Attachment

• Attachment - Reciprocity definition?

  According to Feldman (2007) reciprocity can be seen from 3 months
• Meltzoff and Moore (1997) babies from as young as (12-27 days) would attempt to imitate facial expressions and gestures
• Interactional Synchronicity?


  Parents speech and behaviours and Infants speech and behaviours becomes so linked in that they become responses to each other. Feldman suggested that interactional synchronicity was crucial to developement
• Brazelton et al (1975)?

  identified trends in mother infant interactional synchrony. videotapes 12 mother infant baby pairs, examined for up to 5 months. 3 phases of play: 1.Attention and build up. 2.recovery 3. Turning away.
• Brazelton et al (1975) Findings?


  3 phases repeated at regular intervals- concluded that 3 phases of play demonstrates early signs of organised behaviours
• Isabella and Betsky (1991)?


  Hypothesised that caregiver baby-pairs developed more secure attachments, displayed more synchronous behaviour than insecure.
• Isabella and Betsky (1991) Findings?


  3 and 9 months- engaged in well time reciprocity. INSECURE: interactions minimally involved and unresponsive. AVOIDANT: Maternal intrusiveness and overstimulation.
• Shaffer & Emerson et al (1964)?


  studied 60 Glasgow birthday over 18 months in monthly intervals (Longitudinal study), children studied in their homes
• Schaffer and Emerson: Findings?


  attachment more likely to form when caregiver is sensitive to baby signals, not caregiver who spends the most time.
• Asocial stage?


  (0-6 weeks) similar responses to attachments between objects and people
• INDISCRIMINATE STAGE?


  (6 weeks - 6 months) preference for human company can distinguish faces but is comforted indiscriminately.
• SPECIFIC?


  (7 months)- infants show preference for caregiver displaying separation and stranger anxiety. Babies look for security and protection.
• MULTIPLE?


  (10/11 months +)- attachment behaviour displayed towards several people e.g., siblings and grandparents
• BOWBLY (1988)?


  Suggests that attachment to father is due to how their fathers treated them. Bowlby argues that most families, fathers more likely to engage in play which develops child social interactions.
• SCHAFFER AND EMERSON?


  additional attachment developed in proceeding months following the 4th stage. 31% of infants displayed 5 or more attachments by 18 months
• GROSSMANS (2002)?


  longitudinal study, 44 families comparing the role of the father and mothers in child's attachment (6, 10 and 16 yrs). when father engaged with child's play more secure attachment style
• FIELD (1978)?


  Compared behaviours of primary caretaker mother and secondary caretaker father. analysed face to face interactions of 4 month old infants.
• FIELD FINDINGS?

  Findings: secondary caretaker fathers engaged in more game playing and held infant less. primary caretaker fathers engages in smiling and imitative vocalization- more comparable to mothers beaviours
• BROWN ET AL (2012) & FINDINGS?

  Childs attachments at 13 months and 3 yrs. movements and sensitivity influenced father child attachment. involvement a greater predictor of secure attachment, fathers rated as less sensitive.
• Bowlby theory?

  aka attachment theory suggests that human behaviours & phenoma determined through natural selection.
• Bowlby (1969)?

  suggests that attachment is vital adaptive that evolved to increase chance of survival through proximity seeking behaviour. babes in early development highly dependent on parents. attachment innate to children & parents.
• Social releasers?

  actions that promote interactions, eg. smiling and eye contact
• MONOTROPIC BOND?


  Special bond that develops the internal working model (IWM) and emotional maturity. maintains parent-child proximity allows infants to develop skills and understanding of how to bond with others.
• Critical period?


  2.5yrs: if child doesn't form attachment then attachment will not happen 5 yrs: sensitive period attachment can still happen just harder
• IWM?


  Template for future attachments allows people to predict, control and manipulate environment, plays a role in later development
• Bowlby's theory Evaluation (Strengths)?


  UNIVERSAL: Ainsworth observed Ganda tribe in Uganda, infants form 1 primary attachment when reared by multiple careers
• Bowlby's theory Evaluation (Strengths)?

  Fox (1977) observed infants appeared to still form 1 monotropic bond with their mothers despite not seeing them for a extended period of time. (Israel- despite cultural variations in child-rearing practices- supports Bowlby's who claimed monotropy was a necessity)
• Bowlby's theory Evaluation (Weaknesses)?

  Thomas (1988) questions the benefits of montropy suggest it may be more benefical having a network of attachment to support infant needs
• Bowlby's theory Evaluation (Weaknesses)?

  Parke (1981) found qualitatively different relationships provide different benefits. Van Ijzerdoorn & Tavecchio (1987)argue that stable network of attachment better than one singular attachment.
• AINSWORTH STRANGE SITUATION?


  1970 used structural observations research to asses and measure the quality of attachment.
• STRANGE SITUATION METHOD?


  1-mother &child leave playroom 2-Child encouraged to explore 3-stranger enters and attempts to interact 4-mother leaves while stranger present 5-mother enters and stranger leaves 6-mother leaves 7-stranger returns 8-mother returns and interacts with child
• AINSWORTH & BELL (1970)?

  used 4 criteria (separation/stranger anxiety/ reunion behaviour/willingness to explore) children observed via a one way mirror
• AINSWORTH & BELL FINDINGS?

  70% secure 15% avoidant 15%resistant. most US children are securely attached results highlight the role of the mother behaviour in childrens attachment style. led to caregiver hypothesis therapy
• AINSWORTH & BELL Evaluation (Strengths)?

  REPLICABLE- highly operationalised- observers had a clear view of how secure attached infants should behave. 4 specific criteria, researcher high inter observer reliability & highly replicable
• AINSWORTH & BELL Evaluation (Strengths)?

  RELIABILITY OF CLASSIFICATION- Waters (1978) assessed 50 infants at 12 & 18 months using the SS, Waters found clear evidence for stable individual differences using Ainsworth behaviour categories, greatest consistency in reunion behaviour. 48/50 observed were independently rated in same category for 18 months.
• AINSWORTH & BELL Evaluation (Weaknesses)?

  LOW POPULATION VALIDITY- 100 middle class American infants
• AINSWORTH & BELL Evaluation (Weaknesses)?

  CATEGORIES- not always applicable, further classification group (disorganised) identified by Main and Cassidy (1988) suggest infants don't fit into 3 categories
• AINSWORTH & BELL Evaluation (Weaknesses)?

  CULTURALLY BIASED- SS designed by American according to US children observation criteria. US standards e.g., Japanese infants more resistance due to independence.
• CULTURAL VARIATION?

  Cross-cultural studies use the SS: Van Ijzerdoorn & Kroonenberg in 1988. uses meta analysis 8 countries: Holland China UK USA Japan, Sweden Germany & Israel. examined 32 studies
• Van Ijzerdoorn & Kroonenberg (1988)?


  aided by standardised methodology use of SS as a procedure means a comparison made across cultures and reliability is high.