ALL

• Reciprocity

  a description of how two people interact. In the case of caregiver-infant interactions, interactions are reciprocal in that both infant and caregiver respond to each other's signals and elicits a response from the other.
• Interactional synchrony


  Caregiver and infant reflect the actions and emotions of the other and do this in a coordinated way.
• Name Shaffer's 4 stages of attachment.

  The asocial stage, indiscriminate attachment, specific attachment and multiple attachment.
• The asocial stage. (What happens?)


  The baby is recognising and forming bonds with their carers. However, the baby's behaviour towards non-human objects and people is similar. They show some preference to familiar adults in that those people find it easier to calm them and babies tend to be happier in the presence of humans.
• Indiscriminate attachment. What happens and when is it?

  Happens at around 2-7 months, where babies display more observable behaviour. They accept contact and cuddles from any adult and don't tend to show stranger or separation anxiety.
• From about 7 months is the specific attachment stage. What happens?

  The majority of babies start to display stranger and separation anxiety. They tend to show separation anxiety from one particular adult, whom would now be called the attachment figure. They're not necessarily the one who spends the most time with the child, but the one who offers the most interaction and responds to the baby's 'signals' with the most skill.
• Shortly after the specific attachment stage, the multiple attachment stage begins. What happens?

  Babies start to form multiple attachments, called secondary attachments.
• Why don't fathers generally become primary attachments?

  Traditional gender roles expect females to be more caring and nurturing than males and fathers feel that they shouldn't act like that. Alternatively, female hormones create higher nurturing levels and therefore females may be biologically pre-disposed to be the primary attachment figure.
• An alternative explanation to the learning theory as an explanation of attachment would be one based one social learning theory. Now do the rest. Why?


  This is because social learning theory is based on the idea that social behaviour is acquired largely because of modelling and imitating behaviour. Hay and Vespo (1988) suggest that parents teach children to love them by modelling attachment behaviour, like hugging them and other family members, and instructing them and rewarding them when they display attachment behaviour. For example, one may say 'that's a lovely hug'. This is therefore a more valid explanation for attachment as it's a more plausible explanation and evidence has discredited earlier learning theory explanations and the idea of cupboard love.
• One example of cultural variations in attachment is van IJzendoorn and Kroonenberg's (1988) meta-analysis of 32 studies that were conducted in 8 different countries (15 were in the USA) where the Strange Situation was used to investigate the proportions of infants with different attachment types. van IJzendoorn and Kroonberg looked at the differences within the same countries to glean an idea of variations within a culture. What were the results?


  The 32 studies yielded results for 1,990 children. The meta-analysis of these studies revealed a wide variation between proportions of attachment types in different studies. Secure attachment was the most common classification in all countries, though the proportion varied from 75% in Britain to 50% in China. Insecure-resistant was the least common attachment type (ranging from 3% in Britain and 30% in Israel). Germany had the percentage for highest Insecure-avoidant while Japan had the lowest. The variations between results of studies within the same country were 150% greater than those between countries.
• Another example of a study into cultural variations in attachment is Simonella et al (2014), which was conducted in Italy to see whether the proportions of babies of different attachment types still matches those in previous studies. 76 12-month olds were assessed via the Strange Situation. What were the results?

  50% were secure and 36% were insecure-avoidant. This is a lower rate of secure attachment than found in previous studies. Simonella et al (2014) suggested that this is due to biologically female parents of very young children were increasingly working long hours and use professional care. This suggests that cultural changes can make a dramatic difference to patterns of secure and insecure attachment.
• Bowlby's procedure for the 44 thieves study.

  44 criminal teens accused of stealing interviewed for signs of affectionless psychopathy, characterised as a lack of guilt for their actions and lack of empathy for their victims. Their families were also interviewed to establish whether the 'thieves' had prolonged separation from their mothers. A control group of non-criminals but emotionally disturbed young people was set up to see how often maternal separation/deprivation happened in those who weren't thieves.
• Bowlby's results for the 44 thieves study.


  14/44 were affectionless psychopaths. Of this 14, 12 experienced prolonged separation from their mothers in the first two years of their lives. 5 of the remaining 30 'thieves' had experienced long separations. Of the control group, 2/44 had experienced long separations. Conclusion: prolonged early separation/deprivation caused affectionless psychopathy.