7.3 The Development of Social Bonds

As you see, the social context has a powerful impact on development. So does the infant’s age, via brain maturation. With regard to emotional development, the age of the baby determines specific social interactions that lead to growth—first synchrony, then attachment, and finally social referencing (see Visualizing Development, p. 191).

Synchrony

Early parent—child interactions are described as synchrony, a mutual exchange that requires split-second timing. Synchrony is evident in the first three months, becoming more frequent and elaborate as the infant matures (Feldman, 2007).

Detailed research reveals the symbiosis of adult–infant partnerships. Adults rarely smile at young infants until the infants smile at them, several weeks after birth. That tentative baby smile is like a switch that turns on the adults, who usually grin broadly and talk animatedly (Lavelli & Fogel, 2005).

Synchrony is evident not only in direct observation, as when watching a caregiver play with an infant too young to talk, but also via computer measurement of the millisecond timing of smiles, arched eyebrows, and so on (Messinger et al., 2010). Synchrony is a powerful learning experience for the new human. In every episode, infants read others’ emotions and develop social skills, such as taking turns and watching expressions.

One study found that mothers who took longer to bathe, feed, and diaper their infants were also most responsive. Apparently, some parents combine caregiving with emotional play, which takes longer but also allows more synchrony.

Tell Me More Synchrony lets infants and caregivers communicate the crucial messages that one person seeks to share with another. Is the message here “I love you” or “How delightful!” or simply “Tell me more”? The father probably knows; we can only guess.

NANCY HONEY/GETTY IMAGES

Synchrony usually begins with adults imitating infants (not vice versa) (Lavelli & Fogel, 2005), with tone and rhythm (Van Puyvelde et al., 2010). Metaphors for synchrony are often musical—a waltz, a jazz duet—to emphasize that each partner must be attuned to the other.

Adults respond to nuances of infant facial expressions and body motions. This helps infants connect their internal state with behaviors that are understood within their culture. Synchrony is particularly apparent in Asian cultures, perhaps because of a cultural focus on interpersonal sensitivity (Morelli & Rothbaum, 2007).

In Western cultures as well, parents and infants become partners. This relationship is crucial when the infant is at medical risk. The need for time-consuming physical care might overwhelm concern about psychosocial needs, yet those needs are as important for long-term health as are the more obvious needs (Newnham et al., 2009).

Is synchrony necessary? If no one plays with an infant, what will happen? Experiments involving the still-face technique have addressed these questions (Tronick, 1989; Tronick & Weinberg, 1997).

In still-face studies, an infant faces an adult who responds normally while two video cameras simultaneously record their interpersonal reactions. Frame-by-frame analysis reveals that parents instinctively synchronize their responses to the infants’ movements, with exaggerated tone and expression. Babies reciprocate with smiles and flailing limbs.

To be specific, long before they can reach out and grab, infants respond excitedly to caregiver attention by waving their arms. They are delighted if the adult moves closer so that a waving arm touches the face or, even better, a hand grabs hair. You read about this eagerness for interaction (when infants try to “make interesting sights last”) in Chapter 6. In response, adults open their eyes wide, raise their eyebrows, smack their lips, and emit nonsense sounds.

In still-face experiments, on cue the adult erases all facial expression, staring quietly with a “still face” for a minute or two. Sometimes by 2 months, and clearly by 6 months, infants are upset when their parents are unresponsive. Babies frown, fuss, drool, look away, kick, cry, or suck their fingers. By 5 months, they also vocalize, as if to say, “React to me” (Goldstein et al., 2009).

Many studies reach the same conclusion: Synchrony is expected. Responsiveness aids psychosocial and biological development, evident in heart rate, weight gain, and brain maturation (Moore & Calkins, 2004; Newnham et al., 2009). Particularly in the first year, babies of depressed mothers suffer unless someone else is a sensitive partner (Bagner et al., 2010).

Attachment

Toward the end of the first year, face-to-face synchrony almost disappears. Once infants can walk, they are no longer content to respond, moment by moment, to adult facial expressions and vocalizations.

Instead attachment becomes evident. Actually, attachment is lifelong, beginning before birth and influencing relationships throughout life (see At About This Time). Thousands of researchers on every continent have studied attachment; all of these studies were inspired first by John Bowlby’s theories and then by Mary Ainsworth, who described mother—infant relationships in central Africa 60 years ago (Ainsworth, 1967).

VISUALIZING DEVELOPMENT

Developing Attachment

Attachment begins at birth and can influences relationships throughout the life span. But maturation, context, and past experience also play a role. Much depends not only on the ways in which parents and babies bond, but also on the quality and consistency of caregiving, the safety and security of the home environment, and individual and family experience. While the patterns set in infancy may echo in later life, they are not determinative.

PHOTO: DARQ/SHUTTERSTOCK
SOURCES & CREDITS LISTED ON P. SC-1

Infants show their attachment through proximity-seeking (such as approaching and following their caregivers) and through contact-maintaining (such as touching, snuggling, and holding). Proximity-seeking is evident when a baby cries if the mother closes the door when she goes to the bathroom or if a back-facing car seat prevents the baby from seeing the parent.

To maintain contact in the car and to reassure the baby, some caregivers in the front seat reach back to give a hand, or install a mirror so they can see the baby and the baby can see them as they drive. As in this example, maintaining contact need not be physical: Visual or verbal connections are often sufficient.

Caregivers also are attached. They keep a watchful eye on their baby, and they initiate interactions with expressions, gestures, and sounds. Before going to sleep at midnight they might tiptoe to the crib to gaze at their sleeping infant, or, in daytime, absentmindedly smooth their toddler’s hair.

Attachment is universal, being part of the inborn social nature of the human species, but specific manifestations vary depending on the culture as well as the age of the people who are attached to each other. For instance, Ugandan mothers never kiss their infants, but they often massage them, contrary to Westerners, who rarely massage except when they are putting on lotion.

American adults might remain in contact via daily phone calls, e-mails, or texts and keep in proximity by sitting in the same room as each reads quietly, whereas in other cultures adults often hold hands with each other. Some scholars believe that attachment with infants, not only of mothers but also of fathers, grandparents, and nonrelatives, is the reason that Homo sapiens thrived when other species became extinct (Hrdy, 2009).

Attachment is classified into four types: A, B, C, and D (see Table 7.1). Infants with secure attachment (type B) feel comfortable and confident. The caregiver is a base for exploration, providing assurance and enabling discovery. A toddler might, for example, scramble down from the caregiver’s lap to play with an intriguing toy but periodically look back and vocalize (contact-maintaining) or bring the toy to the caregiver for inspection (proximity-seeking).

By contrast, insecure attachment (types A and C) is characterized by fear, anxiety, anger, or indifference. Some insecure children play independently without maintaining contact; this is insecure-avoidant attachment (type A). The opposite reaction is insecure-resistant/ambivalent attachment (type C). Children with this type of attachment cling to caregiver and are angry at being left.

Ainsworth’s original schema differentiated only types A, B, and C. Later researchers discovered a fourth category (type D), disorganized attachment. Type D infants may shift suddenly from hitting to kissing their mothers, from staring blankly to crying hysterically, from pinching themselves to freezing in place.

Among the general population, almost two-thirds of infants are secure (type B). Their mothers’ presence gives them courage to explore; her departure causes distress; her return elicits positive social contact (such as smiling or hugging) and then more playing. The infant’s balanced reaction—being concerned but not overwhelmed by comings and goings—indicates security. Early research was only on mothers; later, fathers and other caregivers were included, since they also could have secure or insecure attachments to an infant.

About one-third of infants are insecure, either indifferent (type A) or unduly anxious (type C). About 5 to 10 percent of infants fit into none of these categories; they are disorganized (type D), with no consistent strategy for social interaction, even avoidance or resistance. Sometimes they become hostile and aggressive, difficult for anyone to relate to (Lyons-Ruth et al., 1999). Unlike the first three types, disorganized infants have elevated levels of cortisol in reaction to stress (Bernard & Dozier, 2010).

Ainsworth (1973) developed a now-classic laboratory procedure called the Strange Situation to measure attachment. In a well-equipped playroom, an infant is observed for eight episodes, each lasting three minutes. First, the child and mother are together. Next, according to a set sequence, the mother and then a stranger come and go. Infants’ responses to their mother indicate which type of attachment they have formed.

Researchers are trained to distinguish types A, B, C, and D. They focus on the following:

Attachment is not always measured via the Strange Situation; surveys and interviews are also used. Sometimes parents answer 90 questions about their children’s characteristics, and sometimes adults are interviewed extensively (according to a detailed protocol) about their relationships with their own parents, again with various specific measurements (Fortuna & Roisman, 2008).

Research measuring attachment has revealed that some behaviors that might seem normal are, in fact, a sign of insecurity. For instance, an infant who clings to the caregiver and refuses to explore the toys might be type A. Likewise, adults who say their childhood was happy and their mother was a saint, especially if they provide few specific memories, might be insecure. And young children who are immediately friendly to strangers may never have formed a secure attachment (Tarullo et al., 2011).

Assessments of attachment that were developed and validated for middle-class North Americans may be less useful in other cultures. Infants who seem dismissive or clingy may not always be insecure. Everywhere, however, parents and infants are attached to each other, and everywhere secure attachment predicts academic success and emotional stability (Erdman & Ng, 2010; Molitor & Hsu, 2011; Rothbaum et al., 2011).

Excited, Troubled, Comforted This sequence is repeated daily for 1-year-olds, which is why the same sequence is replicated to measure attachment. As you see, toys are no substitute for mother’s comfort if the infant or toddler is secure, as this one seems to be. Some, however, cry inconsolably or throw toys angrily when left alone.

WORTH PUBLISHERS

Insecure Attachment and the Social Setting

At first, developmentalists expected secure attachment to “predict all the outcomes reasonably expected from a well-functioning personality” (R. A. Thompson & Raikes, 2003, p. 708). But this expectation turned out to be naive.

Harsh contexts, especially the stresses of poverty, reduce the incidence of secure attachment (Seifer et al., 2004; van IJzendoorn & Bakermans-Kranenburg, 2010), and insecure attachment correlates with many later problems. However, correlation is not causation, and thus insecure attachment may be a sign but may not be the direct cause of those problems.

Securely attached infants are more likely to become secure toddlers, socially competent preschoolers, high-achieving schoolchildren, and capable parents. Attachment affects early brain development, one reason these later outcomes occur (Diamond & Fagundes, 2010). But insecure infants are not doomed to failure later on.

Although attachment patterns form in infancy (see Table 7.2), they are not necessarily set in stone; they may change when the family context changes, such as abuse or income loss. Many aspects of low SES increase the risk of low school achievement, hostile children, and fearful adults. The underlying premise—that responsive early parenting leads to secure attachment, which buffers stress and encourages exploration—is at least partly true, but attachment behaviors in the Strange Situation provide only one indication of the quality of the parent–child relationship.

No scholar doubts that close human relationships should develop in the first year of life and that the lack of such relationships risks dire consequences. Unfortunately, thousands of children born in Romania are proof.

When Romanian dictator Nicolae Ceausesçu forbade birth control and abortions in the 1980s, illegal abortions became the leading cause of death for Romanian women aged 15 to 45 (Verona, 2003), and more than 100,000 children were abandoned to crowded, impersonal, state-run orphanages. The children experienced severe deprivation, including virtually no normal interaction, play, or conversation (Rutter et al., 2007).

In the two years after Ceausesçu was ousted and killed in 1989, thousands of those children were adopted by North American, western European, and Australian families. Those who were adopted before 6 months of age fared best; synchrony was established via play and caregiving. Most of them developed normally.

Danger Ongoing Look closely and you can see danger. That bent crib bar could strangle an infant, and that chipped paint could contain lead. (Lead tastes sweet; is that why two of the children are biting it?) Fortunately, these three Romanian infants (photographed in 1990) escaped those dangers to be raised in loving adoptive homes. Unfortunately, the damage of social isolation (note the sheet around the crib) could not be completely overcome: Some young adults who spent their first year in an institution like this still carry emotional scars.

© JOSEF POLLEROSS/THE IMAGE WORKS

For those adopted after 6 months, and especially after 12 months, early signs were encouraging: Skinny infants gained weight and grew faster than other 1-year-olds, developing motor skills they had lacked (H. Park et al., 2011). However, their early social deprivation soon became evident in their emotions and cognition. Many were overly friendly to strangers throughout childhood, a sign of insecure attachment (Tarullo et al., 2011). At age 11, their average IQ was only 85, 15 points below normal (Rutter et al., 2010).

These children are now young adults, many with serious emotional or conduct problems. The cause is more social than biological. Even those who were well nourished, or who caught up to normal growth, often became impulsive and angry teenagers. Apparently, the stresses of adolescence and emerging adulthood have exacerbated the cognitive and social strains on these young people and their families (Merz & McCall, 2011).

Romanian infants are no longer available for international adoption, even though some remain abandoned. Research confirms that early emotional deprivation, not genes or nutrition, is their greatest problem. Romanian infants develop best in their own families, second best in foster families, and worst in institutions (Nelson et al., 2007). As best we know, this applies to infants everywhere: Families usually care for their babies better than strangers who are paid to care for many infants at once.

Fortunately, institutions have improved or been shuttered; more recent adoptees are not as impaired as those Romanian orphans (Merz & McCall, 2011). However, some infants in every nation are deprived of healthy interaction. The early months are a sensitive period for emotional development. Children need responsive parents, biological or not (McCall et al., 2011).

All infants need love and stimulation; all seek synchrony and then attachment—secure if possible, insecure if not. Without some adult support, infants become disorganized and adrift, emotionally troubled. Extreme early social deprivation is difficult to overcome.

Since synchrony and attachment develop over the first year, and since more than one-third of all parents have difficulty establishing secure attachments, many developmentalists have sought to discover what particularly impairs these parents and what can be done to improve their parenting. We know that secure attachment is more difficult to achieve when the parents were abused as children, when families are socially isolated, when mothers are young adolescents, or when infants are unusually difficult (Zeanah et al., 2011). If biological parents do not care for their newborns, foster or adoptive parents need to be found quickly so that synchrony and attachment can develop (McCall et al., 2011).

Some birth parents, fearing that they cannot provide responsive parenting, choose adoptive parents for their newborns. If high-risk birth parents believe they can provide good care, early support may prevent later problems. Success has been reported when skilled professionals come to the home to nurture relationships between infant and caregiver (Lowell et al., 2011). If a professional helps parents in the first days after birth, perhaps by using the Brazelton Neonatal Behavioral Assessment Scale (mentioned in Chapter 4) to encourage bonding, then problems need never start (e.g., Nugent et al., 2009).

Social Referencing

Social referencing refers to seeking emotional responses or information from other people, much as a student might consult a dictionary or other reference work. Someone’s reassuring glance or cautionary words; a facial expression of alarm, pleasure, or dismay—those are social references.

Rotini Pasta? Look again. Every family teaches their children to relish delicacies that other people avoid. Examples are bacon (not in Arab nations), hamburgers (not in India), and, as shown here, a witchetty grub. This Australian aboriginal boy is about to swallow an insect larva.

© BILL BACHMAN/ALAMY

After age 1, when infants can walk and are “little scientists,” their need to consult others becomes urgent. Social referencing is constant, as toddlers search for clues in gazes, faces, and body position, paying close attention to emotions and intentions. They focus on their familiar caregivers, but they also use relatives, other children, and even strangers to help them assess objects and events. They are remarkably selective: Even at 16 months, they notice which strangers are reliable references and which are not (Poulin-Dubois & Chow, 2009).

Social referencing has many practical applications. Consider mealtime. Caregivers the world over smack their lips, pretend to taste, and say “yum-yum,” encouraging toddlers to eat their first beets, liver, or spinach. For their part, toddlers become astute at reading expressions, insisting on the foods that the adults really like.

Through this process, some children may develop a taste for raw fish or curried goat or smelly cheese—foods that children in other cultures refuse. Similarly, toddlers use social cues to understand the difference between real and pretend eating (Nishida & Lillard, 2007), as well as to understand which toys, emotions, and activities are encouraged or forbidden.

Fathers as Social Partners

Fathers enhance their children’s social and emotional development in many ways (Lamb, 2010). Synchrony, attachment, and social referencing are sometimes more apparent with fathers than with mothers. This notion was doubted until research found that some infants are securely attached to their fathers but not to their mothers (Bretherton, 2010). Furthermore, fathers elicit more smiles and laughter from their infants than mothers do, probably because they play more exciting games, while mothers do more caregiving and comforting (Fletcher et al., 2013).

Close father–infant relationships can teach infants (especially boys) appropriate expressions of emotion (Boyce et al., 2006), particularly anger. The results may endure: Teenagers are less likely to lash out at friends and authorities if, as infants, they experienced a warm, responsive relationship with their father (Hoeve et al., 2011). Close relationships with infants help the men, too, reducing a man’s risk of depression (Borke et al., 2007; Bronte-Tinkew et al., 2007).

Same Situation, Far Apart: Bonded That fathers enjoy their sons is not surprising, but notice the infants’ hands—one clutching Dad’s hair tightly and the other reaching for Dad’s face. At this age, infants show their trust in adults by grabbing and reaching. Synchrony and attachment are mutual, in Ireland (left), Kenya (right), and in your own neighborhood.

BROWNSTOCK INC./ALAMY
BRITTA KASHOLM-TENGVE/GETTY IMAGES

In most cultures and ethnic groups, fathers spend much less time with infants than mothers do (Parke & Buriel, 2006; Tudge, 2008). National cultures and parental attitudes are influential: Some women are gatekeepers, believing that child care is their special domain (Gaertner et al., 2007) and excluding fathers (perhaps indirectly, saying, “You’re not holding her right”). Some fathers think it unmanly to dote on an infant.

That is not equally true everywhere. For example, Denmark has high rates of father involvement. At birth, 97 percent of Danish fathers are present, and five months later, most Danish fathers say that every day they change diapers (83 percent), feed (61 percent), and play with (98 percent) their infants (Munck, 2009).

Less rigid sex roles seem to be developing in every nation. One U.S. example of historical change is the number of married women with children under age 6 who are employed. In 1970, 30 percent of married mothers of young children earned paychecks; in 2012, 60 percent did, almost all in dual-earner families (U.S. Department of Labor Statistics, 2013). These statistics include many mothers of infants.

Note the reference to “married” mothers: About half the mothers of infants in the United States are not married, and their employment rates are higher than their married counterparts. As detailed later in this chapter, often fathers—not necessarily married—care for infants when mothers are at the job.

One sex difference seems to persist: “Mothers engage in more caregiving and comforting, and fathers in more high intensity play” (Kochanska et al., 2008, p. 41). When asked to play with their baby, mothers typically caress, read, sing, or play traditional games such as peek-a-boo. Fathers are more exciting: They move their infant’s limbs in imitation of walking, kicking, or climbing, or they swing the baby through the air, sideways, or even upside down.

Mothers might say, “Don’t drop him”; fathers and babies laugh with joy. In this way, fathers tend to help children become less fearful. Over the past 20 years, father–infant research has tried to answer three questions:

1. Can men provide the same care as women?
2. Is father–infant interaction different from mother–infant interaction?
3. How do fathers and mothers cooperate to provide infant care?

Shame on Who? Not on the toddlers, who are naturally curious and careless, but maybe not on the fathers either. Both depression and spanking are affected by financial stress, marital conflict, and cultural norms; who is responsible for those?

Source: Davis et al., 2011.

Many studies over the past two decades have answered yes to the first two questions. A baby fed, bathed, and diapered by Dad is just as happy and clean as when Mom does it. Gender differences are sometimes found in specifics, but they are not harmful.

On the third question, the answer depends on the family (Bretherton, 2010). Usually, mothers are caregivers and fathers are playmates, but not always. Each couple, given their circumstances (which might include being immigrant, low-income, or same-sex), finds their own way to complement each other to help their infant thrive (Lamb, 2010).

A constructive parental alliance cannot be assumed, whether or not the parents are legally wed. Sometimes neither parent is happy with their infant, with themselves, or with each other. One study reported that 7 percent of fathers of 1-year-olds were depressed, and they were four times as likely to spank as were nondepressed fathers (40 percent versus 10 percent) (Davis et al., 2011) (see Figure 7.2).

Family members affect each other’s moods: Paternal depression correlates with maternal depression and with sad, angry, and disobedient toddlers. Cause and consequence are intertwined. When any one is depressed or hostile, everyone (mother, father, baby) needs help.