Caregiver-infant interactions

• Caregiver-infant interaction

  Attachment is an emotional tie or bond between 2 people, usually a primary caregiver and a child. Relationship is reciprocal (shared), which means that it is a two way relationship that endures over time
• Reciprocity: when infant responds to actions of another person in form of turn-taking. Breton et al. (1975) describe this interaction as a ‘dance’.
• International synchrony: infant mirror action or emotion of another person, e.g. facial expressions. The two are said to be synchronized.
• Meltzoff and Moore (1977) Study:

  aim: examine interactional synchrony in infants
• Meltzoff and Moore (1977) Study:

  Method: Using controlled observation, an adult model displayed one of three facial expressions, or hand gesture. To start with, child has dummy placed in his/her mouth to prevent facial response. Following display from adult model, dummy was removed and child’s expressions were filmed
• Meltzoff and Moore (1977) Study:

  Results: Clear association between infants’ behaviour and that of adult model. Later research by Meltzoff and Moore (1983) found the same findings in 3 day old infants.
• Meltzoff and Moore (1977) Study:

  Conclusion: Findings suggest that international synchrony is innate and reduces strength of any claims that imitative behaviour is learned
• Evaluation of Caregiver-infant interactions:

  Questionable reliability of testing children. Because infants move their mouths and wave their arms constantly, which is an issue for researchers investigating intentional behaviour. We can’t be certain that infants were actually engaging in interactions synchrony / reciprocity, as some behaviour may have occurred by chance
• Evaluation of caregiver-infant interaction:

  Methodological problems with studying interactional synchrony using observational methods. Possibility of observer bias where researchers consciously / unconsciously interpret behaviour to support their findings. Address problem, more than one observer should be used to examine inter-observer reliability of observations. Recent research by Koepke et al (1983) failed to replicate findings of meltzoff and moore. Lack of research suggest meltzoff and moore are unreliable
• Evaluation of caregiver-infant interaction: Criticism of Meltzoff and Moore‘s research is that recent research has found that only securely attached infants engage in international synchrony. Isabella et al (1989) found that more securely attached infant, greater level of interactions synchrony. Suggesting that not all children engage in interactional synchrony and findings may have overlooked individual differences
• Schaffer and Emerson (1964) study:

  aim: examine formation of early attachment
• Schaffer and Emerson (1964) study:

  Method: Their sample consisted of 60 babies from working class families in Glasgow aged between 5-24 weeks. Researcher visited babies in their homes, every month for first 12 months and then once again at 18 month. Interviewed mothers and observed children in relation to separation and stranger anxiety in range of everyday activities
• Schaffer and Emerson (1964) study

  results: provided some support for different stages of developing an attachment. At around 25-32 weeks, 50% of children showed separation anxiety towards their mothers, expected of discriminate attachment stage. Furthermore, by 40 weeks, 80% of children had specific attachment and 30% had started to form multiple attachment
• Schaffer and Emerson (1964) study:

  Conclusion: Results provide some support for Schaffer‘s stages of attachment and suggest that attachment develop through series of stages across first year of life
• Evaluation of Schaffer and Emerson (1964) study:

  One strength is that it has high external validity. Schaffer and Emerson conducted observations in each childs own horn which means that children and parents were more likely to act naturally. Therefore, study has good external validity as results are likely to apply to other children from similar demographic in their own homes
• Evaluation of Schaffer and Emerson (1964) study:

  Lacks population validity. Sample consisted of only 60 working class mothers and babies from Glasgow, who may form very different attachments with their infants when compared with wealthier families from other countries. Therefore, we are unable to generalise results of study to mothers and babies from other countries and backgrounds as their behaviour might not be comparable
• Evaluation of Schaffer and Emerson (1964) study:

  Possibility of social desirability bias. Schaffer and Emerson interviewed mothers about their children and some of them may not have reported accurate details about their children, to appear like ‘better’ mothers with secure attachments. This could cause bias in data that would reduce internal validity of findings since natural behaviour will not have been recorded about this stages of attachment
• Evaluation of Role of the Father:

  Geiger (1996) found that a fathers‘ play interaction were more exciting in comparison to a mothers’. However, mothers’ play interactions were more affectionate and nurturing, suggesting role of father is playmate and not a sensitive parent who responds to needs of child
• Evaluation of role of father:

  Hrdy (1999) Found fathers were less able to detect low levels of infant distress, in comparison to mothers. These results appear to support biological explanation that the lack of oestrogen in men means that fathers arent equipped innately to form close attachments with child. Suggesting to some extent, role of father is biologically determined and that a father’s role is restricted because of their makeup.
• Evaluation of role of father:

  Belsky et al (2009) found that males who reported higher levels of marital intimacy also displayed a secure father-infant attachment, whereas males with lower levels of marital intimacy displayed a insecure father-infant attachments. Suggests that males can form secure attachments with their children but strength of attachment depends on father and mother relationship