- Using infant simulators to assess sensitivity is not realistic (ecological validity)

strengths:
- it is not intrusive-  do not have to use actual humans.

2.   How might the ‘caregivers’ own attachment representations influence how participants view the procedure, and might this have affected the way they behaved in the study?

-  Social desirability: if they are aware of how they are being scored it will impact how they act towards the baby- e.g. if they are aware they are observed carer may be less likely to go on their phone.

Experiment:

Target population:
20-40 year old mothers with different numbers of children (first time mums compared to mums who have more than one child). 

Individual or contextual factor:
how many children the mother has

·Overview of how population/factor will be integrated into the LISSA procedure: e.g., replace the mood measure with a measure of empathy, etc.

we will replace the mood measure with how many children the mother has and how old the children are

Predicted findings: mothers with more children

How amount of children will affect parental sensitivity. 

Caregivers with more children may be more sensitive (e.g. because of the more practise they have had)

This variation could be explained by age of the siblings. 

Alternatively, the more children a mother has the less sensitive they may be e.g. they may be more tired or they could have more distractions due to having to manage more than one child e.c.t  

 Undergraduate students

Contextual factor: Other mothers showing increased or decreased parental sensitivity.

Condition 1 – ppts on their own

Condition 2 – 5 pairs of mothers and robots in a room together – all but one pair are confederates told to be overly sensitive and caring towards robots.

Condition 3 – 5 pairs of mothers and robots in a room together – all but one pair are confederates told to be distant and cold towards robots.

 The score of parental sensitivity of mothers will differ when surrounded by mothers showing more(C2) or less(C3) parental sensitivity. 

All new parents

 Recruit two populations – 

Population one – Mothers who have had their first child in the last 6 months 

Population two – Mothers who have had their second child in the last 6 months, their first child being at least two years old

 

 Judge each groups sensitivity to LISSA using the ainsworth maternal sensitivity scale – uses 1-9 scale in;

-        Sensitivity vs insensitivity to signals

-        Cooperation vs interference with ongoing behaviour

-        Acceptance vs rejection of infant’s needs

-        Accessibility vs ignoring 

We think the results could go either direction

On the one hand, second-child parents may be more sensitive to infant needs as they have had more practice in understanding in responding to infant behaviour.

On the other hands, second-child parents may be less sensitive to infant needs as they may be more confident parents, and so be less worried and constantly attentive towards their infant.

To be first time parents (family planning) or through the midwifes. 

Individual or contextual factor:
Measure the mother’s attachment type to her own mother using a self-report questionnaire (https://www.statisticssolutions.com/adult-attachment-scale-aas/ - Adult attachment scale)

Send it out to everybody, and that we’ll analyse the LISSA data from the self-report computer and make categories for the attachment types and common behaviours. 

 Secure attachments with other parents are more likely to have a secure attachment with their own children. Raise the issue whether insecure individuals are acting genuine as they know they’re insecure?

 Even insecure will appear to be secure? 

First time mothers because the results can be used for practical application in the real world as opposed to using undergraduates who aren’t likely to have children. 

 In relationship vs single mothers. 

 We think that being single or in a relationship will cause a difference in sensitivity to the infant’s cues. Both the single mums and the in-relationship mums would interact with the simulated infant. 

 Single mums show more sensitivity to the infant’s cues than those in relationships. This is because those in relationships take turns in tending to the baby, whereas single mums are the sole carer. 

Discuss in your groups: 

1.       What are the (a) strengths and (b) weaknesses of LISSA for assessing caregiver sensitivity? 

·         Weakness- low ecological validity 

·         Strengths- more ethical still face very distressing for baby. More realistic than other simulators real care giving as opposed to taking key out of child to stop them crying.

2.       How might attachment representations influence how participants view the procedure, and might this have affected the way they behaved in the study? 

·         If securely attached they may be more sensitive to baby’s cues.

Strengths – 

-          Less time consuming 

-          Influence of the about of time of when you are viewing them. 

-          High intercoder reliability. 

-          The scale is descriptive. 
Weaknesses – 

-          Scale is very subjective. 

-          Could not compare sensitivity in interaction with the infant simulator to observed sensitivity with the own infant. 

-          Lacks external validity.

Young adults (18-25)

Contextual: time spent with simulator
 2 groups:
30 mins with child
A few hours with child

Theory of mind – understanding another person so wanted to see if emotional intelligence
Individual factor: Emotional intelligence – questionnaire à look for correlation

Predicted findings: 
Is the effect of time spent with simulator mediated by emotional intelligence?
Higher emotional intelligence à more sensitive to child’s needs
As time increases -->  more bored / distracted or more responsive?

Mediated by emotional intelligence
More EI --> more responsive
Lower EI --> more boredom / distracted

First time single mothers within 30-35 years old with an infant from England (e.g. Birmingham). 

Emotional intelligence 

Replace the mood measure with Mayer, Salovey, Caruso Emotional Intelligence test (MSCEIT).

Experimental Group:

-             MSCEIT and caregiver sensitivity test before and after the intervention.

Control Group:

-             MSCEIT and caregiver sensitivity test twice (no intervention).

Higher emotional intelligence, improves caregiver sensitivity which can in turn it can predict attachment security.