INTRODUCTION TO ATTACHMENT:
o Attachment: Close two-way emotional bond between 2 people where both see the other as
necessary for emotional security
o Maccoby’s characteristics of attachment:
Proximity: nearness to the caregiver sought by expressing distress if separated. Person gives
infant sense of security and comfort and is usually the mother but anyone they show attachment
can give this.
Stranger anxiety: distress in the presence of unknown individuals
Separation protest: distress in the absence of a specific person
CAREGIVER-INFANT INTERACTIONS:
o Early interactions between a caregiver and infant serve to develop and maintain attachment bond
between them.
o Infant can’t talk but communication between them and caregiver is complex and happens in
different ways.
RECIPROCITY: INTERACTIONAL SYNCHRONY:
o 3mnths +, interactions more frequent and involve close o When mom and kid interact
attention to verbal signals and facial expressions. so that their emotions and
o Interaction’s reciprocal when they respond to 1 another and a actions mirror each other
response is elicited. o Infants move body in tune
o Past saw infant being passive and receiving care from adults with caregiver speaking to
but now babies take an active role. create turn taking like in a
o Mum and kid initiate interaction producing responses from conversation.
each other, done in turns. o Also reinforces attachment
o This helps strengthen the attachment bond. bond.
o E.g., one smiles, and the other does o E.g., moving body in tune
with carer rhythm.
(In A01 for this essay also inc Meltzoff and Moore)
EVALUATION:
STRENGTHS: WEAKNESSES:
o Supporting evidence o Inconsistent results as interactions and the exp
o Isabella and Belsky predicted caregiver are low in reliability.
baby pairs that developed secure o For e.g., Koepka (1983) couldn’t replicate Meltzoff
attachment display more interactional and Moore findings and were saying this was due
synchrony than those with insecure. to the low control over experimental conditions.
Babies observed at 3 & 9 months and o Research also suggests infants can’t distinguish
secure group interacted in a timed, between videoed and live interactions with
mutually rewarding, and reciprocal mothers suggesting they don’t directly respond to
manner while those classed as insecure the adults themselves.
were characterised by minimally involved, o We need to be cautious of making assumptions
unresponsive and intrusive interactions. that these exp are universal and consider
Avoidant pairs showed individual differences in the development of these
intrusiveness/overstimulation, but the interactions and studying them is difficult.
resistant was poorly co-ordinated and o (Can also inc limited by cultural relativism as
inconsistent. Kenyan mothers have less physical contact and
o Strength as supports interactional interactions but high proportion of secure
synchrony plays a role in developing attachments so can’t be used beyond western
attachments. culture)
o Reinforcing idea that interactions affect
attachment quality.
o However, Fieldman said that just
, observing this behaviour doesn’t
emphasise the importance of it.
o Useful applications o Problem in testing behaviours
o Therapists e.g., music ones who work o What is observed is just hand movements or
with parents and kids who experienced expressions so it’s hard to know what’s taking
disruption in their attachment e.g., kids in place from the infant’s perspective.
care when transferred between foster and o We don’t know for certain that the interactions
adoptive parents, recognise how between infants and mums have special meaning.
important reciprocity and interactional Infants’ mouths move in motion with (tongue,
synchrony is in their therapeutic work. yawning and smiling) so we can’t distinguish what
o For example, care givers encouraged to is general activity and what’s imitated behaviours.
mirror/share their child’s emotion by o Reduces credibility of research into caregiver-
imitating facial expressions and engaging infant interactions.
in reciprocal behaviour in response to o However, observations are well controlled, and
music and other stimuli. filming takes place from different perspectives so
o Showing importance of different fine detail can be seen and analysed. Furthermore,
processes in infant-caregiver interactions there’s no demand characteristics as babies don’t
know they’re being recorded so has high internal
validity
RESEARCH: Meltzoff & Moore (1977)
o Found kids ages 2-3 wks. mimic adult specific facial expressions and hand movements.
o Supports idea infant mimicry is an innate ability to aid formation of attachments as it was seen in
infants less than 3 days old.
o Supports reciprocity in playing a role in forming attachment bond.
Procedure:
Controlled observation of babies exposed to 4 different stimuli:
3 facial gestures (sticking tongue out)
1 manual gesture: (waving fingers)
Babies’ response was observed, and actions videoed.
Independent observer (who didn’t know what infant has just saw) was told to wrote down all times
they stuck their tongue out and head movements using different behaviour categories.
Each observer looked at tapes twice (intra-observer and inter-rater reliability assessed this way)
Findings:
Results showed babies ages 12-27 days could imitate facial and manual gestures.
Conclusions:
Ability to imitate serves an important building block for later social development and cognitive
development and it’s an innate behaviour.
EVALUATION:
STRENGTHS: WEAKNESSES:
o Controlled observations capture lots of detail and are o Observations don’t tell us the purpose
well controlled. of synchrony and reciprocity.
o For e.g., both mum and child are filmed from o For e.g., Fieldman (2012) points out
different angles so small details can be recorded and that synchrony and reciprocity simply
analysed. describe behaviours that occur at the
o Babies are unaware they’re being observed so same time but not why they happen.
behaviour doesn’t change in response to demand o Weakness because these are robust
characteristic even if controlled environment. phenomena as they can be reliably
o High internal validity as measures what was observed, but this may not be
intended. particularly useful as it does not tell us
o Supports idea that infant care-giver interactions are their purpose.
innate. o However, Isabella found that the
achievement of interactional
synchrony predicted development of
good quality attachment suggesting its
important
o Supporting evidence for imitation by babies being o Hard to know what’s happening when
Innate observing infants.
o For e.g., Murray and Trevarthen (1985) conducted a o For e.g., is the infant’s imitation of the
, study using two-month-olds. They interacted with adult conscious and deliberate or a
their mums via a video monitor in real time. The coincidence? Is what is being observed
video monitor then played a tape recording of their merely hand movements or changes in
mums so that the image on the screen was not expressions. It is extremely difficult to
responding to the infant’s gestures, so they became be certain, based on these
distressed, as the infants tried to interact with their observations, what is taking place from
mothers but no response, turned away. the infant’s perspective.
o Suggests imitation is innate as infant is actively o Weakness as we cannot really know
eliciting a response rather than exhibiting a response for certain that behaviours seen in
that has been rewarded. If there was an element of mother-infant interactions have special
reward in the process, it would suggest the behaviour meaning.
had been learnt. o So, we can’t apply these findings to
o Strengthens credibility of Meltzoff and Moore’s of find a relationship between IS and R
research and can conclude that reciprocity and being involved in attachment
interactional synchrony is innate.
SCHAFFER’S STAGES OF ATTACHMENT:
o Used to describe how infants develop attachment to others.
Key terms:
Separation protest: infants’ behaviour when away from caregiver involves crying/holding out arms.
Insecure attachment shows no protest, but secure ones do.
Stranger anxiety: degree of distress shown by infants when in presence of unfamiliar person.
SCHAFFER AND EMERSON (1964):
o Aim: to investigate the age specific attachments develop and form
METHOD: FINDINGS:
o Longitudinal study followed 60 infants in o 50% of the children showed their first specific
Glasgow over 2 years that were observed attachment between 25 and 32 weeks (6-8
every 4 weeks until they were 12 months months).
old and then again at 18 months. o Fear of strangers occurred about 1 month later
o Attachment was measured in 2 ways: in all the children.
Stranger anxiety: Every visit started with o Most infants developed multiple attachments.
researcher approaching. At 18 months 87% at least two attachments,
infant and noting point infant started to with 31% having five or more.
whimper, showing anxiety Separation o 39% of infants’ prime attachment was not to
protest: 7 everyday situations. Infant left the main carer.
alone in a room, shops, cot at night, put o Conc: There is a pattern of attachment
down after being held, or passed by while formation common to all infants, which
sitting cot or chair. suggests the process is biological in nature
EVALUATION:
STRENGTHS: WEAKNESSES:
o Naturalistic observation as behaviour was o Biased sample and only has temporal validity.
studied in the environment where it most o For e.g., study was on working class population
naturally occurs. so the findings cannot be applied to other social
o For e.g., the parents observed and took groups.
notes on their infant’s responses to o Also from 1960, Parental care has changed more
separation and strangers in their own since then as more women go out to work and
home, during their normal routines and children are cared for outside the home, the
researchers weren’t present at the time, so number of fathers who choose to stay at home
more likely infant’s behaviour would be has quadrupled over the past 25 years.
more natural. o You can’t apply the findings to today’s time as
o Strength as has high external validity as roles of parents and the time they spend with
the results on can be generalised to other their babies have changed so results would be
infants in real life settings. different.
o Supporting the stages of attachment o Therefore, the generalisability of their research
o However, issues with mum as observes as is limited.
they may have been biased or
misremembered what has just happened
o Longitudinal design o Limited by cultural relativism
o Attachment: Close two-way emotional bond between 2 people where both see the other as
necessary for emotional security
o Maccoby’s characteristics of attachment:
Proximity: nearness to the caregiver sought by expressing distress if separated. Person gives
infant sense of security and comfort and is usually the mother but anyone they show attachment
can give this.
Stranger anxiety: distress in the presence of unknown individuals
Separation protest: distress in the absence of a specific person
CAREGIVER-INFANT INTERACTIONS:
o Early interactions between a caregiver and infant serve to develop and maintain attachment bond
between them.
o Infant can’t talk but communication between them and caregiver is complex and happens in
different ways.
RECIPROCITY: INTERACTIONAL SYNCHRONY:
o 3mnths +, interactions more frequent and involve close o When mom and kid interact
attention to verbal signals and facial expressions. so that their emotions and
o Interaction’s reciprocal when they respond to 1 another and a actions mirror each other
response is elicited. o Infants move body in tune
o Past saw infant being passive and receiving care from adults with caregiver speaking to
but now babies take an active role. create turn taking like in a
o Mum and kid initiate interaction producing responses from conversation.
each other, done in turns. o Also reinforces attachment
o This helps strengthen the attachment bond. bond.
o E.g., one smiles, and the other does o E.g., moving body in tune
with carer rhythm.
(In A01 for this essay also inc Meltzoff and Moore)
EVALUATION:
STRENGTHS: WEAKNESSES:
o Supporting evidence o Inconsistent results as interactions and the exp
o Isabella and Belsky predicted caregiver are low in reliability.
baby pairs that developed secure o For e.g., Koepka (1983) couldn’t replicate Meltzoff
attachment display more interactional and Moore findings and were saying this was due
synchrony than those with insecure. to the low control over experimental conditions.
Babies observed at 3 & 9 months and o Research also suggests infants can’t distinguish
secure group interacted in a timed, between videoed and live interactions with
mutually rewarding, and reciprocal mothers suggesting they don’t directly respond to
manner while those classed as insecure the adults themselves.
were characterised by minimally involved, o We need to be cautious of making assumptions
unresponsive and intrusive interactions. that these exp are universal and consider
Avoidant pairs showed individual differences in the development of these
intrusiveness/overstimulation, but the interactions and studying them is difficult.
resistant was poorly co-ordinated and o (Can also inc limited by cultural relativism as
inconsistent. Kenyan mothers have less physical contact and
o Strength as supports interactional interactions but high proportion of secure
synchrony plays a role in developing attachments so can’t be used beyond western
attachments. culture)
o Reinforcing idea that interactions affect
attachment quality.
o However, Fieldman said that just
, observing this behaviour doesn’t
emphasise the importance of it.
o Useful applications o Problem in testing behaviours
o Therapists e.g., music ones who work o What is observed is just hand movements or
with parents and kids who experienced expressions so it’s hard to know what’s taking
disruption in their attachment e.g., kids in place from the infant’s perspective.
care when transferred between foster and o We don’t know for certain that the interactions
adoptive parents, recognise how between infants and mums have special meaning.
important reciprocity and interactional Infants’ mouths move in motion with (tongue,
synchrony is in their therapeutic work. yawning and smiling) so we can’t distinguish what
o For example, care givers encouraged to is general activity and what’s imitated behaviours.
mirror/share their child’s emotion by o Reduces credibility of research into caregiver-
imitating facial expressions and engaging infant interactions.
in reciprocal behaviour in response to o However, observations are well controlled, and
music and other stimuli. filming takes place from different perspectives so
o Showing importance of different fine detail can be seen and analysed. Furthermore,
processes in infant-caregiver interactions there’s no demand characteristics as babies don’t
know they’re being recorded so has high internal
validity
RESEARCH: Meltzoff & Moore (1977)
o Found kids ages 2-3 wks. mimic adult specific facial expressions and hand movements.
o Supports idea infant mimicry is an innate ability to aid formation of attachments as it was seen in
infants less than 3 days old.
o Supports reciprocity in playing a role in forming attachment bond.
Procedure:
Controlled observation of babies exposed to 4 different stimuli:
3 facial gestures (sticking tongue out)
1 manual gesture: (waving fingers)
Babies’ response was observed, and actions videoed.
Independent observer (who didn’t know what infant has just saw) was told to wrote down all times
they stuck their tongue out and head movements using different behaviour categories.
Each observer looked at tapes twice (intra-observer and inter-rater reliability assessed this way)
Findings:
Results showed babies ages 12-27 days could imitate facial and manual gestures.
Conclusions:
Ability to imitate serves an important building block for later social development and cognitive
development and it’s an innate behaviour.
EVALUATION:
STRENGTHS: WEAKNESSES:
o Controlled observations capture lots of detail and are o Observations don’t tell us the purpose
well controlled. of synchrony and reciprocity.
o For e.g., both mum and child are filmed from o For e.g., Fieldman (2012) points out
different angles so small details can be recorded and that synchrony and reciprocity simply
analysed. describe behaviours that occur at the
o Babies are unaware they’re being observed so same time but not why they happen.
behaviour doesn’t change in response to demand o Weakness because these are robust
characteristic even if controlled environment. phenomena as they can be reliably
o High internal validity as measures what was observed, but this may not be
intended. particularly useful as it does not tell us
o Supports idea that infant care-giver interactions are their purpose.
innate. o However, Isabella found that the
achievement of interactional
synchrony predicted development of
good quality attachment suggesting its
important
o Supporting evidence for imitation by babies being o Hard to know what’s happening when
Innate observing infants.
o For e.g., Murray and Trevarthen (1985) conducted a o For e.g., is the infant’s imitation of the
, study using two-month-olds. They interacted with adult conscious and deliberate or a
their mums via a video monitor in real time. The coincidence? Is what is being observed
video monitor then played a tape recording of their merely hand movements or changes in
mums so that the image on the screen was not expressions. It is extremely difficult to
responding to the infant’s gestures, so they became be certain, based on these
distressed, as the infants tried to interact with their observations, what is taking place from
mothers but no response, turned away. the infant’s perspective.
o Suggests imitation is innate as infant is actively o Weakness as we cannot really know
eliciting a response rather than exhibiting a response for certain that behaviours seen in
that has been rewarded. If there was an element of mother-infant interactions have special
reward in the process, it would suggest the behaviour meaning.
had been learnt. o So, we can’t apply these findings to
o Strengthens credibility of Meltzoff and Moore’s of find a relationship between IS and R
research and can conclude that reciprocity and being involved in attachment
interactional synchrony is innate.
SCHAFFER’S STAGES OF ATTACHMENT:
o Used to describe how infants develop attachment to others.
Key terms:
Separation protest: infants’ behaviour when away from caregiver involves crying/holding out arms.
Insecure attachment shows no protest, but secure ones do.
Stranger anxiety: degree of distress shown by infants when in presence of unfamiliar person.
SCHAFFER AND EMERSON (1964):
o Aim: to investigate the age specific attachments develop and form
METHOD: FINDINGS:
o Longitudinal study followed 60 infants in o 50% of the children showed their first specific
Glasgow over 2 years that were observed attachment between 25 and 32 weeks (6-8
every 4 weeks until they were 12 months months).
old and then again at 18 months. o Fear of strangers occurred about 1 month later
o Attachment was measured in 2 ways: in all the children.
Stranger anxiety: Every visit started with o Most infants developed multiple attachments.
researcher approaching. At 18 months 87% at least two attachments,
infant and noting point infant started to with 31% having five or more.
whimper, showing anxiety Separation o 39% of infants’ prime attachment was not to
protest: 7 everyday situations. Infant left the main carer.
alone in a room, shops, cot at night, put o Conc: There is a pattern of attachment
down after being held, or passed by while formation common to all infants, which
sitting cot or chair. suggests the process is biological in nature
EVALUATION:
STRENGTHS: WEAKNESSES:
o Naturalistic observation as behaviour was o Biased sample and only has temporal validity.
studied in the environment where it most o For e.g., study was on working class population
naturally occurs. so the findings cannot be applied to other social
o For e.g., the parents observed and took groups.
notes on their infant’s responses to o Also from 1960, Parental care has changed more
separation and strangers in their own since then as more women go out to work and
home, during their normal routines and children are cared for outside the home, the
researchers weren’t present at the time, so number of fathers who choose to stay at home
more likely infant’s behaviour would be has quadrupled over the past 25 years.
more natural. o You can’t apply the findings to today’s time as
o Strength as has high external validity as roles of parents and the time they spend with
the results on can be generalised to other their babies have changed so results would be
infants in real life settings. different.
o Supporting the stages of attachment o Therefore, the generalisability of their research
o However, issues with mum as observes as is limited.
they may have been biased or
misremembered what has just happened
o Longitudinal design o Limited by cultural relativism
