The Social Infant

1. The Social Infant Early Years Lecture 2

2. Following this lecture (and after doing the reading....) You should be able to: identify what period infancy covers recognize why attachment is deemed so important critically evaluate Bowlby’s theory and the Strange Situation method i.e., say what the strengths and weaknesses of the theory and method are

3. Before we go any further... What is meant by ‘infancy’? No absolute definition but usually period between birth and first speech typically around 2 years

4. Why study early socialization? It ‘shapes’ people’s lives • Impact on language development (Snow, 1977)

5. Why study early socialization? It ‘shapes’ people’s lives • Impact on language development (Snow, 1977) • Attachment influences: - self-esteem - social competence - popularity (Elicker et al. 1992; Elicker & Sroufe, 1994).

6. Why study early socialization? It ‘shapes’ people’s lives • Impact on language development (Snow, 1977) • Attachment influences: - self-esteem - social competence - popularity (Elicker et al. 1992; Elicker & Sroufe, 1994). • Maternal deprivation hypothesis (Bowlby, 1953) - implications for childcare; mental wellbeing.

7. Short/Long term effects of maternal deprivation - reduction in intellectual development - half expected rate @ age 1 - similar @ age 12 if left unchecked • few communication skills > distress • hyperactivity/attention deficits • desperate for attention - impaired social/emotional development

8. Theories of early socialization Infants prefer mother’s face from day 1 = human infants are highly adapted to relate to social stimuli [the face > familiar people] = other people are the key ‘permanent objects’ to the infant

9. Theories of early socialization Psychoananalytic theory (Freud;Erikson). • early relationships determine later relationships & mental health. • mother-infant ties = crucial for later relationships. Mother’s role is “unique, without parallel, established unalterably for a whole lifetime as the first and strongest love-object and as the prototype of all later love-relations” (Freud, 1940).

10. Theories of early socialization Psychoananalytic theory (Freud;Erikson). Trust versus Mistrust - to feed, comfort etc. - confident that Mum will return gaining the sense that “there is some correspondence between your needs and your world” Erikson, quoted in Evans (1967)

11. Theories of early socialization Ethological theory (Bowlby). 1951: World Health Organization Report: Child Care and the Growth of Love (pub. 1953). “Mother love in infancy and childhood is as important for mental health as vitamins for physical health”

12. Theories of early socialization Ethological theory (Bowlby). • Influenced by Lorenz’s (1952) and Tinbergen’s (1951) ideas about instinct and ‘imprinting’ - notion of critical period - protection from danger - support for exploration of the world - promote survival Bowlby highlighted 4 stages of relationship-formation.

13. Theories of early socialization Ethological theory (Bowlby). • Four Stages 0-3 months - preattachment phase - innate communication techniques (e.g., crying, smiling, gazing) establish bond and encourage response from other humans.

14. Theories of early socialization Ethological theory (Bowlby). • Four Stages 0-3 months - preattachment phase - innate communication techniques (e.g., crying, smiling, gazing) establish bond and encourage response from other humans. 3-6 months - attachment-in-the-making. Infants discriminate between familiar and unfamiliar adults. Absence of distress when separated from Mum.

15. Theories of early socialization Ethological theory (Bowlby). • Four Stages 6-18/24 months - clear-cut attachment phase - marked by separation anxiety. Familiar adult = secure exploration base. Onset of object permanence leads to…..

16. Theories of early socialization Ethological theory (Bowlby). • Four Stages 6-18/24 months - clear-cut attachment phase - marked by separation anxiety. Familiar adult = secure exploration base. Onset of object permanence leads to….. 18-24 months - reciprocal relationship. Children begin to understand why Mum disappears and appreciate the fact that she is likely to return. Language allows children to exert an influence on Mum’s behaviour.

17. What kind of theory is Bowlby’s? • Quantity or quality? Qualitative. Initial means of ensuring proximity (crying etc.) replaced by active movement of limbs. Language development also produces qualitative shift in relationship.

18. What kind of theory is Bowlby’s? • Quantity or quality? Qualitative. Initial means of ensuring proximity (crying etc.) replaced by active movement of limbs. Language development also produces qualitative shift in relationship. • Nature or nurture? Both. Interaction of innate, evolutionary adaptations and environmental inputs (role of contextual factors [e.g., family; home; parent personality). Infants have genetic bias towards maintaining & enhancing proximity to caregivers. Infants = active participants

19. What kind of theory is Bowlby’s? • Quantity or quality? Qualitative. Initial means of ensuring proximity (crying etc.) replaced by active movement of limbs. Language development also produces qualitative shift in relationship. • Nature or nurture? Both. Interaction of innate, evolutionary adaptations and environmental inputs (role of contextual factors [e.g., family; home; parent personality). Infants have genetic bias towards maintaining & enhancing proximity to caregivers. Infants = active participants • What develops? Survival strategies; learning (e.g., language); social norms.

20. Why is Attachment theory dominant? • Freud aimed to elicit information about childhood from adults. No controlled experiments (Freud relied on free-association and dream analysis). No observations of child behaviour in natural settings. Similar problems with Erikson’s interpretations of behaviour. This makes their theories difficult to test. Science demands that theories should be testable and robust findings replicated. • Credibility gap.Overemphasis on sexuality? • No account of the underlying mechanism of development.

21. Why is Attachment theory dominant? • In contrast, Bowlby studied children-adult behaviour in natural settings.

22. Why is Attachment theory dominant? • In contrast, Bowlby studied children-adult behaviour in natural settings. • Study of attachment employs experimental method - the ‘Strange Situation’ (SS) - to measure level of attachment (e.g., Ainsworth et al., 1978).

23. Why is Attachment theory dominant? • In contrast, Bowlby studied children-adult behaviour in natural settings. • Study of attachment employs experimental method - the ‘Strange Situation’ (SS) - to measure level of attachment (e.g., Ainsworth et al., 1978). • Strange Situation typically involves 8 (7) ‘episodes’.

24. Why is Attachment theory dominant? • In contrast, Bowlby studied children-adult behaviour in natural settings. • Study of attachment employs experimental method - the ‘Strange Situation’ (SS) - to measure level of attachment (e.g., Ainsworth et al., 1978). • Strange Situation typically involves 8 (7) ‘episodes’. • Assesses child’s reaction to familiar and unfamiliar adults and separation-reunion with primary caregiver.

25. The Strange Situation • The aim of the SS is to identify the level of security infant has with mother (or primary caregiver). • Rather than take a single measure, level of attachment can be gauged through the series of events or episodes. • Infant’s security in Episode 1 = baseline. • Effect of stranger on security measured with and without mother present. • Effect of isolation also assessed.

26. Episode 1 2 (3) 4 5 6 7 8 Infant and mother together Stranger enters room (Mother, infant & stranger together) Mother leaves room Infant-mother reunited Mother and stranger leave Stranger re-enters room Mother returns The Strange Situation

27. (taken from Messer & Miller, 1999)

33. The Strange Situation - Hypothesis • In a healthy relationship, infant uses mother as a base to explore (i.e.,Episodes 1, 2, 5). Infant stressed during Episodes 4, 6, and 7. • Most interest in Episodes 5 and 8 - the ‘reunion’ episodes. How does the infant react? • Behaviour leads to classification - 4 types.

34. The Strange Situation • The aim of the SS is to identify the level of security infant has with mother (or primary caregiver). • Type ‘A’ = insecure-avoidant. Unhappy during separation, but do not respond particularly negative when stranger appears nor do they seek to re-establish close proximity with Mum on her return.

35. The Strange Situation • The aim of the SS is to identify the level of security infant has with mother (or primary caregiver). • Type ‘A’ = insecure-avoidant. Unhappy during separation, but do not respond particularly negative when stranger appears nor do they seek to re-establish close proximity with Mum on her return. • Type ‘B’ = secure. Happy if Mum is present to explore. Unhappy if Mum leaves the room and might show discomfort in the presence of stranger. Seek Mum out on her return and then settle down quickly.

36. The Strange Situation • The aim of the SS is to identify the level of security infant has with mother (or primary caregiver). • Type ‘A’ = insecure-avoidant. Unhappy during separation, but do not respond particularly negative when stranger appears nor do they seek to re-establish close proximity with Mum on her return. • Type ‘B’ = secure. Happy if Mum is present to explore. Unhappy if Mum leaves the room and might show discomfort in the presence of stranger. Seek Mum out on her return and then settle down quickly. • Type ‘C’ = insecure-resistant. Combination of traits - seek contact one moment only to avoid contact when Mum returns (Ainsworth, Blehar, Waters, & Wall, 1978).

37. The Strange Situation • The aim of the SS is to identify the level of security infant has with mother (or primary caregiver). • Type ‘A’ = insecure-avoidant. Unhappy during separation, but do not respond particularly negative when stranger appears nor do they seek to re-establish close proximity with Mum on her return. • Type ‘B’ = secure. Happy if Mum is present to explore. Unhappy if Mum leaves the room and might show discomfort in the presence of stranger. Seek Mum out on her return and then settle down quickly. • Type ‘C’ = insecure-resistant. Combination of traits - seek contact one moment only to avoid contact when Mum returns (Ainsworth, Blehar, Waters, & Wall, 1978). • Type ‘D’ = disorganized. No consistent way of dealing with stressful situation (from Main & Solomon, 1990).

38. The Strange Situation • Classification - USA middle class - Secure attachment (65%) - Type B - Insecure-avoidant attachment (20%) - Type A - Insecure-resistant attachment (10-15%) - Type C - Disorganized/disoriented attachment (5-10%) - Type D.

39. The Strange Situation: A valid measure? Bronfenbrenner (1973, p. 513): “science of the strange behavior of children in strange situations with strange adults for the briefest possible periods of time”

40. The Strange Situation: A valid measure? Cross-cultural variations - Takahashi (1986; 1990). Greater % of Resistant types in Japanese study. - Grossman et al., (1985). Greater % of Avoidant types in German study. Different cultural emphasis? Do Germans encourage independence while Japanese parents value clingy (i.e., ‘needy’) behaviour? Undermines biological explanation - not universal.

41. The Strange Situation: A valid measure? • Interpretation of strange situation behaviour. • Original study = only 26 infants. Adequate sample size? • Why is Type B defined as ‘normal’? • Does it measure attachment, or simply mother-infant relationship. What about fathers? • Does it measure attachment or fear of strangers? (one is not necessarily the flip-side of the other).

42. Predicting attachment What predicts secure attachment? Look for correlates. • Opportunity to interact with one significant other (Spitz, 1946). • Consistency of relationship. Swapping caregiver results in social dysfunctionality and emotional problems (Tizard & Rees, 1975). • Attributes of caregiver - touchy-feely or not? (Posada et al., 2002) • Infant temperament - but not strongly tied. • Family circumstances - single mothers/socio-economic status (Thompson, 1998).

43. Predicting from attachment What does secure attachment predict? Look for correlates. • Development of person permanence (Bell, 1970). • Advanced tool use (Bretherton et al., 1979). • Popularity and independence at age 4 (Scroufe, 1983). Conversely, Disorganized/disoriented type predicts hostility and aggression (e.g., Lyons-Ruth, 1996).

44. What of Attachment theory? Attachments determined by biological and cultural influences Detailed/complex model needed - Belsky (1984). Marital relations Social network Child Characteristics Developmental History Personality Parenting Child Development Work

45. Early attachments - so what? Diagnostic tool for child psychiatrists [see Goldberg (1991) in Slater & Muir, 1999] @ 3 yrs age - 7% ‘insecure’ infants have clinical behavioural problems vs 2% ‘secure’ infants i.e., insecure infants 3x more likely to develop behavioural problems

46. Reading Essential • Goldberg, S. (1991), in A. Slater & D. Muir (eds.) (1999) - Blackwell Reader in Developmental Psychology. (take a copy only, or see Tutorial Solutions box) Alternatives • Berk., L. E. (1997). Child Development. Chapter 6. • Bremner, J. G. (1991). Infancy. (Chapter 5). • Cole, M., & Cole, S. E. (1996). The development of children. New York: Freeman & Co. (Chapter 7) • Eysenck, M. W. (2004). Psychology. (Chapter 17) • Miller, P. (2002) - 4th Edition. Ch 2 (pp. 120-128; 134-144; 146-152; 157-163; 293-296; 298-311). • Smith, P. K., & Cowie, H. (1991) - 2nd Edition. (Chapter 3).