ATTACHMENT
CAREGIVER-INFANT INTERACTIONS
AO1
RECIPROCITY An interaction said to show reciprocity is when each person responds to the other
and elicits a response from them, e.g. baby responds to caregiver speaking
ALERT PHASES Occur periodically + signal a baby is ready for interaction
Frequent from 3 months and involve carer and baby paying close attention to each
other’s verbal signals and facial expressions. Mothers pick up on around 2/3 of
these phases – Feldman and Eidelman
ACTIVE Babies can take an active role in and initiate interaction. Brazelton likens
INVOLVEMENT interactions to a ‘dance’ where each partner responds to the other’s moves
INTERACTIONAL The temporal co-ordination of micro-level social behaviour.
SYNCHRONY Condon and Sander analyse frame by frame videos of interactions and found
children respond to parents voices with movements
Isabella et al found high levels of synchrony were associated with better quality
mother-baby attachment
AO3
Interactions usually filmed in a lab, so details won’t be missed and they can be
watched by several psychologists, boosting inter-rater reliability
BUT being in a lab may cause babies to act differently to how they would in a more
familiar environment, so low ecological validity
Babies are unaware of the occurrence or aims of the observation so there will be no
demand characteristics – good internal validity
BUT parents are aware of study and act with social desirability
It is difficult to interpret the behaviour of babies, and whether observed behaviours
have developmental importance, e.g. hard to distinctly label a twitch or voluntary
muscle movement. Ideas such as synchrony are labels for behaviours but do not
explain their purpose
Reductionist: doesn’t account for attachment developing as a result of learning
theory (feeding) or innate attachment systems
SCHAFFER’S STAGES OF ATTACHMENT
AO1
ASOCIAL: Birth --> 2 months: similar behaviour towards humans and inanimate objects, but have a
preference for faces and are more easily comforted by familiar people
INDISCRIMINATE: 2 --> 7 months: babies have a clear preference for other humans, particularly
familiar ones, over inanimate objects. Don’t usually show separation anxiety or stranger anxiety
SPECIFIC: 7 months --> 1 year: start showing stranger anxiety and separation anxiety from their
primary attachment figure (person who interacts most with the baby and responds best to their
signals – the mother for 65% babies)
MULTIPLE: 1 year onwards: attachment to many different figures, called secondary attachments.
Schaffer and Emerson observed 29% babies formed secondary attachments within a month of
forming primary attachments
, Based on Schaffer and Emerson’s research: 60 Glaswegian babies from skilled working class families
studied for 18 months. Researchers ask mothers about babies reactions to 7 everyday separations,
and signs of stranger/separation anxiety. 4 distinct stages are found
AO3
Low validity of asocial stage observations as babies less than 2 months old are unable to
convey emotion effectively – conclusions of their levels of anxiety in different situations
cannot be accurately drawn
Cultural bias: Schaffer and Emerson’s study was conducted in an individualist culture, so the
theory formed from findings of this study does not explain attachment behaviour in children
from collectivist cultures, where separation anxiety is likely higher
External validity: babies observed by attachment figures in ordinary events, so it is likely
their natural behaviour is observed. A lab setting/unknown observer could cause anxiety
Counterpoint: mothers are subjective observers and could not notice/misremember
behaviours
Useful for parents putting children into daycare – much easier to start during the asocial or
indiscriminate attachment stages when babies can be comforted by any adult
THE ROLE OF THE FATHER
AO1
Role of the father in attachment is often neglected as most research is centred around the mother
Schaffer + Emerson: only 3% primary attachment figures are fathers, 7% both father and
mother, but by 18 months 75% of babies had formed an attachment with their father
Grossmann: longitudinal study of 44 families comparing mother’s + father’s contributions to
their children’s attachment experiences at 6, 10 and 16. Quality of later attachment related
to the quality of early maternal attachment, but not the paternal
Field: babies filmed with primary caregiver mothers, and primary/secondary caregiver
fathers. Overall fathers engage more in play and hold infants less, but PC fathers engaged in
significantly more reciprocity and interactional synchrony behaviours than SC fathers, like PC
mothers
Mother associated with care/nurturing the child, father with fun/playing with child
AO3
Positive societal applications: evidence father can be the primary caregiver has influenced
allocation of paternity/maternity leave, and means custody battles between mother and
father are becoming more equal
Poor temporal validity: role of the father has changed a lot through shifts in societal norms,
e.g. more acceptance of stay at home fathers, so much 20 th century research is outdated e.g.
Schaffer and Emerson (1964)
Conflicting evidence: some research has shown a key role of SCG fathers in play/stimulation
but other research e.g. Golombok shows children in single-mother/lesbian-parents families
do not develop differently to children in two-parent heterosexual families. There may not be
such a distinctive role of the father
Counterpoint: these families are just adapting to have the fathers take on the role of the
father in play etc.
Discrepancies in actual research question so inconsistent findings – role of the father as a
secondary or primary caregiver?
CAREGIVER-INFANT INTERACTIONS
AO1
RECIPROCITY An interaction said to show reciprocity is when each person responds to the other
and elicits a response from them, e.g. baby responds to caregiver speaking
ALERT PHASES Occur periodically + signal a baby is ready for interaction
Frequent from 3 months and involve carer and baby paying close attention to each
other’s verbal signals and facial expressions. Mothers pick up on around 2/3 of
these phases – Feldman and Eidelman
ACTIVE Babies can take an active role in and initiate interaction. Brazelton likens
INVOLVEMENT interactions to a ‘dance’ where each partner responds to the other’s moves
INTERACTIONAL The temporal co-ordination of micro-level social behaviour.
SYNCHRONY Condon and Sander analyse frame by frame videos of interactions and found
children respond to parents voices with movements
Isabella et al found high levels of synchrony were associated with better quality
mother-baby attachment
AO3
Interactions usually filmed in a lab, so details won’t be missed and they can be
watched by several psychologists, boosting inter-rater reliability
BUT being in a lab may cause babies to act differently to how they would in a more
familiar environment, so low ecological validity
Babies are unaware of the occurrence or aims of the observation so there will be no
demand characteristics – good internal validity
BUT parents are aware of study and act with social desirability
It is difficult to interpret the behaviour of babies, and whether observed behaviours
have developmental importance, e.g. hard to distinctly label a twitch or voluntary
muscle movement. Ideas such as synchrony are labels for behaviours but do not
explain their purpose
Reductionist: doesn’t account for attachment developing as a result of learning
theory (feeding) or innate attachment systems
SCHAFFER’S STAGES OF ATTACHMENT
AO1
ASOCIAL: Birth --> 2 months: similar behaviour towards humans and inanimate objects, but have a
preference for faces and are more easily comforted by familiar people
INDISCRIMINATE: 2 --> 7 months: babies have a clear preference for other humans, particularly
familiar ones, over inanimate objects. Don’t usually show separation anxiety or stranger anxiety
SPECIFIC: 7 months --> 1 year: start showing stranger anxiety and separation anxiety from their
primary attachment figure (person who interacts most with the baby and responds best to their
signals – the mother for 65% babies)
MULTIPLE: 1 year onwards: attachment to many different figures, called secondary attachments.
Schaffer and Emerson observed 29% babies formed secondary attachments within a month of
forming primary attachments
, Based on Schaffer and Emerson’s research: 60 Glaswegian babies from skilled working class families
studied for 18 months. Researchers ask mothers about babies reactions to 7 everyday separations,
and signs of stranger/separation anxiety. 4 distinct stages are found
AO3
Low validity of asocial stage observations as babies less than 2 months old are unable to
convey emotion effectively – conclusions of their levels of anxiety in different situations
cannot be accurately drawn
Cultural bias: Schaffer and Emerson’s study was conducted in an individualist culture, so the
theory formed from findings of this study does not explain attachment behaviour in children
from collectivist cultures, where separation anxiety is likely higher
External validity: babies observed by attachment figures in ordinary events, so it is likely
their natural behaviour is observed. A lab setting/unknown observer could cause anxiety
Counterpoint: mothers are subjective observers and could not notice/misremember
behaviours
Useful for parents putting children into daycare – much easier to start during the asocial or
indiscriminate attachment stages when babies can be comforted by any adult
THE ROLE OF THE FATHER
AO1
Role of the father in attachment is often neglected as most research is centred around the mother
Schaffer + Emerson: only 3% primary attachment figures are fathers, 7% both father and
mother, but by 18 months 75% of babies had formed an attachment with their father
Grossmann: longitudinal study of 44 families comparing mother’s + father’s contributions to
their children’s attachment experiences at 6, 10 and 16. Quality of later attachment related
to the quality of early maternal attachment, but not the paternal
Field: babies filmed with primary caregiver mothers, and primary/secondary caregiver
fathers. Overall fathers engage more in play and hold infants less, but PC fathers engaged in
significantly more reciprocity and interactional synchrony behaviours than SC fathers, like PC
mothers
Mother associated with care/nurturing the child, father with fun/playing with child
AO3
Positive societal applications: evidence father can be the primary caregiver has influenced
allocation of paternity/maternity leave, and means custody battles between mother and
father are becoming more equal
Poor temporal validity: role of the father has changed a lot through shifts in societal norms,
e.g. more acceptance of stay at home fathers, so much 20 th century research is outdated e.g.
Schaffer and Emerson (1964)
Conflicting evidence: some research has shown a key role of SCG fathers in play/stimulation
but other research e.g. Golombok shows children in single-mother/lesbian-parents families
do not develop differently to children in two-parent heterosexual families. There may not be
such a distinctive role of the father
Counterpoint: these families are just adapting to have the fathers take on the role of the
father in play etc.
Discrepancies in actual research question so inconsistent findings – role of the father as a
secondary or primary caregiver?
