Downloaded 11 times
More Related Content
Similar to Attachment development
Attachment development
- 1. Caregiver-infant interactions ◦ Whotested the correlation between physical contact and attachment? ◦ What is reciprocity? (TT) ◦ One factor of infant-caregiver attachment is “I____________ S____________” ◦ What did Meltzoff and Moore find?
- 2. Homework… What we’ve lookedat so far… ◦ Physical Contact ◦ Reciprocity ◦ Interactional Synchrony ◦ Evaluate these theories/research using PEE’s for each point made… ◦ Intentional Behaviour ◦ Ethics and infants ◦ Failure to replicate ◦ Individual differences
- 3. Intentional Behaviour ◦P – People have argued that the infants do not imitate facial expressions as an intentional effort to encourage social attachments ◦ E – However, research has found that infants will not imitate the same facial expressions used in Meltzoff and Moore’s study when they are simulated by inanimate objects ◦ E – This suggests that interactional synchrony and imitation is used by infants as a social response to aid attachment building and therefore is intentional .
- 4. Failure toReplicate ◦ P - Despite findings demonstrating new born imitation, Meltzoff and Moore’s study has been criticised as being unreliable due to replications not finding the same results ◦ E - Koepke (1983) carried out the same experiment as Meltzoff and Moore and failed to identify any evidence of new born imitation ◦ E - The lack of replicability questions the original findings’ reliability which may have been vulnerable to experimental bias.
- 5. Individual Differences ◦P – There may be individual differences in the level of reciprocity and interactional synchrony seen in infants and care givers ◦ E – Isabelle (1989) found that more strongly attached infants are likely to demonstrate greater levels of interactional synchrony ◦ E – Therefore these behaviours will differ dependent on strength of attachment
- 6. Ethics &Infants ◦ P - Experimenting infant-caregiver interactions can be difficult to pass through Ethical Guidelines. ◦ E - Observation techniques used may breach Informed Consent guidelines, especially if they are naturalistic, covert observation methods ◦ E - Researchers can also not guarantee protection from harm as the discovery of an insecure attachment with one’s infant may be psychologically distressing for the care giver in question.
- 7. Observational Research ◦ Observingparticipant(s) behaviour… ◦ Naturalistic vs. Controlled Observations ◦ Naturalistic = nothing has been manipulated by experimenter ◦ Controlled = researcher regulates aspects of environment ◦ Overt vs. Covert Observations
- 8. Observational Research ◦ High Ecological Validity (natural observations) ◦ Practical Method for things you can’t test (i.e. aggression in football hooligans) ◦ No demand characteristics (covert observations)
- 9. Observational Research ◦ Researchersuse either event-sampling or time-sampling to collect data ◦ Event sampling = ‘how often did the infant stick out it’s tongue’ ◦ Time Sampling = ‘Record behaviour at every 20 seconds’
- 10. Tronick’s Still FaceExperiment ◦ Tronick wanted to observe caregiver-infant interactions ◦ He wanted to see what would happen if interactional synchrony and reciprocity were lost ◦ Mothers were instructed to interact normally with the infant and then stop responding and show a ‘still face’ ◦ The baby’s response was observed and recorded
- 12. In pairs… ◦Produce anobservational schedule using event sampling ◦You will be observing the response of an infant to the still face experiment
- 15. Inter-Observer Reliability ◦ Ifboth yours and your partner’s score sheets are the same you have ‘High inter- observer reliability’ ◦ If there are differences you have ‘low inter-observer reliability’ ◦ If it’s low, your research can be criticized as unreliable
- 16. How to Overcome LowInter-Observer Reliability ◦ Train your Observers ◦ Use more observers ◦ Use objective observation schedules ◦ How reliable was meltzoff and moore’s inter-observer data? (pg. 70)
- 17. Disadvantages of Observations ◦Possibly low inter-observer reliability? ◦ Cause and Effect cannot be inferred ◦ Ethics? ◦ Observer Bias
- 18. DEVELOPMENT OF ATTACHMENTS Shaffer andEmerson’s Stage theory of Attachment Development
- 19. How/when do wemake these attachments? ◦ ‘Stage theory’ of attachment ◦ Schaffer & Emerson (1964) devised 4 stages of attachment development ◦ They conducted a study to create their stage theory
- 20. Schaffer & Emerson(1964) ◦ Conducted a Longitudinal Study ◦ Followed 60 infants from a mainly working-class area of Glasgow ◦ Observed parent-infant interactions and ‘Stranger Anxiety’ every month until they were 18m ◦ Asked parents to report ‘Separation Anxiety’ each month
- 21. Schaffer & Emerson(1964) ◦ Parent Reports on Separation Anxiety in 7 everyday scenarios; ◦ Left alone in a room ◦ Left with other people ◦ Left in their pram outside the house ◦ Left in their pram outside the shops ◦ Left in their cot at night ◦ Put down after being held ◦ Passed by while sitting on their cot/chair
- 22. Schaffer & Emerson(1964) ◦ Results: ◦ Half the children showed their 1st specific attachment between 6-8m ◦ By 10m 50% had more than one attachment ◦ 65% had the mother as primary attachment ◦ 39% of the infants had a primary attachment with someone other than the person who usually fed, bathed and changed them
- 23. S&E’s 4 stagesof attachment 1. ‘Indiscriminate Attachments’ * Approx. 2 months * Babies respond equally to all caregivers * Begin to show greater preference for ‘Social Stimuli’
- 24. S&E’s 4 stagesof attachment 2. ‘Preference’ * Approx. 4 months * Prefer human company * Can distinguish between unfamiliar & familiar people
- 25. S&E’s 4 stagesof attachment 3. ‘Discriminate’ * Approx. 7 months * Specific attachment with PCG * Experience ‘Separation Anxiety’ * Experience ‘Stranger Anxiety’
- 26. S&E’s 4 stagesof attachment 4. ‘Multiple Attachments’ * Approx. 10 months * Baby becomes increasingly independent * Forms several attachments
- 27. S&E’s 4 stagesof Attachment ◦ Indiscriminate ◦ Preference ◦ Discriminate ◦ Multiple
- 28. Evaluation of Schaffer& Emerson’s Stage Theory of Attachment ◦ Unreliable/Invalid Data? ◦ Data based on reports from mothers, likely to have been skewed ◦ Vulnerable to ‘Social Desirability’
- 29. Reliability vs. Validity ◦Reliability = Test – Retest ◦ Validity = Accuracy ◦ External Validity ◦ Does it apply to real life? ◦ Internal Validity ◦ Are we measuring what we think we’re measuring?
- 30. Biased Sample ◦Study used to generate 4 stages was Ethnocentric ◦ Working Class area of Glasgow… ◦ Cannot be applied to other cultures / classes
- 31. Temporal Validity? ◦Studywas conducted in the 1960s ◦If the study was repeated today would we still get the same results? ◦Why might there be differences?
- 32. Cultural Variation? ◦UK is an Individualistic country ◦ Collectivist cultures often have shared responsibility of child- rearing and do not experience just 1 primary care-giver ◦ Thus the stage model may only apply to individualist cultures
- 33. Too rigid? ◦A stage theory suggests all children should reach each stage at specific time brackets ◦ It doesn’t allow for individual differences ◦ Highlights abnormalities in child development
- 34. Task ◦ Create aposter/powerpoint on Schaffer and Emerson (1964) ◦ Keep it brief! ◦ Outline main points in A01 + A03 as bullet points…
Editor's Notes
- #3 Groups piece together perfect PEE’s for each point
- #17 ‘appears distressed’
- #20 Read through study on page 72 -
- #21 Guess interactions you’d be looking for… create event-sampling observation record ‘Social Referencing’
- #23 Evaluate schaffer and emerson
- #26 Shows joy at reunion
- #27 Shows joy at reunion