Care-giver interactions

Reciprocity and interactional synchrony Evaluation

Babies & mothers spend a lot of time interacting. Babies have alert phases and
signal when ready for interaction.
- Mothers respond to 2/3 of the time (Feldman and Eidleman)
Hard knowing what’s happening when observing infants. Gratier: most studies
show same pattern of behaviour. Reliant on only hand movement and
Interactional synchrony = when mother and infant interact through mirroring one
expressions. Difficult to be sure of infant’s perspective. May be meaningless.
another’s actions and emotions (simultaneously)
- Meltzoff and Moore – infants as young as 2 weeks, adults displayed one of Research using well controlled procedures. Usually filmed from different
three facial expressions or gestures and child’s response filmed.
angles showing fine detail. No demand characteristics. Can be analysed later.
- Association found between gestures and action of child Good validity.
Synchrony provides necessary foundation for mother and infant connection Research in this field is socially sensitive. Suggests children may be
- Isabella et al. (degree of synchrony and quality of attachment of 20 disadvantaged by specific child-rearing practices e.g. mothers who return to
mothers and infants) – high levels of synchrony = better quality mother- work shortly after birth. “Mothers shouldn’t return to work so soon”
infant relationships
Research has potential value to society. Crotwell et al. – 10 minute Parent-
Reciprocity (from 3 months) = each person responds to the other and elicits a Child Interaction Therapy improves interactional synchrony in 20 low-income
response from them. Involves close attention
mothers and infants. Research in IS leads to valuable methods to improve
- Brazleton et al. described interaction as a dance (each partner responds to interactions.
one another’s moves)

Traditional views on role of baby = passive receiving care from adult. Now more
active: initiate interactions and take turns in doing so.
 The role of the father
The role of the father Evaluation

Schaffer & Emerson found majority of babies attach to mother first (around 7
months)
- 3% of the cases, father is first sole object of attachment Evidence undermines idea of fathers having distinct role. Studies e.g.
- 27% fathers were joint first object with mothers McCallum and Golombok found children growing up I single or same-sex
- Within weeks or months, they form secondary attachments parent families don’t develop differently from those in two-parent families.
Suggests father’s role as secondary figure is not important.
In 75% of infants studied, attachment formed with father by 18 months (protested
when they walked away) Research fails to provide a clear answer about fathers and primary
attachments. Other factors such as traditional gender roles (women
Grossman: longitudinal study looking at parent’s behaviour and its relationship to expected to nurture so fathers don’t feel they should) or female hormones
quality of children’s attachments in their teens. (more oestrogen) makes them biologically fit to nurture.
- Mother attachment was more important than fathers
- So fathers may be less important in long-term emotional development Social biases prevent objective observations. Preconceptions on how fathers
should behave are created. These stereotypes can cause observer bias (see
Quality of father’s play associated to children’s attachment – they have a different what they expect to rather than reality). Conclusions on their role hard to
roll (play and stimulation) to nurturing disentangle from social biases about role.

Fathers adopt behaviours more typical to mothers when they take role of being Research has important economic implications. Mothers feel pressured to
main caregiver. Field filmed 4-month-old babies: primary caregiver fathers spent stay home and, in some families, could be the best solution economically.
more time smiling, imitating and holding infants than secondary caregiver fathers Offers comfort to mothers who think they need to make hard choices.

The key to attachment is the level of responsiveness not the gender of parent
 Schaffer’s Stages of attachment
Stages of attachment Evaluation

Asocial stage (first few weeks) = baby’s behaviour to human and non-human object is similar,
some preferences for familiar adults. Happier in presence of humans

Indiscriminate attachment (2-7 months) = more observable social behaviour, preference for
people, recognise and prefer familiar adults, no stranger or separation anxiety, behaviour
similar to all Study has external validity. Most observations made by parents
during ordinary activities. Behaviour wasn’t affected by presence
Specific attachment (from 7 months) = form specific attachment with primary caregiver, of observers. Likely to behave naturally
show stranger and separation anxiety to them. Most cases the person who offers most
interaction and responds to their signals (biological mother in 65% of the cases) Study was carried out longitudinally. Greater internal validity than
cross-sectional design (observe different children at each age)
Multiple attachment (by one year) = secondary attachments with others, 29% had formed and no confounding variable of individual differences
secondary/multiple attachments within a month of forming primary attachment in Schaffer’s
and Emerson’s study. By 1 majority formed multiple attachments. Problem with how multiple attachment is assessed. Bowlby
suggested babies can be distressed if playmate leaves the room
even if there’s no attachment. Stages don’t distinguish between
behaviour towards secondary attachments and playmates
Key study: Schaffer and Emerson – Stages of attachment
Problem in studying the asocial year. Schaffer and Emerson
categorised first few weeks as asocial although most important
60 babies from Glasgow, working class families visited at home every month for a year and at interactions take place. Babies fairly immobile so difficult to make
18 months. Separation anxiety (asked mothers about children’s behaviour during everyday judgements. They could actually be quite social. Flawed methods
separations. Stranger anxiety (asked how they responded to unfamiliar adults.

- 50% showed separation anxiety towards particular adult between 25 and 32 weeks of
age. Specific attachment usually with mother.
- Attachment with whom was most interactive and sensitive to infant signals and facial
expressions. Not always who spent the most time.
 Animal studies of attachment
Key study 1: Lorenz - Imprinting Evaluation

Lorenz divided 12 goose eggs, half hatched with mother in natural environment, half
in incubator, first moving object they saw was Lorenz. Problems with generalising findings and conclusions from birds to humans

Mixed goslings together to see whom they would follow Support for imprinting. Guiton: chicks imprinted on yellow washing up
gloves tried to mate with them as adults. Innate mechanism causing
Also observed birds and later courtship behaviour imprinting to occur on an object.

- Incubator group followed Lorenz, control group followed mother Some of Loren’s conclusions questioned. Guiton found with experience
- Critical period for imprinting (few hours after hatching), if it didn’t take they learned to mate with their own kind. Effects of imprinting not as long-
place, they didn’t attach to a mother figure. lasting as Lorenz thought.
- Sexual imprinting occurs – birds acquire template of desirable
characteristics in a mate

Key study 2: Harlow – Importance of contact comfort Evaluation

Harlow reared 16 rhesus monkeys with two wire model ‘mothers’. One condition,
plain wire dispensed milk, in second condition, cloth-covered one dispensed milk.
Preferences were measured.
Important practical application – now understand importance of
Reactions of monkeys to frightening situations measured. Harlow added a attachment figures for baby monkeys in zoos and breeding programmes in
noisemaking teddy bear. wild. Increased value.

Continued to study monkeys in adulthood who had been deprived of real mothers. Ethical issues with his research – similar to humans so suffering may have
been similar to human-like, caused long term consequences.
- Preference for soft object regardless which dispensed milk. Contact comfort
is more important than food in attachments.
- Comfort sought by cloth wire mother when frightened
- Monkeys deprived of real mother = more aggressive, less sociable, less
skilled in mating, sometimes neglected or killed own offspring.
 Explanations of attachment
Dollard and Miller – Learning theory of attachment Evaluation
‘Cupboard love’ explanation – learn to love whoever feeds them.
Animal studies evidence against food as basis of attachment. E.g.
Classical conditioning – learning through association of two stimuli (UCS is food, leads to UCR, Harlow’s – Contact comfort is more important.
a feeling of pleasure, a caregiver starts as a NS, overtime associated with food – NS becomes
CS. Conditioning takes place producing CR) Human research shows feeding is not an important factor.
Schaffer and Emerson – first primary attachment not one who
Operant conditioning – explains why babies cry for comfort, leads to a response, crying is fed them. No unconditioned stimulus or primary drive involved.
reinforced as long as caregiver provides a pleasurable consequence.
Learning theory ignores other factors linked with attachment e.g.
Negative reinforcement with crying as the crying stops (escaping something unpleasant). developing reciprocity and good levels of interactional synchrony.
Reinforcement strengthens an attachment.
Some aspects of conditioning could still be involved conditioning
Hunger – primary drive, innate biological motivator, motivated to eat to reduce hunger drive. but not in relation to feeding. e.g. associations between the
Attachment – secondary drive, association between caregiver and satisfaction of a primary primary caregiver and provision of comfort
drive. Sears et al. – as caregivers provide food, the primary drive of hunger becomes
generalised to them
Bowlby – Monotropic theory of attachment Evaluation
Attachment is an innate system that gives survival advantage. Stay close to caregivers and
protected from hazards Evidence for monotropy is mixed – Schaffer and Emerson – many
formed multiple attachment at same time
Emphasis on the child’s attachment to one caregiver. Different to all others and more
important. Clear evidence to support the existence and value of social
releasers – Brazleton et al. asked parents to ignore social
More time spent, the better: law of continuity (the more constant a child’s care, the better releasers. Babies were distressed then lay motionless.
the quality of attachment) and law of accumulated separation (effects of every separation add
up). Support for the idea of an internal working model – Bailey
studied 99 mothers; those with poor attachment to own parent
Babies born with social releasers (set of innate ‘cute’ behaviour) e.g. smiling and gripping. had poorly attached one-year olds.
Activated the adult attachment system – reciprocal system.
Monotropy is socially sensitive because of implications for
Critical period 2 years, a sensitive period, if attachment is not formed, difficulty in the future. mothers' lifestyle. Law of accumulated separation. Feminists e.g.
Burman: mothers always blamed pushes them into making
Internal working model serves a template for what relationships are like. Good experiences = lifestyle choices. Bowlby’s intention was to boost their status.
good expectations.
 Ainsworth’s Strange Situation
Procedure Evaluation

Method to assess the quality of a child’s attachment to caregiver. Controlled

observation procedure in a lab with a two-way mirror.

Five categories used to judge attachment quality: 1) proximity seeking 2) exploration

and secure-base behaviour 3) stranger anxiety 4) separation anxiety 5) response to
reunion.
Predictive validity of attachment types in the strange situation –
Predicts later development e.g. insecure-resistant associated to mental
Procedure has seven episodes, each 3 minutes: 1) child is encouraged to explore by
health problems (Ward et al.). Value.
caregiver 2) stranger enters and talks to caregiver 3) caregiver leaves 4) caregiver
returns and stranger leaves 5) the caregiver leaves child alone 6) stranger returns 7) the
Strange situation shows very good inter-rater reliability – Bick et al: 94%
caregiver returns.
agreement in one team of observations. No observer bias.

It may be culture-bound test – Takahashi: Japanese mothers rarely

separated so high levels of separation anxiety. Different meanings to
Findings and conclusions
USA and Western Europe due to different experiences.

May be different attachment types – Main and Solomon: some children

3 main types of attachment found:
show atypical attachments (a mix of avoidant and resistant) that don’t
- Secure attachment (60-75% of British toddlers): child happy to explore but
fit A, B, C. challenges Ainsworth conclusions.
seeks proximity, shows moderate separation anxiety and stranger anxiety,
requires and accepts comfort on reunion

- Insecure-avoidant attachment (20-25%): child explores freely, doesn’t seek

proximity, shows little/no separation/stranger anxiety, and doesn’t require
comfort at reunion.

- Insecure-resistant attachment (3%): child explores less and seeks greater

proximity, shows considerable stranger/separation anxiety, resists comfort
when reunited.
 Cultural Variations in Attachment
Key Study 1: Van Ijzendoorn and Kroonenberg Meta-analysis Evaluation

Proportions of attachments between and within countries. 32 studies of attachment where

SS was used, conducted in 8 countries, 15 were in USA.

Data were meta-analysed, results being combines and weighted for sample size.

- Secure attachment was most common but ranged; 50% in China and 75% in Britain. Very large samples. Total of 2000 babies and primary caregivers.
- Individualist cultures: rates of insecure-resistant attachment similar to original study Increases internal validity – reduces impact of biased
(all under 14%). Not with collectivist samples (rates above 25%) but insecure methodology.
avoidant rates reduced.
- Variations in results within countries were 150% greater than those between Sample used may not be representative of cultures. Looked at
- In the USA, one study found 46% securely attached and one 90%. studies between countries not cultures, cultures impact rearing
practices. Van Ijzendoorn and Sagi: Urban Tokyo – similar secure
attachment rates but rural sample over-represented insecure-
resistant. May have little meaning.

Key Study 2: Simonelli et al. An Italian key study SS method may be biased towards American/British culture.
Designed by British theory (Bowlby) and American researcher
(Ainsworth). Known as imposed etic (theory designed for one
culture on another).

Alternative explanation for similarities found between cultures.

Assessed 76 12-month olds using the SS – compared with previous studies. Bowlby said it’s innate and universal however it could be due to
effects of mass media.
Mothers varied in terms of education levels (e.g. 57% university degree, 2% didn’t finish high
school etc.) and professions (48% employees, 13% professionals etc.)

- 50% secure, 36% insecure-avoidant. Lower rate of secure than previous studies
- Could be due to mothers working long hours and using childcare
 Bowlby’s Theory of Maternal Deprivation

Bowlby’s theory of maternal deprivation Evaluation

Continuous emotional care is necessary for normal emotional and intellectual development.
“As important for mental health as vitamins and proteins are for physical health”.

Separation means the child not being physically in the presence of the primary attachment
figure whereas deprivation means losing emotional care as a result of separation.
- Deprivation can be avoided with substitute care Sources of evidence for maternal deprivation are flawed. Bowlby
- Separation doesn’t always cause deprivation carried out assessments of affectionless psychopathy and the family
interviews himself – biased results, knowing what he hoped to find.
Critical period of 30 months – can’t be separated.
Counter-evidence not supporting Bowlby’s findings – Lewis replicated
If a child deprived of maternal care for too long during critical period they suffer mental 44 thieves study on larger scale (500). Early prolonged maternal
retardation and abnormally low IQ. Goldfarb found lower IQs in children from institutions separation didn’t predict criminality or difficulty forming relationships.
compared to foster.
Critical period is more of a sensitive period. Kolochovas case study of
Lack of emotional care may lead to affectionless psychopathy – can’t feel guilt or strong twins boys: isolated from 18 months 9locked in a cupboard). Later
emotions for others. Prevents development of normal relationships looked after and recovered fully. Positive outcomes

Animal studies demonstrated maternal deprivation. Long-term effects

Key study: Bowlby 44 thieves study – Levy et al: separating baby rats from their mother for as little as a
day had permanent effect on social development.
44 delinquent teenagers accused of stealing. Families interviewed to establish any prolonged
separations from mothers.

All thieves were interviewed for signs of affectionless psychopathy.

- 14 out of 44 thieves described as affectionless psychopathy. 12/14 experienced

prolonged separation in first two years.
- Only 5 out of remaining 30 experienced separation. Shows prolonged
separation/deprivation caused affectionless psychopathy.
 Romanian Orphan Studies

Effects of internalisation Evaluation

Disninhibited attachment – child equally friendly and affectionate towards strangers and
people they know well
Damage to intellectual development – institutionalised children show signs of mental
retardation

Key study: Rutter et al. English and Romanian Adoptee Study

165 Romanian orphans who experienced very poor conditions before being adopted. Romanian orphans have important practical application. Improvements
Longitudinal study (assessed at 4, 6, 11 and 15 years). in the way children are cared for (Langton). Avoid large number of
caregivers for each child. One or two key workers each. Prevents
Tests extent to which good care can make up for poor early experiences in institutions. Study disinhibited attachments.
followed a control group of 52 adopted British children
They have fewer confounding variables than other research. Many
- Half of orphans showed mental retardation when they came to UK. At age 11, studies before but children experienced loss or trauma before. Multiple
recovery rates related to age of adoption: factors. So Romanian studies have more internal validity.
- before 6 months – mean IQ of 107
- 6 months to 2 years – IQ of 86 Issues with generalisability. Particularly poor standards of care.
- after 2 years – IQ of 77 Conditions so bad, results may not apply to institutional care. Can’t
- Frequency of disinhibited attachment related to age of adoption generalise.
- apparent in children adopted after 6 months old: clinginess and indiscriminate
attachment to strangers Long-term effects of early experience are not yet clear. Adopted teens
- rare un children adopted before 6 months. only been followed into mid-teen. They could still ‘catch up. Vice-versa:
- Findings support that there’s a sensitive period: long-lasting effects are shown those with no issues now may experience emotional problems as
adults.

Zaenah et al. Bucharest Early Intervention Project

Researcher used SS to assess attachment in 95 children aged 12-31 months who spent most
time in institutional care.

Compared to a control group of 50 children who never experienced it.

- Only 19% of institutionalised group securely attached

- 65% classified with disorganised attachment
 Influence of early attachment on later attachment
Internal working model Evaluation

First attachment provides template for future relationships due to influence of internal
working model.

Good experience of attachment = good relationship expectations/assumptions

Bad experience of attachment = bad relationship expectations/assumptions and struggle to

Evidence on continuity of attachment is mixed – Zimmerman
form normal relationships
assessed infant attachment type and adolescent attachment to
parents. Little relationship. Doesn’t support internal working
Securely attached infants form best quality childhood relationships (Kerns) and less likely to
models.
be involved in bullying whereas insecure-avoidant children likely to be victims and insecure-
resistant likely to be bullies (Myron-Wilson and Smith)
Most studies have issues with validity. Most studies don’t use SS
but assess attachment using interviews or questionnaires. Relies
People base parenting style on their internal working model so attachment types likely to be
on respondents being honest and realistic view on relationship
passed on generations.
and accurate recall.
McCarthy (looked at attachment and romantic relationships and friendship) studied 40 adult
Studies indicate associations but not causation. Alternative
women who were assessed as infants.
explanations for continuity e.g. child’s temperament. Counter to
- Securely attached = best romantic relationships and adult friendships
Bowlby’s view
- Insecure-resistant = had problems maintaining friendships
- Insecure-avoidant = struggled with intimacy in relationships
Influence of infant attachment on future relationships is
exaggerated. Clarke and Clarke describe relationship as
Key study: Hazan and Shaver – Romantic relationships problematic. People are not ‘doomed’, they just have. A greater
risk of problems. Over-emphasising = pessimistic about peoples
Researcher analysed 620 replies to ‘love quiz’ in local newspaper. Assessed respondents future.
current and most important relationship, general love experiences and attachment type.

- 56% of respondents securely attached, 25% insecure-avoidant, 19% insecure-resistant

- Attachment type reflected in their romantic relationship:
- Secure respondent more likely to have good and longer-lasting romantic
relationship
- Avoidant respondents tended to be jealous and fear intimacy