#separator:tab
#html:true
define reciprocity&nbsp;Infant and mother respond to each others signals which causes a response&nbsp;<br>Two-way process/ turn taking&nbsp;
what did Brazelton et al say about reciprocity&nbsp;called it a dance as one partner responds to others moves
"define ""alert phases"""the signals babies give to show they're ready for interaction e.g. babbling or laughing
Feldman and Eidelman (2007)<ul><li>mothers respond to babies signals 2/3 of the time</li><li>+3 months old- interactions are increasingly frequent and involves both mother and babies close attention on each others verbal signs and facial expressions</li></ul>
"what is ""active involvement"""babies take active role in their development as they also initiate interaction and take turns to do so
"define ""Interactional Synchrony"""when caregiver and baby carry out the same behaviour simultaneously&nbsp;
Meltzoff and Moore (1977)<ul><li>observed interactional synchrony in babies from 2 weeks old&nbsp;</li><li>adult would display 1/3 facial expressions OR 1/3 distinctive gestures&nbsp;</li><li>Babies response was filmed and labelled by independent observers.</li><li>Babies mirrored adults more than predicted (significant association)</li></ul>
Isabella et al (1989)<ul><li>observed 30 mothers and babies and assessed degree of synchrony&nbsp;</li><li>assessed quality of mother-baby attachment&nbsp;</li><li>found high association between the two</li></ul>
evaluate caregiver-infant interactions&nbsp;+&nbsp; &nbsp;real life application - NHS use reciprocity and IS to help parents bond with baby (mirror baby actions)- increases external validity&nbsp;<br>+&nbsp; &nbsp;highly controlled- Meltzoff and Moore recorded observations- no behaviour missed/ babies too young to show demand characteristics so study has high internal validity/ inter-observer reliability b/c is a true reflection&nbsp;<br><br>-&nbsp; &nbsp;observations lack validity as baby movements aren't controlled so cant tell if they're unconscious or imitation so conclusions can't be made. CA: observers had no idea what behaviour was being imitated which decreases investigator bias<br><br>- socially sensitive- suggests primary caregiver should spend majority of time imitating baby to create a bond. Makes mothers feel guilty for going back to work etc so has neg impact of womens role in society&nbsp;
Asocial stage<ul><li>first weeks of life</li><li>recognising and forming bonds with carers&nbsp;</li><li>similar response to humans and objects</li><li>happier in presence of other humans&nbsp;</li></ul>
Indiscriminate stage<ul><li>2-7 months&nbsp;</li><li>display more observable social behaviour</li><li>prefer people over objects now&nbsp;</li><li>recognise familiar adults&nbsp;</li><li>accept comfort from any adult&nbsp;</li><li>no separation or stranger anxiety</li></ul>
Specific stage<ul><li>7-12 months</li><li>stranger and separation anxiety (from primary caregiver- 65% mother)</li><li>primary caregiver is whoever responds to babies 'signals' with most skill</li></ul>
Multiple attachments stage<ul><li>12 months+</li><li>extend first attachment to multiple attachments= secondary attachments</li><li>typically formed a month after first attachment made</li><li>By 1 yr old- majority of babies have more than one attachment</li></ul>
Shaffer and Emerson research method<ul><li>60 working class families from Glasgow&nbsp;</li><li>visited them every month until 12 months&nbsp;</li><li>Once more at 18 months&nbsp;</li><li>Interviewed mothers</li><li>observed babies for stranger/separation anxiety</li></ul>
Results of Shaffer and Emerson<ul><li>25-32 weeks old: 50% separation anxiety from mother= indiscriminate stage</li><li>40 weeks old: 80% specific attatchment and 30% multiple attachments</li></ul>
evalutate Shaffer and Emerson&nbsp;+&nbsp; high external validity- observations in families own home and did normal activities. Baby behaviour not biased by demand characteristics- so its representative which increases external validity. CA: mothers may have changed behaviour to be more socially desirable which decreases validity&nbsp;<br><br>- can't generalise- all 60 babies from one working class Glasgow so can't assume behaviour for different cultures. Study from 1960s so parenting styles may have changed so lack temporal validity&nbsp;<br><br>- Contradictory evidence- Carpenter showed that 2 week old babies could recognise mothers face and voice as they were distressed when they didnt match. Cernoch et al found breastfed babies prefer the scent of own mothers milk compared to strangers. Bad for Schaffer as he suggested infants shouldn't feel anxiety until 7 months old&nbsp;<br><br>- lacks temporal validity- racial and ethnic minority familes are significantly more likely to live in households w extended family so we cant generalise to wider population as it was conducted a long time ago so multiple attachments may happen sooner than they said
Carpenter (1975)<ul><li>two week old babies could recognise mothers face and voice&nbsp;</li><li>would be distressed if they didn't match</li></ul>
Cernoch et al (1977)<ul><li>breastfed babies prefer the scent of their mothers milk compared to a strangers</li></ul>
Outline Ainsworth's Strange situation<ul><li>observation on children and mothers</li><li>infants assessed on 8 pre-determined stages while playing in an unfamiliar room&nbsp;</li></ul><div>Observation&nbsp;</div><div><ul><li>100 middle class US infants</li><li>Controlled observation- through two way mirror- video recorded</li><li>9-18 months old&nbsp;</li><li>each 'situation' was 8 minutes&nbsp;</li><li>Observed their behaviour based on 4 behaviour categories&nbsp;</li><li>seperation anxiety/reunion behaviour/proximity seeking/ stranger anxiety</li></ul><div>Found children fit into 1/3 attachment types&nbsp;</div></div>
what were the 8 observations in Ainsworths study<ol><li>Introducing mother and child to room</li><li>child plays with toys</li><li>stranger enters</li><li>mother leaves</li><li>strager interacts</li><li>mother returns</li><li>child left alone</li><li>both stranger and mom returning</li></ol>
Define Reunion behaviour&nbsp;If the infant was happy to see their mother again and went closer to her
Define ExplorationIf the infant explored and came back to mother as a 'safe base' now and again
Define Stranger AnxietyIf the infant was distressed when a stranger was close
Define Seperation Anxiety&nbsp;If they were distreessed when their mother left the room
Outline Secure attachment behaviour in Ainsworth strange situation"<img src=""secure attachment .png"" width=""814"">"
Outline Insecure-avoidant behaviour in Ainsworths Strange Situations"<img src=""insecure-avoidant .png"" width=""814"">"
Outline Insecure-resistant behaviours in Ainsworths Strange Situations"<img src=""insecure-resistant .png"" width=""939"">"
two strengths of Strange Situations-real life application- attachment types are good predictors for future- secure= healthy relationships- insecure-resistant= bullying and mental health issues- can put interventions into place- more positive future- external validity<br><br>-good inter-rater reliablility- controlled observation= standardised procedures e.g. discussed and agreed behavioural categories- video recorded- rewatch- find similar results- confident about attachment type of each kid- high internal validity- CA: mother knew filmed- social desirability- wants to be good mother e.g. overly affectionate- findings for secure attachments may be exaggerated- low internal validity
One weakness of Ainsworths strange situations-ethnocentric- studies only Western cultures- US babies- dif cultures aren't same e.g. japanese babies more insecure-resistant b/c rarely away from mother- socially sensitive bc may shame other parents like japanese mothers- secure is seen as superior- wrong to judge culture with Western norms- low external validity
Outline Shaffer and Emerson (1964)- role of the father<ul><li>31% attach to father first</li><li>18 months old- 75% had attachment to father (protested when he left)</li></ul>
Outline Grossman et al (2002)<ul><li>dads have different role to mothers&nbsp;</li><li>mothers role is more important in teenage years- emotional development&nbsp;</li><li>fathers role is less important than mothers- play and stimulation</li></ul>
Define Internal Working Model&nbsp;Mental representation of our attachment to our primary caregiver. It acts as a template for future relationships
Outline a secure IWMLikely to have and expect secure attachments&nbsp;<div>Seek functional relationships: emotionally secure, trusting, confident&nbsp;</div>
Outline Myron-Wilson and Smith (1998)&nbsp;•Assessed attachment type and bullying behaviour<div>•questionnaires</div><div>•insecure-avoidant= bullied</div><div>•insecure-resistant= the bully&nbsp;</div><div>Shows attachments when young influence later relationships&nbsp;</div>
Outline Hazen and Shaver&nbsp;•’love quiz’- 620 volunteers&nbsp;<div>•assessed important relationships and experiences of love&nbsp;</div><div><br></div><div>Results&nbsp;</div><div>• 56% secure- loving/lasting relationships&nbsp;</div><div>• 25% avoidant- dislike intimacy&nbsp;</div><div>• 19% resistant- shorter relationships&nbsp;</div><div>Shows IWM in childhood affects adulthood&nbsp;</div>
Outline Baileys research&nbsp;• 99 mothers - 1 yr old babies<div>• quality of attachment to their own mother- interview&nbsp;</div><div>• attachment to baby through observation&nbsp;</div><div>• association between two attachments: insecure with mother meant insecure with baby&nbsp;</div><div>IWM affects parenting in adulthood&nbsp;</div>
One strength of attachment in later relationships&nbsp;+ McCarthy- women with secure attachments have healthy friendships and loving relationships - research to support&nbsp;
3 weaknesses of attachments on later relationships&nbsp;- &nbsp;research lacks validity- retrospective data from questionnaires years later- not accurate memory- skewed bc social desirability- lacks internal validity- doesn’t explain early attachments&nbsp;<div><br></div><div>- &nbsp;deterministic- research suggests only one outcome- insecure= doomed, bad relationships- h/e go on to have healthy attachments- effects of IWM reversible-sensitive parenting- given free will to change behaviour and reflect- researchers overestimated impact of IWM&nbsp;</div><div><br></div><div>- &nbsp;contradictory research- longitudinal study followed 43 individuals from 1-16 yrs old- no evidence of continuity- not clear to what extent quality of early attachments predict relationships - other important factors affect later relationships- parenting styles/personality&nbsp;</div>
&nbsp;Outline the existance of disorganised attachments<ul><li>Van Ijzendoorn's meta-analysis&nbsp;</li><li>mix of resistant and avoidant attachments&nbsp;</li><li>due to neglect and abuse&nbsp;</li><li>15% had disorgansied attachment types which Ainsworth disregarded</li></ul><br>
Outline Takashi<ul><li>investigates attachments of 60 infants from middle class Japan using Strange Situations&nbsp;</li><li>Similar rates of secure attachment&nbsp;</li><li>High rates of insecure resistant (32%)</li><li>due to different child rearing practices&nbsp;</li><li>Japanese mothers rarely seperate from children, making them more distressed when separated</li><li>suggests Strange Situation can't be universally applied to other cultures&nbsp;</li></ul>
What's the critical period for geese&nbsp;32 hours