Attachment Flashcards
(38 cards)
Define attachment
-an emotional bond between two people (usually a primary caregiver and a child)
-two-way, reciprocal relationship that endures over time
Define interactional synchrony
-infant mirrors the actions/emotions of the adult
-as they are simultaneously copying their caregiver, the two are synchronised
-sustains communication
Outline research into interactional synchrony
Strength - research support by Brazelton et al. (1975)
-identified trends in interactional synchrony
-videotapes of 12 mother-baby pairs’ play behaviour was examined up to 5 months of age
-revealed three phases of play:
-Attention and build-up
-Recovery
-Turning away
-phases were repeated at regular intervals over the 7 minute footage
-concluded that the three phases of play demonstrate the early signs of organised behaviour.
Isabella and Belsky (1991)
-hypothesised that caregiver-baby pairs that developed secure attachment would display more synchronous behaviour than babies with insecure relationships
-observed babies at 3 and 9 months
-secure group interacted in a well-timed, reciprocal, and mutually rewarding manner
-however, avoidant pairs displayed maternal intrusiveness and overstimulation
-resistant pairs were poorly coordinated, under-involved and inconsistent
-hence different interactional behaviours predicted attachment quality
Outline the study by Meltzoff and Moore (1977)
Aim: To examine interactional synchrony in infants
Method:
-child had dummy in mouth initially to prevent facial responses
-adult model displayed one of three facial expressions or a hand gesture
-dummy was removed from child’s mouth after display
-infant’s facial expressions were filmed
Results:
-clear association between infant’s behaviour and that of the adult
-later research by them in 1983 found the same findings in 3-day old infants
Conclusion:
-interactional synchrony is innate
-contradicts idea that it is learned
Define reciprocity
-infant responds to the actions of the primary caregiver (the actions of one elicits the response of another)
-caregiver-infant interaction flows back and forth
Feldman (2007) found that it increases in frequency after the first 3 months
Define sensitive responsiveness
-caregiver pays attention sensitively to the infant’s behaviour
-lays strong foundations for an attachment to form later between the two
Evaluate Meltzoff and Moore’s (1977) study into interactional synchrony in infants
Limitation: Individual differences were overlooked
-Isabella et al. (1989) found that the more securely attached the infant, the greater the interactional synchrony
-Meltzoff and Moore took a nomothetic approach
-cannot generalise the findings to a wider population
-different families may have different levels of attachment
Limitation: questionable reliability when testing children
-infants constantly move their mouths and arms
-cannot be certain that individuals are actually engaging in interactional synchrony or reciprocity, as some of the behaviour may have occurred by chance
Limitation: possible observer bias
-researchers may unconsciously interpret the infant’s behaviour a certain way to support their hypothesis
-one observer can be used to observe inter-observer reliability
-Koepke et al. (1983) failed to replicate the findings of Meltzoff and Moore, (1977), which makes this study unreliable
Outline Schaffer and Emerson (1964)
Aim: To examine the formation of early attachments
Method:
-sample of 60 babies (31 male, 29 female) from working class families in Glasgow aged between 5 - 23 weeks
-babies were visited every month for the first 12 months and then once at 18 months
-interviewed mothers and observed children in relation to separation and stranger anxiety
Results
-50% of children showed separation anxiety towards their mothers at 25-32 weeks, expected of the indiscriminate stage of attachment
-by 40 weeks, 80% of children had a discriminate attachment and 30% had started to form multiple attachments
Conclusion
-provides support for Schaffer’s stages of attachment and proves that attachment develops during the first year of life
Evaluate Schaffer and Emerson(1964)
strength - high external validity
-observations were conducted in child’s home
-more likely for them to act naturally
-results are likely to apply to other children with a similar demographic in their homes
Limitation - lacks population validity
-sample was only 60 working class mothers and their babies from Glasgow
-they may form very different attachments compared to other families from other countries
-unable to generalise the results of this study to other backgrounds as their behaviour may not be comparable
Limitation - possibility of social desirability bias
-mothers were interviewed about their children
-some of them may not have reported accurate details about their children, to appear like ‘better’ mothers with secure attachments
-reduces internal validity of findings, as natural behaviour will not have been recorded for each stage of attachment
Limitation - nomothetic approach
-does not take into account individual differences
-e.g. in some cultures, multiple attachments may form before single attachments
-hence, Schaffer’s stages of attachments cannot be generalised to all family dynamics
Outline Schaffer and Emerson’s stages of attachment
Asocial:
-from birth to two months
-infant shows similar responses to objects and people, although towards the end of this, they may display a preference for face/eyes
Indiscriminate attachment:
-from two to six months
-infant shows preference for human company over non-human company
-they can distinguish between people, but are comforted indiscriminately
-don’t show separation anxiety
Discriminate attachment
-from seven to twelve months
-infant shows a preference for one caregiver, displaying separation and stranger anxiety
-infant looks to a particular person for security/protection
-shows joy upon reunion and are comforted by their primary caregiver
Multiple attachment:
-one year onwards
-attachment behaviours are now displayed towards multiple people
-sometimes referred to as secondary attachments
-typically form in the first month after primary attachment is formed
-number of multiple attachments that develop a depends on the social circle that infant is exposed to
Outline the role of the father
-traditionally limited as fathers would go to work and provide for the family
-some researchers claim that men are not equipped to form attachments
-they point to biological evidence that oestrogen underlies caring behaviour in women
-lack of oestrogen in men = unable to form a close attachment
-other researchers believe that fathers take on the role of a playmate rather than caregiver
-some researchers also say that fathers can demonstrate sensitive responsiveness and respond to the needs of their children, allowing them to form strong emotional ties
Evaluate the role of the father
strength - research support for the role of the father as ‘playmate’
-Geiger (1996) found that a father’s play interactions were more exciting than a mother’s
-however, mother’s play interactions were more affectionate
-suggests the father is more of a playmate than a sensitive parent who can respond to the needs of their child
-also proves that mothers have a nurturing role
Strength - research suggests that fathers are not as equipped as mothers to be a nurturing caregiver
-Hrdy (1999) found that fathers were less able to detect low levels of distress in infants than mothers
-supports the biological explanation that due to a lack of oestrogen, men may not be able to be as nurturing as mothers
-role of the father is biologically determined, and restricted by their genetic makeup
-provides further evidence that fathers struggle more to form secure attachments with infants
-however, biologically deterministic
-other factors can play a role, e.g. free will
Limitation - contradictory research
-Belsky et al. (2009)
-males who reported higher levels of marital intimacy also displayed more secure caregiver-infant attachment
-suggests that males can form secure attachments
-is dependent on the relationship between the father and mother
Limitation - societal norms may be involved in the role of the father
-typically women are seen as housewives and take care of offspring
-gender stereotypes are less prevalent
-research may be oudated
-lacks temporal validity
-furthermore, research into primary attachment figures could be socially sensitive
-abnormalities that develop later in life (e.g. affectionless psychopathy) could be blamed on parent(s)
-single parent may be pressured to return to work at a later point
-increases likelihood that their child forms a secure attachment
Strength - support for importance of father
-Schaffer and Emerson found that 75% of sample formed secondary attachment to father by the age of 18 months
-29% did so within a month of forming primary attachment
-suggests father is important, although unlikely to be the primary caregiver
-however, takes a nomothetic approach
-does not take into account individual differences
-e.g. in some cultures, multiple attachments may form before single attachments
-hence, Schaffer’s stages of attachments cannot be generalised to all family dynamics
Outline the animal study conducted by Lorenz (1935)
Aim: To examine the phenomenon of imprinting in non-human animals
Method:
-randomly divided greylag goose eggs into two batches: the control group and experimental group
-control group was naturally hatched by mother
-experimental group was hatched in an incubator, with Lorenz ensuring that he was the first moving object seen by the goslings
-Behaviour of either the mother goose or Lorenz was recorded
-Lorenz marked the goslings so that he could distinguish between them
-placed in an upside down box which was then removed and behaviour was recorded again
Results:
-right after birth, naturally hatched eggs followed their mother, whereas incubator-hatched eggs followed Lorenz
-after the box was removed, the incubator-hatched eggs followed Lorenz, showing no biological attachment to the mother
-was noted that this imprint only occurred within a critical period of 4-25 hours after hatching
-relationship persisted over time and proved to be irreversible
Conclusion:
-results suggest that imprinting is a form of attachment exhibited by birds that typically leave the nest early, whereby they imprint onto the first moving object they encounter after hatching
Evaluate Lorenz (1935)
Limitation - only used a non-human animal sample
-sample of greylag geese
-cannot generalise results to humans since we are unable to conclude whether they would behave the same way
-furthermore, attachment formation in mammals appears to be very different to that of birds
-mothers in particular show more emotional reactions to their offspring, due to the ability to form attachments within the first few hours after birth
-again suggests that caution must be taken when drawing conclusions based on animal studies
Limitation - contradictory research
-Guiton et al. (1966) found chickens would imprint on yellow washing up gloves and mate with it if that was the first moving object they saw
-Guiton disagreed that the relationship was irreversible
-believed that with experience, the chickens could eventually learn to prefer mating with other chickens instead
-suggests that effects of imprinting may not be as permanent as initially thought
Outline Harlow’s (1959) animal study
Aim:
To examine the extent to which contact comfort and food influences attachment behaviour in baby rhesus monkeys
Method:
-Harlow constructed two surrogate mothers: one harsh ‘wire’ monkey and one soft ‘towelling’ mother
-sample of 16 baby rhesus monkeys used across 4 conditions:
!) ‘wire’ mother dispensing milk and ‘towelling mother’ with no milk
2) ‘wire’ mother with no milk and ‘towelling’ mother dispensing milk
3) ‘wire’ mother dispensing milk
4) ‘towelling’ mother dispensing milk
-amount of time baby rhesus monkeys spent with each mother was recorded, alongside how long they spent feeding at each one
-mother preference during periods of stress was tested by monkeys being startled with a loud noise and their responses being recorded
-larger cage used in some conditions to observe the degree of exploration by baby monkeys
Results:
-when given a choice of surrogate mother, baby rhesus monkeys chose the soft ‘towelling’ mother over the ‘wire’ mother, irrespective of whether she dispensed milk
-was observed that they would stretch across to ‘wire’ mother for food while still clinging onto the ‘towelling’ mother for contact comfort
-baby monkeys in the condition with only the ‘wire’ monkey showed signs of distress such as diarrhoea
-when startled by the loud noise, they would cling to the ‘towelling’ mother if she was available to them in that condition
-when given larger cage conditions, greater exploration behaviour was seen by baby monkeys with the ‘towelling’ mother, indicating emotional security
Conclusion:
-baby rhesus monkeys appear to have an innate drive for contact comfort from the parent
-suggests that attachment is formed through emotional need for security rather than food
-contrasts the learning theory explanation
-the contact comfort provided by mother is associated with a higher exploration behaviour and lower stress levels
Evaluate Harlow’s (1959) animal study
Strength - large practical value
-provides insight into attachment formation
-has real-world applications
-e.g. Howe (1998) reports that knowledge gained from Harlow’s findings has helped social workers understand risk factors in neglect and abuse cases with human children
-can then serve to prevent it occurring or at least recognise when to intervene
-furthermore, practical applications are used in the care of captive wild monkeys in zoos or breeding programmes
-ensures that they have adequate attachment figures as part of their care
Limitation - breach of ethical guidelines
-Harlow is heavily criticised for the ethical harm caused by his research to the monkeys
-monkeys suffered greatly in terms of emotional separation from birth mother from an early age
-if the species of primates are considered sufficiently human-like to generalise the results beyond the sample, then it’s like that the effects of psychological harm endured will be similar to that of a human baby
-however, Harlow’s approach may be justified by the extent to which his research was a useful insight to psychologists’ understanding of attachment
Limitation - issue of applying animal research to humans
-although Harlow’s sample were baby rhesus monkeys which are non-human, they are far more human-like than the geese that Lorenz studied
-extent to which animal studies, especially primates, can be generalised to human population is still heavily debated amongst psychologists
Outline learning theory as an explanation for attachment
-infants learn to become attached to primary caregiver through ether classical conditioning or operant conditioning
-known as ‘cupboard love’
-mainly focuses on food
classical conditioning:
-learning by associating two stimuli together
-before conditioning, food is an unconditioned stimulus which produces an unconditioned response (reflex) in the child relief from hunger / pleasure
-before conditioning, primary caregiver is neutral stimulus, produces no response from infant
-during conditioning, infant associates food with caregiver
-repeated pairings make caregiver a conditioned stimulus, associated with relief from hunger, which elicits a conditioned response (feeding) from mother
-hence attachment is formed
operant conditioning:
-Skinner (1938) found non-human animals learn behaviour through consequences
-when a behaviour is rewarded (through positive/negative reinforcement), it is repeated
-when behaviour is punished, the behaviour stops
-Dollard and Miller (1950) applied these principles to human attachment formation
-infant cries when hungry to be comforted
-caregiver feeds, elicits feeling of pleasure (reward) so baby cries more often to receive food (positive reinforcement)
-reinforcement is reciprocal, as caregiver feels rewarded by baby no longer crying (negative reinforcement), so feeds more often
Primary drive: hunger
Primary reinforcer: food
Secondary drive: attachment
Secondary reinforcer: caregiver
Evaluate learning theory as an explanation for attachment
Limitation - undermined by Harlow’s research:
-baby rhesus monkeys spent more time with soft towelling mother with no food than harsh wire monkey with food
-attachment was not formed based on food alone but also contact comfort
-contradicts learning theory and suggests alternative processes were ignored
-furthermore, Schaffer and Emerson found infants formed attachment to mothers, despite being fed by other carers
-provides further contradiction to learning theory
Limitation - refuted by Lorenz’s research:
-baby geese imprinted on first moving object they saw
-innate behaviour to aid survival
-contradicts idea that attachment behaviours are learnt
Limitation - behavioural explanations are criticised for being overly simplistic
-bond between human and baby is complex
-hence suffers from environmental reductionism
-furthermore, heavily reliant on animals
-e.g. Pavlov’s dogs and Skinner’s rats/pigeons
-difficult to generalise to humans due to biological differences
Limitation - alternative theory:
-Bowlby believed infants had an innate readiness to form attachment to caregiver
-protection against harm while they’re young/vulnerable
-learning theory suggests how attachment forms, whereas evolutionary perspective also explains why
-hence more comprehensive rather than reducing it to a simple stimulus-response association
Outline Bowlby’s theory of attachment as an explanation for attachment
Takes an evolutionary perspective
Born with innate tendency to form attachments to increase survival chances
Remember A Snap Chat Makes Images
Adaptive:
-enhance survival
-infants are kept warm, given food and kept safe
Social releasers:
-babies possess inborn social releasers
-unlock inborn tendencies in adults (i.e. mothers) to want to care for them
-can be physical, e.g. big eyes and button nose to appear cute
-can be behavioural, e.g. crying, cooing and smiling to get attention
Critical period:
-Bowlby said attachments form within a critical period of 3-6 months
-later acknowledged that can be formed up to three years of age
-however, it is a lot harder to form outside this critical period
-if child has not formed an attachment within this critical period, they are damaged for life (emotionally, physically, socially and intellectually)
Monotropy:
-infants form one special attachment with primary caregiver, usually mother
-if mother not available, then it can be with another adult (mother substitute)
Internal Working Model:
-acts as template for expectations of future relationships
-e.g. secure monotropy = healthy relationship later in life
Evaluate Bowlby’s theory of attachment as an explanation for attachment
Strength - support for internal working model
-Hazan and Shaver (1987) proposed the Love Quiz
-self-report questionnaire that assessed internal working model
-found positive correlation between early attachment types and later adult relationships
-furthermore, Sroufe et al. (2005) supports this
-Minnesota parent-child study showed outcome of early attachment type being projected onto expectations of future relationships
Strength - support for critical period
-Lorenz found baby geese imprinted within first 12-17 hrs after birth
-appeared to be innate
-suggests animals have a critical period to form attachments in
-however, psychologists call this a ‘sensitive period’ in humans, as they have opportunities to form attachment outside the optimal window
Limitation - alternative explanation
-Kagan (1984) proposed the temperament hypothesis
-child’s genetically inherited personality traits have a role in attachment formation to caregiver
-e.g. more sociable babies are easy to form attachments too, whereas anxious ones are difficult
-argued that Bowlby ignored role of temperament, so reduces validity
Limitation - mixed evidence for importance of monotropy
-Schaffer and Emerson (1964) refute idea of one special attachment
-their stages of attachment includes multiple attachments
-they recognised that some infants do follow monotropy pattern, but not all
-therefore, overrules individual differences
What is Ainsworth’s strange situation, aim and method?
by Ainsworth et al. (1971)
Aim: testing strength of caregiver-infant attachment
Method:
-infants aged 9-18 months were placed in an unfamiliar room
-observed behaviour through one-way mirror during 8 different scenarios, lasting 3 mins each:
1) mother and infant enter room. Mother sits on a chair reading magazine. Child is on floor, exploring toys
2) stranger enters and sits and talks briefly with mother
3) stranger approaches infant and attempts to play with them
4) mother leaves room so infant is alone with stranger. Stranger comforts baby if they are upset and offers to play with them
5) mother returns and stranger leaves
6) mother leaves and baby is alone in room
7) stranger re-enters to comfort and play with baby
8) mother returns and stranger leaves
Observations of stranger anxiety, separation anxiety, exploration behaviour and reunion behaviour were video recorded.
Results of Ainsworth’s strange situation
66% of infants had a secure attachment:
-explore unfamiliar environment, but return to mother at intervals as a safe-base
-moderate separation anxiety, infant’s play is disrupted by mother’s departure
-moderate stranger anxiety, infant wary of strangers and moves closer to mother if she is also present
-shows joy upon reunion, seeks proximity and is easily comforted by her presence
22% infants had insecure-avoidant attachment:
-explores environment but doesn’t return to mother as safe-base
-low separation anxiety, not concerned by mother’s departure
-low stranger anxiety, shows little preference between mother and stranger
-often ignores her, does not seek proximity or show joy on reunion (avoids intimacy)
12% infants had insecure-resistant attachment:
-stays close to mother and doesn’t explore environment
-high separation anxiety, extremely violent and distressed when mother leaves
-high stranger anxiety, extremely distressed when stranger tries to comfort
-seeks but rejects attempts of mother’s comfort on reunion, hence not easily comforted
Evaluate Ainsworth’s Strange Situation
Strength - high inter-observer reliability
-observations took place under strict and controlled methods (e.g. video records)
-Ainsworth had many observers watching
-94% agreement between observers
-hence makes findings more meaningful
-furthermore, had predetermined behavioural categories so easy to replicate method
Limitation - lacks ecological validity
-unfamiliar setting
-infant may have acted differently if it was set in a familiar environment, e.g. home
-cannot conclude whether behaviours displayed would be the same in a familiar environment
-reduces external validity of findings
Limitation - experiment was undisguised
-parents knew they were being observed
-may have displayed demand characteristics (e.g. by being more affectionate than normal)
-could have altered infant’s behaviour
-reduces internal validity
Limitation - possibly incomplete classification system
-Main and Solomon (1986) conducted subsequent research
-analysed hundreds of strange situation episodes via videotape
-suggested Ainsworth overlooked fourth type: insecure-disorganised (infants showed inconsistent patterns of behaviour)
-further support comes from a meta analysis of US studies by Van Ijzendoorn et al. (1999)
-found 15% of infants were in fact classified as insecure-disorganised
Limitation- nomothetic approach
-not all infants fit into one of the three attachment types
-later research found some children fit into a fourth category, known as insecure-disorganised
-however, this can be overcome by an idiographic approach
Outline van Ijzendoorn and Kroonenberg (1988)
Aim: to investigate cross-cultural variations in attachment
Method: conducted meta-analysis of 32 studies from 8 countries that had used Ainsworth’s strange situation. Results included over 1990 infants
Results:
1) secure attachment was the most common type across all cultures examined
2) Israel and Japan (collectivist cultures) showed higher level of insecure-resistant attachment compared to other countries
3) Germany (individualistic culture) showed higher levels of insecure-avoidant attachment compared to other countries
Conclusion:
-global trend reflects US norm of secure attachment being most common
-supports argument that secure attachment is optimal for healthy development
