Attachment
Attachment
= a close 2-way emotional bond between 2 individuals in which each individual sees the
other as essential for their own emotional security & in which they seek proximity to each
other
Caregiver-infant interactions & attachment figures –
From early age infants have meaningful interactions with their care givers & is believed these
interactions have important functions for the infant’s social development.
From approx 3 months, interactions tend to be frequent & close attention is paid to each other’s
verbal & facial expressions. Key element is reciprocity.
Reciprocity
= when parent & child respond to each other’s signals & each elicits a response from the other
(turn taking – mother sticks her tongue out & then baby does).
Interactional synchrony
= the temporary coordination of infant & care giver responses, actions & emotions mirror the
other.
Meltzoff & Moore conducted a controlled observation using 2 week old infants.
They selected 4 different stimuli (3 facial expressions & a hand gesture) & observed the
behaviour of the infants in response.
The observers watched video tapes of the infant’s behaviour & had no knowledge of what
the infant had just seen.
Each observer was asked to note all instances of infant tongue protrusions and head
movements using behavioural categories & each observer scored each video twice.
Strength of the research - it uses well Strength - it may have real-world applications
controlled procedures. Mother-infant & potential value to society. The identification
interactions are usually recorded from of importance of interactional synchrony in
multiple angles, means fine details of developing high-quality attachment has led to
behaviour can be analysed later. the development of Parent-Child Interaction
Additionally, babies aren’t aware they’re Therapy (PCIT). Crotwell et al found that
being observed, means they don’t change 10 mins therapy improved the interactional
their behaviour in response to observation - synchrony in 20 low-income mothers & their
is a strength of this line of research & it preschool infants compared to a control group.
means that the studies have good validity.
Limitation - when observing infant interactions it can Limitation of this research – it’s
be difficult to know what’s merely a hand movement & socially-sensitive as it would suggest a
what’s a direct interaction (Gratier 2000) - means we child may be disadvantaged by
can’t really know for certain that behaviours seen in specific child-rearing practises, or if a
mother-infant interactions have a special meaning. mother decides to return to work
Feldman also points out that synchrony & reciprocity shortly after a child is born as it’ll
simply describes behaviours that happen at the same reduce the opportunities for achieving
time. Whilst they can be directly observed, they don’t interactional synchrony - therefore
tell us the purpose of them. has obvious socially sensitive
Attachment figures & the role of the father
implications.
, Traditionally looked at mother-child interactions & often research excluded role of father
Schaffer & Emerson found 75% of babies formed an attachment with their fathers by the age of 18
months.
Grossman conducted a longitudinal study looking at parents’ behaviour & its relationship to the
quality of the child’s attachment into their teen years.
The quality of the attachment with the mother was important but quality of the fathers
wasn’t - could suggest the father’s behaviour was less important so fathers may be less
important in long-term emotional development.
Grossman also found the quality of the father’s play with the infants was related to
children’s attachments - suggests that fathers have a different role in attachment (one
that’s more to do with play & stimulation & less to do with nurturing).
Some evidence to suggest that when fathers take on the role of primary caregiver they
adopt the behaviours more typically seen in mothers -
Field investigated the reactions of infants to fathers who were primary caregivers &
compared to the interactions of infants with fathers who weren’t primary care givers
found that primary caregiving fathers (like primary care giving mothers) spent more time
interacting, smiling, imitating & holding infants. So it would seem that the key attachment
relationship is the level of responsiveness, not the gender of the parent.
Much of the research appears to give a The research doesn’t offer any clear
contradictory picture as a limitation is answers about father & primary
that research has focused around attachments or any real explanation for
different aims. Research looking at any perceived differences. Not clear if
fathers as a secondary attachment these differences are a product of
figure have tended to see fathers as traditional gender roles, where women
behaving differently from mothers, are expected to be more caring &
whereas research that has looked at nurturing and so men don’t feel they
fathers as a primary attachment figure should take on that role or if there’s a
have looked at fathers taking on a biological difference - female hormones
‘maternal’ role, means that we can’t (e.g. oestrogen) mean women are
easily answer the question ‘what is the biologically predisposed to behave in a
role of the father?’ nurturing way and men are not.
If secondary attachment figures such as
fathers play an important role in the
Limitation – there’re certain
child’s development, as suggested by
preconceptions about how fathers &
Grossman then why don’t children who do
mothers should behave which could
not have fathers develop
cause unintentional observer bias,
differently? MacCullum & Golombok
whereby observers see what they
looked at children in single/same sex
expect, therefore is difficult to
parent families & found they don’t
disentangle social biases from
develop any differently, suggests a father
conclusions regarding the role of the
isn’t important as a secondary attachment
father.
figure.
The development of attachment –
Schaffer & Emerson – The Glasgow baby study (1964)
60 babies (31 male & 29 female), all from Glasgow from mainly working class families.
Attachment
= a close 2-way emotional bond between 2 individuals in which each individual sees the
other as essential for their own emotional security & in which they seek proximity to each
other
Caregiver-infant interactions & attachment figures –
From early age infants have meaningful interactions with their care givers & is believed these
interactions have important functions for the infant’s social development.
From approx 3 months, interactions tend to be frequent & close attention is paid to each other’s
verbal & facial expressions. Key element is reciprocity.
Reciprocity
= when parent & child respond to each other’s signals & each elicits a response from the other
(turn taking – mother sticks her tongue out & then baby does).
Interactional synchrony
= the temporary coordination of infant & care giver responses, actions & emotions mirror the
other.
Meltzoff & Moore conducted a controlled observation using 2 week old infants.
They selected 4 different stimuli (3 facial expressions & a hand gesture) & observed the
behaviour of the infants in response.
The observers watched video tapes of the infant’s behaviour & had no knowledge of what
the infant had just seen.
Each observer was asked to note all instances of infant tongue protrusions and head
movements using behavioural categories & each observer scored each video twice.
Strength of the research - it uses well Strength - it may have real-world applications
controlled procedures. Mother-infant & potential value to society. The identification
interactions are usually recorded from of importance of interactional synchrony in
multiple angles, means fine details of developing high-quality attachment has led to
behaviour can be analysed later. the development of Parent-Child Interaction
Additionally, babies aren’t aware they’re Therapy (PCIT). Crotwell et al found that
being observed, means they don’t change 10 mins therapy improved the interactional
their behaviour in response to observation - synchrony in 20 low-income mothers & their
is a strength of this line of research & it preschool infants compared to a control group.
means that the studies have good validity.
Limitation - when observing infant interactions it can Limitation of this research – it’s
be difficult to know what’s merely a hand movement & socially-sensitive as it would suggest a
what’s a direct interaction (Gratier 2000) - means we child may be disadvantaged by
can’t really know for certain that behaviours seen in specific child-rearing practises, or if a
mother-infant interactions have a special meaning. mother decides to return to work
Feldman also points out that synchrony & reciprocity shortly after a child is born as it’ll
simply describes behaviours that happen at the same reduce the opportunities for achieving
time. Whilst they can be directly observed, they don’t interactional synchrony - therefore
tell us the purpose of them. has obvious socially sensitive
Attachment figures & the role of the father
implications.
, Traditionally looked at mother-child interactions & often research excluded role of father
Schaffer & Emerson found 75% of babies formed an attachment with their fathers by the age of 18
months.
Grossman conducted a longitudinal study looking at parents’ behaviour & its relationship to the
quality of the child’s attachment into their teen years.
The quality of the attachment with the mother was important but quality of the fathers
wasn’t - could suggest the father’s behaviour was less important so fathers may be less
important in long-term emotional development.
Grossman also found the quality of the father’s play with the infants was related to
children’s attachments - suggests that fathers have a different role in attachment (one
that’s more to do with play & stimulation & less to do with nurturing).
Some evidence to suggest that when fathers take on the role of primary caregiver they
adopt the behaviours more typically seen in mothers -
Field investigated the reactions of infants to fathers who were primary caregivers &
compared to the interactions of infants with fathers who weren’t primary care givers
found that primary caregiving fathers (like primary care giving mothers) spent more time
interacting, smiling, imitating & holding infants. So it would seem that the key attachment
relationship is the level of responsiveness, not the gender of the parent.
Much of the research appears to give a The research doesn’t offer any clear
contradictory picture as a limitation is answers about father & primary
that research has focused around attachments or any real explanation for
different aims. Research looking at any perceived differences. Not clear if
fathers as a secondary attachment these differences are a product of
figure have tended to see fathers as traditional gender roles, where women
behaving differently from mothers, are expected to be more caring &
whereas research that has looked at nurturing and so men don’t feel they
fathers as a primary attachment figure should take on that role or if there’s a
have looked at fathers taking on a biological difference - female hormones
‘maternal’ role, means that we can’t (e.g. oestrogen) mean women are
easily answer the question ‘what is the biologically predisposed to behave in a
role of the father?’ nurturing way and men are not.
If secondary attachment figures such as
fathers play an important role in the
Limitation – there’re certain
child’s development, as suggested by
preconceptions about how fathers &
Grossman then why don’t children who do
mothers should behave which could
not have fathers develop
cause unintentional observer bias,
differently? MacCullum & Golombok
whereby observers see what they
looked at children in single/same sex
expect, therefore is difficult to
parent families & found they don’t
disentangle social biases from
develop any differently, suggests a father
conclusions regarding the role of the
isn’t important as a secondary attachment
father.
figure.
The development of attachment –
Schaffer & Emerson – The Glasgow baby study (1964)
60 babies (31 male & 29 female), all from Glasgow from mainly working class families.
