Attachment Flashcards
(103 cards)
1
Q
What is an attachment
A
A strong long lasting emotional bond formed between a baby + main caregiver
2
Q
What are the 3 features of attachment
A
- safe base
- separation anxiety
- stranger anxiety
3
Q
Stages of forming an attachment
A
- Pre attachment
- Indiscriminate stage
- Discriminate stage
- multiple attachment
4
Q
Features of pre attachment
A
0-3 months
Babies show no preference for any adult
5
Q
Features of indiscriminate stage
A
3-7 month
Babies begin to prefer familiar ppl, don’t form a strong attachment to particular person yet
6
Q
Features of discriminate stage
A
7-9 months
Babies develop strong attachment to one person
7
Q
Features of multiple attachment stage
A
9+ months
Able to form attachments with several ppl
8
Q
Outline Schaffer and Emmersons study
A
- naturalistic observation
- 60 babies and families from birth to 18 months
- longitudinal study, mothers +babies visited every 4 weeks
9
Q
What did Schaffer and Emmerson observe
A
Observed babies in presence of strangers and when caregiver was removed - test stranger + separation anxiety
Interviews were also conducted
10
Q
What did Schaffer and Emmerson find
A
~ evidence for 4 stages of attachment
~ 87% babies formed attachments to 2+ caregivers
~ 31% babies formed attachments to 5+ caregivers
~ babies main attachment figure wasn’t always the main caregiver
~ babies who formed strongest attachments had caregivers who displayed most sensitive responsiveness
11
Q
Schaffer and Emmerson strengths (3)
A
+ naturalistic observation
+ ecological validity
+ generalisable to how babies and caregivers behave in everyday life
12
Q
Schaffer and Emmerson weaknesses (3)
A
- observer bias, see what they expect
- interview, pps may show social desirability to avoid being judged
- data may be unreliable
data collection was subjective - one mother might be more sensitive to crying than another which would create systematic bias thus challenge validity
13
Q
What are the two caregiver infant interactions
A
- Reciprocity
- Interactional synchrony
14
Q
What is reciprocity + give example
A
Infant and caregiver take in turns, responding to each others action
High reciprocity = strong attachment bond
E.g baby laughing in response to caregiver pulling funny face
15
Q
What is Interactional synchrony + give example
A
Infant and caregiver perform similar action in time/synch with each other
E.g mum talks, baby makes noises in time with her speech
16
Q
Outline + state state findings of Isabella et al study (support for caregiver infant interactions)
A
- frame by frame video analysing movements babies make when with mother
-found positive correlation
-> high Interactional synchrony, high reciprocity = stronger attachment bond
17
Q
1 Strength + 2 weakness of Isabella et al study
A
+ frame by frame analysis, highly detailed and reliable observations
- observer bias, gestures and movement over interpreted by observer
- correlational study, hard to infer cause and effect
18
Q
Outline aim and findings of condon and sander (support for caregiver infant interactions)
A
- frame by frame video analysis, movements of babies with mothers
= found babies time actions to occur in time with mothers speech -> support caregiver infant interactions
19
Q
What is bowlbys mono tropic theory
A
Unique bonds formed between child and mother
Evolutionary theory, innate, mothers naturally / biologically nurturing respond to social releases + look after baby
20
Q
One study that goes against bowlbys mono tropic theory
A
Schaffer and Emmerson -> babies form multiple attachments (not mono tropic + babies do form attachments with father
21
Q
3 main theories about role of father
A
- Lack sensitivity + nurturing personality to form attachment with their child
- Dad role is playmate whereas mums role is carer and nurturer
- Dads are just as caring and sensitive as mothers + can form similar attachment to childeren as mums can
22
Q
Outline grossmen et als method + measure (evaluation for role of father)
A
- longitudinal study observed relationships between children and parents
- toddler -> 6yrs old -> 10yrs old -> 16 yrs old
Measured:
1. Strength of attachment
2. Parents play sensitivity
3. Child’s internal working model
23
Q
What did grosssmen et al find (evaluation for role of father)
A
- fathers = playmate and mothers = provide care (have diff roles in child’s development
- internal working models associated with strength of attachment to mum not dad
- internal working models associated with play sensitivity of dad
24
Q
Outline field et als study + what did they measure (evaluation for role of father)
A
- observational study, frame by frame analysis observe interactions between parents and kids
Measured: - sensitive responsiveness of parents to kids needs
- amount of time they spent playing with their child
25
Field et al : findings (evaluation for role of father)
1. Dads who were primary caregivers displayed as much sensitive responsiveness as mothers
2. Dads = play more Mum= more sensitive responsiveness
3. More time spent looking after babies = the more role is like mum
DADS CAN TAKE ON CARING, NURTURING ROLE
26
Outline Brown et als study : method+measure (evaluation for role of father)
Longitudinal —> relationship between child + father, observed them at multiple time periods ( 13moths to 3yrs)
1. Strength of attachment between dads and kids
2. Sensitive responsiveness from each parent
3. How involved each parent was with caretaking
27
Brown et al: findings (evaluation for role of father)
More involved + sensitive fathers were when child is 13 months, the stronger their attachment to their child at 3 yrs old
28
What are the 2 cultural factors /societal norms about how women and men should behave
1. Mothers= caregivers Fathers= breadwinners, display no sensitivity/emotions
2. Fathers couldn’t get paid paternity leave = hard to take on primary caregiver responsibilities
29
Define internal working model
A schema built from a child’s relationship/attachment with main caregiver that provides beliefs + expectations about future relationships
30
What are social releases
= behaviours babies perform to attract attention of caregivers, babies biologically pre programmed to perform social releases
E.g. crying, smiling, crawling attract attention of caregiver + help baby get what it wants
31
What is a monotropic attachment
= 1 strong unique bond/attachment to special caregiver
32
Why do we form attachments: 2 theories
1. The learning theory of attachment
2. Bowlbys’ mono tropic theory
33
Outline the learning theory of attachment
* attachments, learned through experiences of being fed by caregiver repeatedly
*babies form attachments to caregiver because the feed them
* attachments are learned through CLASSICAL + OPERANT CONDITIONING
34
The learning theory of attachment: CLASSICAL CONDITIONING
= neutral stimulus becomes conditioned stimulus through repeated association with unconditioned stimulus
1. Food = unconditioned stimulus
2. Caregiver = neutral stimulus
Repeated experiences of being fed by caregiver, babies learn to associate caregivers with food
So caregiver now = conditioned stimulus + babies develop happy conditioned response to caregiver
35
The learning theory of attachment: OPERANT CONDITIONING
= learn to associate actions which an outcome through reinforcement
*POSITIVE REINFORCEMENT = learn to repeat behaviour, rewarding outcome (stay near caregiver = rewarding outcome is food)
*NEGATIVE REINFORCEMENT = learn to repeat behaviour, avoid unrewarding outcome (stay near caregiver = avoid unpleasant feeling of hunger
36
Evaluation of learning theory of attachment 1+, 2-
+ Dollard and miller’s observation, found babies get fed 2000 times by caregiver per year = believable
- harlows monkey study -> baby monkeys comfort > food
- Israel communal environments raised by foster mums (metapeletes) -> don’t attach to foster mums (who feed them )
37
2 Strengths and weaknesses of using animal studies
+ directly test cause and effect
+ no need to rely on natural and quasi experiments
- unethical
- animals are different to humans, not generalisable as attachments may be different
38
Harlows study: IV + DV + aim
IV = type of mother providing milk ( cloth or wire)
DV = amount of time baby spent with each mother
Aim = test learning theory of attachment, investigating whether monkeys choose comfort or food
39
Harlows study : sample + method
- separated 8 baby monkeys from mother = group 1 (4 monkeys) + group 2 (4monkeys)
- group one = wire monkey provides milk
- group two = cloth monkey provides milk
40
Harlows study : findings
* attachment driven by comfort not food
* spent majority time with cloth mother regardless of her providing milk
* group (wire monkey had milk), only approached when needed food
* when placed in cage with only wire monkey, babies showed distress + stress
DOESNT SUPPORT LEARNING THEORY OF ATTACHMENT
41
Harlows study : strength
+ lab exp= control over extraneous variables, establish cause + effect between IV and DV
42
Harlows study : weaknesses (3)
*confounding variables = appearance of wire and cloth mother were different
*lacks generalisability = conducted on monkeys, doesn’t tell us how humans form attachments
* unethical = distressing situation causing psychological harm
43
Outline Bowlbys Monotropic theory
~ attachments are biologically pre programmed into both babies and caregivers (driven by need to protect )
~ Evolution , babies form attachments as a mechanism for survival
~ attachments are vital for shaping babies development
44
What is the critical period
Short time frame where babies form attachment to main caregiver = 2 and 1/2 years
45
What is the study support for bowlbys monotropic theory
Lorenz and gosling study (1952)
46
What was the control and experimental group in Lorenzs study
Control group = left to hatch normally, geese were born normally, in presence of mother goose. (6 geese)
Experimental group = hatched in an incubator away from mother, the first thing the geese saw was Lorenz. (6 geese)
47
What did Lorenz find
Control group -> geese attached to mother immediately and followed her around
Experimental group -> geese attached to Lorenz immediately and followed him around
Baby geese form attachments to first thing they see when they’re born, immediately after birth = attachment is biologically pre programmed
48
How does lorenzs study support Bowlby
1. Imprinting happens during a narrow time window - critical period
2. Imprinting is irreversible, only formed onto one animal/person - monotropic
3. Imprinting occurs immediately after birth - biologically pre programmed
49
3 limitations of lorenzs study
- results weren’t completely replicable
*Guiton study on baby chicks found that attachments are not mono tropic and reversible (can change) although baby chicks imprint onto first object they see (spade) can be reversed, can still form an attachment to its mother
- not generalisable as study conducted on baby geese who may have different mechanisms of attachment to humans
- major ethical issues - animals suffered greatly and experienced long lasting effects later in life and developed abnormally e.g monkeys not cradling babies
50
What is another study that supports Bowlby
Metapelets in Israel supports idea that attachments are formed to the main caregiver who provides emotional support and comfort - MONOTROPY
51
Give a study that doesn’t support Bowlby
Schaffer and Emerson found 87% of babies formed multiple attachments to 2 or more caregivers - NOT MONOTROPIC
52
Bowlby monotropic theory - positive changes in the real world
* longer parental leave
* longer visiting hours for children in hospital
53
Bowlby monotropic theory - negative (unintended) consequences
* less women in work force
* women feeling guilted into staying at home to look after children due to fear of their absence would have negative implications for child’s development (right wing politicians)
54
Secure attachment style
~ happy to explore, uses mother as safe base
~ high separation anxiety, distressed
~ high stranger anxiety, distressed
~ caregiver is responsive to childs needs
~ positive and happy reunion
55
Insecure avoidant attachment
~ high willingness to explore, no safe base
~ low separation anxiety, no sign of distress
~ low stranger anxiety, fine with strangers and plays normally
~ caregiver behaviour is indifferent, isn’t responsive to needs
~ reunion is indifferent, little interest to caregiver returning
56
Insecure resistant attachment
~ unwilling to explore, cries
~ extreme separation anxiety, intense distress
~ extreme stranger anxiety, avoids, fears stranger
~ inconsistent care
~ reunion, approaches caregiver resists contact and pushes away
57
The strange situation -> Mary Ainsworth : sample
- controlled - overt - non participant observation
- studied 9-18 months old babies and their mothers
58
Mary Ainsworth : method
Observation divided into 8 scripted episodes (standardise across pps)
1. Mother + infant go into room -> measure safe base behaviour
2. Stranger enters room tries to talk + play with child -> stranger anxiety
3. Mother leaves room, leaving child with stranger -> separation anxiety
4. Mother returns into room + stranger leaves -> response to reunion
5. Mother leaves room, infant alone -> separation anxiety
6. Instead of mother returning, stranger returns trying to comfort/play with baby -> stranger anxiety
7. Mum re enters room + stranger leaves -> response to reunion
59
Mary Ainsworth : Results
70% SECURE ATTACHMENT
15% INSECURE RESISTANT
15% INSECURE AVOIDANT
60
Mary Ainsworth : findings
* caregivers that are sensitive to their needs, kids use them as safe base, ↑separation anxiety, ↑stranger anxiety, happy reunion behaviour -> secure
* caregivers show love inconsistently, kids don't use caregiver as safe base unwilling to explore and remain close to caregiver, ↑ separation anxiety,↑ strange anxiety angry reunion behave -> insecure resistant
* caregivers are indifferent to child needs, kid doesn't use caregiver as safe base, happy to explore with or without caregiver present ↓ separation anxiety, ↓ stranger anxiety indifferent reunion behaviour -> insecure avoidant
61
What is one weakness of Ainsworth study
All American, similar white middle class background
- sample has low population validity
- can’t generalise results to infants + mothers from other backgrounds
62
What are social norms
Rules + expectations about how we should behave ( varies across different cultures)
63
Ijzendoom + Kroonenberg : sample
- meta analysis of 32 studies
- 8 countries
- used strange situation method
64
Which 8 countries did Ijzendoom + Kroonenberg use
Germany, US, UK, Sweden, Israel,Netherlands, Japan, China
65
Ijzendoom + Kroonenberg : findings
most common = secure
highest % of resistant = Japan and Israel
highest % of avoidant = Germany
differences across cultures = small (secure is always the most common)
difference within cultures = big (variation within is 1.5 times greater than between cultures)
- In individualist cultures (such as the UK and the US), insecure-resistant attachment was under 14% of infants assessed (similar to Ainsworth's original sample)
- Individualistic countries that support independence such as Germany had high levels of resistant-avoidant attachment
- In collectivist cultures (such as China and Japan), insecure-resistant attachment was above 25% of infants assessed
66
Strengths of the strange situation (3)
1. Method is replicable (+ across cultures)
2. Method is highly standardised, high control over extraneous variables = valid + reliable
3. Results are stable + reliable across time -> Mary Main looked at same children at 1 and 6 yrs old found they have the same attachment style both times
67
Weakness of strange situation (3)
1. Lab -> lack ecological validity
2. Results can’t be generalised to other members of population -> lack population validity
3. Culturally biased towards behaviours expected in western cultures
68
Strengths of Ijzendoom + Kroonenberg (2)
+ All studies assessed used the Strange Situation as a way of classifying attachment, Comparisons made using a standardised procedure, high reliability findings
+ A robust cross-cultural comparison was made, 32 studies were assessed, across 8 different countries, looking at nearly 2000 infants, large sample increases reliability findings
69
Weaknesses of Ijzendoom + Kroonenberg (2)
- compared countries and not cultures, within each country are many different cultural variations
Van Ijzendoorn & Sagi (2001) found attachment within Japan varied, Tokyo has similar attachment styles Western countries, whilst more rural settings had larger numbers of insecure-resistant attached infants
findings of Van Ijzendoorn and Kroonenberg (1988) might not be due to cultural variations, More care is needed to assess whether a sample is representative of a culture rather than a country
- many confounding variables by carrying out a meta-analysis across different cultures, different countries may have performed the Strange Situation with a varied methodology
Confounding variables that may have impacted the findings:
age, social economic status (poverty or wealth), social class, urban or rural living
findings may lack validity and conclusions cannot be drawn due to the non-matched studies assessed
70
Who came up with the Maternal deprivation theory
Bowlby
71
When children are deprived of an attachment figure:
- they never had a loving attachment figure during critical period
- they are separated from their loving attachment figure during critical period
72
Maternal deprivation theory says that damage is
Long lasting and irreversible
73
3 consequences of deprivation (long term separation)
1. Impaired cognitive development = low IQ, poor language skills, difficulty with attention + memory
2. Impaired emotional development = struggle to control emotions + form relationships
3. Impaired behavioural development = deprived children behave badly, turn to crime, delinquency, violence
74
3 consequences of deprivation ( short term separation)
Protest = child becomes angry about being abandoned by main caregiver
Despair = child become sad + withdrawn + refuse comfort
Detachment = child reject main caregiver when reunited with them
75
Maternal deprivation theory study support (case study) method
Robertson and bowlby -> case study little john = separated from mother placed in nursery for 9 days, 17 months old
76
Robertson and bowlby findings:
1. Little John experienced PDD model
- protest, cried for hours in nursery to get attention
- despair, curled up in corner of room sucked thumb refuse to eat and sleep
- detachment, parents picked him up, ignored them went to play with toys refused to look at or hold mum
2. Refused to display affection to mother several months later -> effects of separation are long term caused damage permanently to little John supports bowlby
77
Evaluation of Robertson and bowlby (2)
- case study , can’t be generalised to other children
- confounding variables, may influence johns behaviour so causal cause and effect relationship can’t be established
78
Outline method and hypothesis of 44 thieves study support of maternal deprivation
- Bowlby compared 44thieves to control group 44 non criminal children
- naturalistic exp
- conducted interviews in own clinic while working as psychiatrist treating teens with psychological disorders
- asked children to describe childhood focusing on whether they’ve been separated from attachment figure
Hypothesis = children deprived of attachment figure turned to delinquency
79
Findings of 44 thieves study
- 44 thieves group, 50% experienced separation from mothers in early life
- control group, 5% experienced separation from mothers in early life
- bowlby came up with term “psychopathy” to describe the thieves
- 44 thieves group, 32% had severe difficulty forming relationships with other ppl, displayed total lack of empathy/guilt for actions
- 86% labelled “affectionless psychopaths” had experienced separation from mothers in early life
80
Bowlby 44 thieves study: conclusion
Deprived of love of caregiver during early childhood makes children more likely to become delinquent in later life + suffer from affection less psychopathy
81
Evaluation of 44 thieves study (4)
- interviews relied on self report, not always accurate + objective when describing feelings, attitudes, behaviours
- memory = unreliable, biased by leading questions + post event discussions not accurate
- natural experiment = can’t directly manipulate IV, lacks control over extraneous variables
- investigator effect, pps feel bowlby wanted them to say they experienced deprivation, may pretend to experience more deprivation in childhood then rlly did = demand characteristics
82
Limitations of Bowlby maternal deprivation theory (3)
1. Effects of deprivation can be reversed -> Koluchovas case study
* twins, 7yrs, severe deprivation, help of adopted parents, effects of twins deprivation reversed by adults both twins above average intelligence, good jobs + happy in relationships
2. Ignores other factors affecting psychological development -> confounding variables can cause psychological damage to children, cause emotional distress (poverty, abuse, malnutrition) = establishing casual relationships between deprivation + psychological damage is difficult
3. Oversimplified -> Michael Rutter : bowlby confused deprivation with privation
83
Deprivation
Child forms attachment to caregiver, which is then removed
84
Privation
Child never experiences an attachment figure
85
Institutionalised
Children grow up in institutions (orphanages/foster homes)
86
Name studies that looked at institutionalisation
1. Hodges + Tizard (1989)
2. Michael Rutter
87
Hodges + Tizard (1989) sample + method
~ 65 childeren, institution before 4months
~ natural experiment
~ 4 groups :
* remained in institution * returns to biological parents
* adopted early * control group = not institutionalised
88
Hodges + Tizard (1989) : Findings
-> adopted early = didn’t develop psychological damage
-> effects of privation can be reversed if placed in loving environment when young
-> kids who experienced privation + remained in institution/returned to biological parents experienced impaired emotional development
89
Does Hodges + Tizard support Bowlby
NO evidence against Bowlbys claim that effects of being deprived during critical period are irreversible
90
Romania 1960 background info
Leader : to boost economy, make it rich need to increase population so banned contraception + abortion, taxed ppl without kids.
-> ppl were poor + couldn’t afford care for kids so sent to Romanian institutes / orphanages
91
Michael Rutter : Romanian orphan study method
* longitudinal natural experiment
* 111 Romanian orphans brought into British homes
* 52 British kids adopted from British orphanages
* investigated cognitive, behavioural, emotional development
92
Rutter findings:
1. Romanian orphans adopted BEFORE 6 months = good emotional development
2. Romanian orphans adopted AFTER 6 months = long term emotional + cognitive impairment
3. British children is played good emotional + cognitive development even if adopted after 6months
93
Rutter conclusions :
-> effects of privation can be reversed even if privation is severe as long as they’re introduced into loving homes from young age
-> longer experience of severe privation = worse long term outcomes
-> worse outcomes can be due to abuse + neglect that comes with privation + lack of attachment figure
94
Evaluation of research into institutionalisation (2)
- longitudinal studies = attrition, pps decide stop taking part in research half way through -> underestimate negative effects of privation
- interviews = social desirability, pps give incorrect answers to appear socially acceptable + avoid negative judgements
95
What is the continuity hypothesis
Internal working model continues to influence behaviours in adult relationships + imitate relationship with parents in future relationships with friends, partner, kids
96
What does continuity hypothesis state about 3 attachment type
SECURE - secure, trusting future relationships
INSECURE AVOIDANT - expect ppl not to show them love, be independent
INSECURE RESISTANT - expect ppl to be inconsistent with their love + act out for attention
97
Studies into continuity hypothesis
- Hazan + Shaver (1987)
- Mary Main
98
Hazan + Shaver (1987) sample and method
* self report * sent out 2 questionnaires in local newspaper
* volunteer sample
* sample 1 = 205 men + 415 woman age 14-52
* sample 2 = 38 men + 70 women
*Tested whether correlation between q1 (attachment with parents) + q2 (attachment with partner)
99
Hazan + Shaver (1987) findings
~ pps childhood attachment to parents influence romantic relationships
~ secure attachment to parents = secure romantic relationships, believed in love
~ insecure attachments to parents = less successful relationships + more lonely
100
Hazan + Shaver (1987) evaluation
- volunteer sample = not representative of gender population
- correlational study = can’t infer cause + effect, lack causation
- self report = social desirability bias + not accurate/ objective when answering
101
Mary Main (1985) method
* interview based
* asked questions about relationship with parents + with own children
* asked to explain attachment in 5 adjectives + describe why
* specialists grouped them into categories:
- erratic - unstable - unsteady - unpredictable - inconsistent
102
Mary Main (1985) findings
1. attachment styles to parents correlated with attachment to own child
2. %of adults displaying 3 attachment styles were similar to % found by Mary Ainsworth
103
Mary Main (1985) Evaluation
- responses may be inaccurate-> asked to recall, memory is unreliable
- social desirability bias -> not objective, lie to appear socially acceptable
- investigator effects -> pps behaviour influenced by attitudes, behaviours + expectations of researcher
