial expressions or one of three
distinctive gestures. The infant’s response was filmed and identified by independent
observers using a number of behavioural categories. The observers did not know what the
infants had seen (the infants were filmed from an angle which meant that the adult couldn’t
be seen). An association was found between the expression or gesture the adult had
displayed and the actions of the babies – the babies copied what the adults displayed. In
1983, they demonstrated this in three-day old babies which rules out the possibility this
behaviour is learned and suggests it is therefore innate.
Meltzoff and Moore proposed that the infants’ imitations were intentional i.e. they were
deliberately copying what the caregiver was doing. Meltzoff suggested that through
interactional synchrony, infants begin to acquire an understanding of what other people are
thinking and feeling which is fundamental for social relationships.
It is believed that interactional synchrony is important for the development of mother-infant
attachments. Isabella et al. (1989) observed 30 mothers and infants together and assessed
the degree of synchrony. They found high levels of synchrony were associated with better
quality of mother-infant attachment.
Evaluation of Caregiver-Infant Interactions
Statement Strength or How does this impact our understanding of
weakness? caregiver-infant interactions?
Supporting or
undermining?
Real-world
application?
Observations of mother-infant Strength of As babies don’t know or care that they are
interactions are generally well-controlled research being observed, this reduces the likelihood of
procedures, with both the mother and supporting the demand characteristics and social desirability
infant being filmed, often from multiple ideas about bias which are normally a problem for
angles. The angles often include those caregiver-infant observational research. Recording the
that mean that the researcher analysing interactions interactions ensures that fine details can be
the video footage cannot see what the recorded and later analysed. As angles can be
other person in the video is doing. used where the caregiver can’t be seen, this
Additionally, babies don’t know or care reduces the likelihood of researcher bias.
that they are being observed. Together, this ensures that the research has
, good internal validity and so we can make valid
conclusions about the importance of caregiver-
infant interactions. It also means that the
research can be replicated to check reliability
of the results.
Counterargument: it is difficult to study infants’
behaviour because their mouths are in fairly
constant motion. The expressions being tested
in research (e.g. tongue sticking out, yawning,
smiling) occur frequently. This makes it difficult
to distinguish between general activity and
specific imitated behaviours. As such, we can’t
be certain that the interactions are deliberate
and so have a special meaning.
Feldman points out that synchrony and Weakness of the Therefore, we can’t understand why infants
reciprocity simply describe behaviours research reciprocate and imitate their caregivers, so we
that occur at the same time. They are supporting the can’t be certain that they have a special
robust phenomena that can be reliably ideas about meaning.
observed, but this may not be particularly caregiver-infant Counterargument: there is evidence that
useful as it doesn’t tell us their purpose interactions reciprocity and interactional synchrony are
(why they are done). It is hard to know helpful in the development of mother-infant
what is happening when observing attachment, as well as stress responses,
infants, and we don’t know whether their empathy, language and moral development.
imitations are conscious and deliberate. Therefore, it seems that they may have a
special meaning in developing relationships in
this way.
Many studies involving observation of the Weakness of the Consequently, we can’t conclude that we fully
interactions between mothers and infants research understand the meaning of caregiver-infant
have shown the same patterns of supporting the interactions and we can’t know for certain that
interaction (reciprocity and interactional ideas about they have a special meaning.
synchrony). However, what is being caregiver-infant Counterargument: Abravanel and DeYong
observed is merely hand movements or interactions (1991) observed infant behaviour when
changes in expression. Therefore, it is ‘interacting’ with two objects, one simulating
extremely difficult to know what is taking tongue movements and the other mouth
place from the infant’s perspective e.g. opening/closing. They found that the infants
are they doing what they are doing made little response to the objects. This
deliberately? Other researchers have suggests that infants don’t imitate everything
suggested that infants may instead be they see; it is a specific social response to
showing pseudo-imitation. This is the idea other humans. Therefore, the interactions may
that the infant isn’t truly imitating the have a special meaning.
behaviour of the caregiver. Instead, they
are repeating a behaviour that has been
rewarded (the caregiver often smiles and
laughs when they imitate). Therefore, the
infant has not consciously translated
what they see into a matching
movement.
Research into mother-infant interaction is Real-world This suggests that mothers should not return to
socially sensitive because it suggests that application work so soon and as such has socially sensitive
children may be disadvantages by implications. It could create guilt in mothers
particular child-rearing practices. In who need to return to work soon after the birth
particular, mothers who return to work of their child. However, the research is
shortly after a child is born restricts the important in that it suggests that the
opportunities for achieving interactional interactions have a special meaning and may
synchrony which has been found to be have implications later on in life. These two
, important in developing caregiver-infant opposing viewpoints need to be carefully
attachment. considered when conducting and publishing
such research.
Attachment Figures and The Role of the Father
Multiple Attachments – Attachments to two or more people.
Attachment to Fathers – Most children are attached to fathers by 18 months.
Father’s Role – Fathers offer play rather than comfort, which seems to contribute to
children’s attachment.
Fathers as Primary Caregivers – Fathers as primary carers smile, imitate and comfort like
mothers.
Attachment Figures
A primary attachment figure is the person to whom an infant is most intensely attached.
They are the person a child responds to most intensely at separation. This is usually the
mother, but other people can fulfil the role.
A secondary attachment figure is a person that an infant receives additional support from.
They provide an emotional safety net.
Schaffer and Emerson (1964) found that the majority of babies became attached to their
mother first (at around 7 months). Therefore, the primary attachment figure is much more
likely to be the mother than the father. They found that within a few weeks or month of the
primary attachment, the infants formed secondary attachments to other family members,
including the father. In 75% of the infants studied, an attachment was formed with the
father by the age of 18 months. This was determined by the fact that the infants protested
when their father walked away (separation distress). Therefore, fathers are more likely to be
secondary attachment figures.
The Role of Fathers
Fathers as attachment figures:
Infants turn to mothers to seek comfort and nurturing; they turn to fathers for play.
Fathers are more playful, physically active and generally better at providing
challenging situations for their children.
Fathers excite children, encouraging them to take risks whilst still keeping them safe.
This provides them with a secure environment to learn to be brave.
The importance of the father:
Grossman (2002) carried out a longitudinal study looking at both parents’ behaviour
and its relationship to the quality of children’s attachments into their teens. The
quality of infant attachment to mothers, but not fathers, was related to children’s
attachments in adolescence, suggesting that father attachment was less important in
children building relationships with other people. However, the quality of the father’s
play with infants was related to the quality of adolescent attachments. This suggests
that fathers have a different role in attachment – one that is more to do with play and
stimulation, and less to do with nurturing.
Fathers can be primary attachment figures:
There is some evidence that when fathers do take on the role of the primary
attachment figure, they adopt behaviours more typical of mothers. Tiffany Field
