Caregiver-infant interactions in humans

    Cards (45)

    • Reciprocity
      caregiver infant interaction is a two-way mutual process with mutual responsiveness. To sustain interaction, they each communicate signals which are little responses in the other. For example, and a mother smiles, and a baby smiles back.
    • interactional synchrony

      Caregiver interactions are synchronised so that their responses reflect each other. They respond in time to sustain communication. This can mean mirroring the action, imitation, or responding in a coordinated way. For example, a toddler talks and a caregiver listens.
    • Maccoby (1980) 4 key behaviours to show attachment 

      • seeking proximity by child and primary attachment figure, the infant will try to stay close to the attachment figure/caregiver
      • Distress on separation (separation anxiety) both caregiver and infant will experience and demonstrate signs of distress when separated
      • pleasure when reunited there will be obvious signs of pleasure from the child and caregiver upon being reunited
      • General orientation of behaviour towards primary attachment figure infant and caregiver will direct attention to each other and try to engage each other in activities and interaction. For example, they may engage in mutual gazing.
    • Strength of reciprocity-research evidence to support

      there is research evidence to support the importance of the concept of reciprocity in developing attachments in caregivers and infants from Tronick et al’s (1975) still face experiment. His findings demonstrated that after three minutes of interaction with a non-responsive expressionless mother (showing still face) the infant “rapidly sobers and grows wary making repeated attempts to get the interaction into his usual reciprocity pattern when is attempts failed the info with drawers and orients their body and face away from their mother with a with drawl hopeless facial expression“. This supports the idea that reciprocity is an important caregiver infant interaction that seems to be key in encouraging, healthy development of attachments and emotional stability between the caregiver and infant in the future.
    • What is the main focus of interactional synchrony research?
      Developing attachments in caregivers and infants
    • Who conducted research on interactional synchrony in 1997?
      Meltzoff and More
    • What gestures were babies shown to investigate imitation abilities?
      Facial and manual gestures
    • What age range of infants was studied for imitation abilities?
      12 to 21 days old
    • What did the results of the study suggest about infants and caregivers?
      They are biologically programmed to engage
    • What is the purpose of engaging in interactional synchrony?
      To aid the development of bonds
    • What criticism did Isabella et al (1989) find regarding interactional synchrony?
      Securely attached infants show more synchrony
    • What does Isabella et al's finding suggest about individual differences?
      They may mediate interactional synchrony
    • What might have been overlooked in the original findings of interactional synchrony research?
      Individual differences among children
    • Strength of interactional synchrony – research evidence to support
      Research evidence to support the importance of interactional synchrony in developing attachments and caregivers in infants by meltzoff and Moore (1997). Babies were shown facial gestures and manual gestures in order to investigate their abilities to imitate they found babies age 12 to 21 days old could imitate both facial and hand gestures suggesting the infants could be biologically programmed to engage with these behaviours. This is to aid the development of bonds with caregivers and ensure their care and safety.
    • Counterpoint to meltzoff and moore 1997

      Isabella et al 1989) found that the more securely attached the infant was, the greater the level of interactional synchrony occurred. This suggests that not all children engage in interactional synchrony, and that he’s original findings may have overlooked individual differences which could be a mediating factor.
    • Weakness of research into caregiver infant interactions-focuses too much on the mother
      research into caregiver infant interactions focus too much on the mother as a caregiver and not have a father and infant relationship differs from a mother and into relationship in terms of the infant social and emotional development. Field (1978) conducted research to compare the behaviour of mothers as primary caregivers fathers as primary caregivers and father is a secondary care givers he found father to a primary caregivers should interaction such a smiling and touching the same as the female counterparts before that he was secondary caregiver is spent less time on this however they were more engaged in play the study found that parental behaviour not gender is more important when building an attachment with the infant fathers can also behave in a caring manner towards the infant similar to how Mother’s do.
    • Weakness of research studies on interactions with caregivers and infants – problems of objectivity
      One of the issues with carrying out research studies on interactions with caregivers and infants is the problems of objectivity within the observations recording observations of infants and their caregivers could be open to bias because influence movements can be due to various reasons and not just reciprocity and interactional synchrony with adults, but the researchers have to subjectively interpret the meanings of these interactions. It is therefore not easy to determine which are intentional or accidental behaviours which can lead to inconsistency in interpreting behaviour. Suggesting results are not reliable. however, using more than one observer to increase into observer, reliability is commonly used in observational research, and it involves comparing the results found and analysed by multiple trained people.
    • Schaffer and Emerson (1964) research study overview
      A longitudinals study was completed in Scotland that followed the development of attachments in 60 infants using naturalistic observations. The infants were observed every four weeks for up to 1 year, and then observed once more at 18 months.
    • Schaffer and Emerson, research study measurements
      attachment was measured by assessing:
      • levels of separation protest (how the infants reacted to being separated from attachment figures). This was measured by asking mothers to describe the intensity of any protest when an infant was left in seven every day situations (e.g. being left alone in a room with other people), which was then rated on a four point scale.
      • levels of stranger anxiety (how infants reacted to strangers) this was measured by assessing infants responses to strangers, which was then rated by the mothers on a four point scale with intensity of protest and who this was directed at.
    • Schaffer and Emerson‘s, 1964 study-results
      • Half, the children showed their first specific attachment between 6 to 8 months and this tended to be the mother. Half, the children showed the first specific attachment between 6 to 8 months and this tended to be the mother. Fear of strangers began about a month later in all children.
      • At around seven months 29% of children had already formed several attachments simultaneously with 10%, having five attachment figures by 10 months 50% had more than one attachment and by 18 months it was 87%.
      • however, following the formation of the main attachment, they also noted that most children had subsequent attachments (87%), although these are not a strong.
      • 39% of the infants had a primary attachment with someone other than the person who usually fed and bathed them (main carer)
    • Schaffer and Emerson study conclusions
      • attachments develop within time, perhaps positively correlated with age
      • fate of strangers appears just after we have formulated attachments to caregivers.
      • Most children have multiple attachments.
    • Schaffers stages of attachment
      on the basis of Schaffer and Emerson‘s research study and its findings, they developed a stage theory of the development of attachments. This included four stages.
    • The first stage of attachment-asocial stage/preattachment
      occurring at 0-5 weeks, the infant produces similar responses to objects and people for example, smiling and laughing. They showed no preference for specific people, but towards the end of the stage is your preference for social stimuli e.g. a smiling face
    • The second stage of attachment-indiscriminate attachment stage
      occurring at 2-7 months, babies become more sociable can tell people apart and prefer to be in human company. They can distinguish between familiar and unfamiliar people, but I still relatively easily comforted by anyone. Infants in the state do not show stranger anxiety.
    • The third stage of attachment-discriminate/specific attachment stage
      occurring at 7-11 months infants begin to show separation, anxiety and strange anxiety. They have a strong attachment and preference to one individual (normally the PAF) however, good subsequent attachments are often made from nine months.
    • The fourth stage of attachment-multiple attachments
      occurring at 11+ months the baby now makes several attachments to important people in their life, such as grandparents or siblings. Infants also display separation anxiety in the secondary attachments
    • A strength of this stage theory – developed from results of a research study
      appositive of the sage theory is that it was developed from results of a research study, conducted by Schaffer and Emerson (1964) on the development of attachments. They found that most of the 60 infants in the study form to specific attachments between 6-8 months. This supports their ‘ specific attachment phase’. they also found that 87% of the infants showed multiple attachments. Hence this supports the existence of the multiple attachment stage which implies that the evidence provides credibility for the existence of the stages of attachment claims by Schaffer and Emerson.
    • Weakness of the state theory-methodological problems
      methodological problems with Schaffer and Emerson‘s research study, which is a problem for their claim about stages of attachment. For example, the study included 60 participants who were all from the same area and all from the same skilled working-class families in Glasgow in the 1960s making it hard to generalise the results to all attachments outside of this one group. Therefore the results may not apply to other social groups. Additionally, the study was carried out over 60 years ago and the historical context of parental care has changed since then more women are going out to work with children cared for outside of the home and the number of fathers who choose to stay at home has quadrupled over the past 25 years. This suggests there is also low temporal validity as we cannot be sure, these results are true in today’s society
    • strength of the stages of attachment – practical applications
      There are practical applications from learning about the stages of attachment, as the stage theory can be used to help families that may not follow the patterns of healthy attachment identified by Schaffer and Emerson. This could help in the early identification of abnormal or unusual development of attachments in infancy and early recognition could potentially lead to early intervention such as encouraging parents/child support services. Do you notice any concerns and encourage access to NHS child-support services such as parents in classes or courses to support their childs healthy development. this suggests studying the stages of attachments are benefiting children and families as it helps to encourage healthy attachment relationships by providing interventions that will promote positive parent-child relationships developing
    • Weakness of the stages theory-culturally specific
      The stage theory may be culturally specific. Stage theory is based on research in an Individualistic culture, where immediate family set ups are the norm for caregiving attachment. in collectivist cultures, attachments differ as group care is more common and so may not reflect the stages. This suggests that this theory does not describe attachment in a universal way. Therefore we must be careful not to impose Western individualistic ideals on attachment and its development onto other cultures. It implies there was only one acceptable way to identify how attachments develop, suggesting this theory does describe attachment in a universal way. We must be careful not to impose western individualistic ideals on attachment onto other cultures. It implies there is only one way to identify how attachments develop which could be a biased view
    • multiple attachments
      Schaffer and Emerson’s research found the infamous for multiple attachments around 10-11 months, and by the age of 18 months, only 30% of infants had a single attachment. In fact, at this age, 31% of infants have five or more attachments to grandparents/siblings and significant others. The most common second attachment formed was the father. This was the case and 27% of the initial sample and 18 months 75% funding attachment with their father. This suggests that infants are capable of forming multiple attachments if the opportunity arises, however, the extent to which these attachments are equal is disputed
    • Role of the father
      traditionally fathers have been seen as playing a minor or limited role in the parenting of the children in previous generations. Schaffer and emerson’s 1964 study found that infants tend to become more attached to the mother first, and then form attachments With other figures, such as the father later, on usually by the age of 18 months in modern times, this is all changed. Mothers are far more likely to work (71.2%, working mothers in 2020, according to the office for National statistics) and stay at home fathers are on the increase with males compromising nearly 10% of those who care for their children lost. Their partner goes out to work 9% of single parents in the UK are male. All of the statistics demonstrate that fathers now have a significantly larger role in parenting than they did in the past, so it is important. We re-examine the role of the father in attachment.
    • aspects to consider regarding the role of the father
      it is possible that there are mediating factors that relate to the type of attachment of father has with his children. These can include interaction (how much the father engages with the child) accessibility (how physically and emotionally accessible he is) and responsibility (the extent to which he takes on caretaking tasks).
    • Grossman (2002) 

      Conducted a longitudinal study of 44 families comparing the role of fathers and mothers and their contribution to the children’s attachment experiences at six, 10 and 16 years. They found the quality of mother-child attachment was important when assessing the quality of attachment into adolescence, but this was not the case for the child attachment indicating the role of the father is less important to the quality of the father and child relationship was not considered necessary for the quality of the child’s long-term attachment. However, it was also found that the quality of fathers play was related to the quality of attachment, suggesting the fourth as well. Maybe more of a stimulatory one
    • Field (2008)
      Conducted research which compares the behaviours of primary caretaker, mothers and primary and secondary caretaker fathers face-to-face interactions were analysed from video footage with infants. At four months of age they found a father to a primary attachment figure is active and very similar ways to mother to a primary attachment figure is towards the children sharing more smiling imitative, vocalisations and grimaces than secondary caretaker fathers. This address the fathers able if required to take on the more caring nurturing role which is usually associated with the mother.
    • Brown et al (2012)
      Investigated further involvement, paternal, sensitivity and father and child attachment security at 13 months and three years of age results demonstrated that involvement and sensitivity, influenced father-child attachment security, H3 they concluded that the gender of the caregiver it’s not crucial in predicting attachment types/quality, but rather it is the extent of caregiver involvement.
    • MacCallum and Golombok (2004)
      found the children going up in single parent or same-sex families do not develop any differently from low to grow up in more conventional family is suggesting that the role of the father is not significant in attachment
    • Role of the father-sensitivity
      Hrdy (1997) investigated the sensitivity of fathers. Father is a less able than mothers to detect low levels of infant distress which suggests males are less suitable as primary caregivers. The above findings support the importance of sensitivity and indicate the differences in males and females in responsiveness may be down to differences and time spent with their children, not biological differences.
    • counterpoint to HRDY 1997 study
      however, Lamb 1987, found the father to become the primary caregivers quickly develop more sensitivity to children’s needs, which suggests that sensitive responsiveness isn’t a biological ability limited to women
    • Role of the father-Biological differences
      Frodo et al (1978), found evidence to challenge the view that mothers have a greater psychological response to in front of distress. They should videotapes of infants, crying and found no differences in the psychological responses of men and women suggesting that biological factors may not explain the gender differences in attachment relationships between parents and infants, the above findings challenges of you that fathers have less of a biological motivation to attach to their offspring