attachment

Question 1

what is reciprocity?

Answer 1

when infant or caregiver responds to the other eliciting a response from them e.g a caregiver says something causing the infant to smile causing the parent to laugh.

Question 2

what is interactional synchrony?

Answer 2

when caregiver and infants actions or emotions mirror each other

Question 3

what are ‘alert phases’

Answer 3

Phases where the infant signals it is ready for interaction. Mothers pick up and act on this 2/3 of the time (Feldman and Eidelman) but it can vary based on skill of the mother and external factors like stress (finegood et al)

Question 4

what was Meltzoff and Moore’s research into interactional synchrony?

Answer 4

• observed mothers and babies as young as two weeks when mothers would display one of three distinctive facial expressions.
• babies mirrored it more times than chance would predict

Question 5

What was Isabella’s research into interactional synchrony?

Answer 5

• observed 30 mothers and babies together and assessed there level of synchrony and the quality of mother- infant attachment
• they found higher levels of synchrony were associated with higher quality of infant-caregiver attachment.

Question 6

Evaluate caregiver infant interactions

Answer 6

+ use of recording in a lab
> confounding variables can be controlled
> video can be replayed and analysed later
> infants don’t know they’re being recorded so won’t change their behaviour.
- difficult to interpret infant behaviour
> we don’t know what they’re thinking
- low explanatory power
> Feldman - we don’t know that reciprocity and interactional synchrony are important to development
CA Isabelle et al found interactional synchrony predicted development of good attachments

Question 7

Who came up with the four stages of attachment?

Answer 7

Schaffer and Emerson

Question 8

what are the four stages of attachment?

Answer 8

stage 1: Asocial stage
- babies have similar attitudes towards objects and humans
- show a preference for familiar people
stage 2: indiscriminate attachment
- 2-7 months
- show a definite preference for humans
- prefer familiar people but accept comfort from anyone
stage 3: specific attachment
- around 7 months
show preference for one person
- show signs of separation anxiety and stranger anxiety
stage 4: multiple attachments
- shortly after stage 3
- form attachments with more people who they spend a lot of time with
- 29% of children form multiple attachments within 1 month of stage 3

Question 9

what was Schaffer and Emerson’s research into the four stages of attachments?

Answer 9

• visit 60 infants (31 boys, 29 girls) every month for 12 months then again at 18 months.
• they asked the mother about the kinds of protest the child shows in every day separations and assessed their stranger anxiety
  - findings match with the four stages of attachment

Question 10

evaluate the four stages of attachment

Answer 10

+participant researcher
> most observations were done in everyday situations during ordinary activities
> high external validity
CA: > mothers may be biased about their children or may not notice some behaviours
- we may not see signs of anxiety in young infants
> because infants can’t communicate or really move so may be anxious but we can’t tell
+ practical application
>the research can help parents make informed decisions about how to comfort their infant and when to make some bigger decisions like when to send them to nursery

Question 11

what did schaffer and Emerson find about attachment to fathers in their longitudinal study?

Answer 11

> Father was the sole first object of attachment 3% of the time
Father was joint first object of attachment 27% of the time
75% of cases an attachment has been formed with the father by 18 months

Question 12

what was Grossman et al’s research into the role of the father and findings?

Answer 12

• carried out a longitudinal study of infants into their teens looking at the parents behaviour and its relation to the child’s later attachments
  - They found the quality of attachment with the mother and not the father was related to the quality of later attachments
• They found the quality of play with the father was related to the quality of attachments in adolescence suggesting they have an important but different role to the mother

Question 13

what was Field’s research into the role of the father and findings?

Answer 13

• Filmed 4 month old babies in face to face interactions with primary caregiver mothers, primary caregiver fathers and secondary caregiver fathers
  - primary caregiver fathers showed more reciprocity and interactional synchrony, like primary caregiver mothers, than secondary caregiver fathers

Question 14

evaluate the role of the father

Answer 14

• confusion over the question
  >some researchers are looking into them as primary caregivers, others as secondary
• conflicting evidence
  > longitudinal studies like Grossman’s have shown that fathers play an important role in the development of their child but children who don’t have fathers don’t develop differently.
  CA: Parents where there isn’t a father may simply adapt to take on this role
  + real world application
  > can help parents make informed decisions about who should take care of the child
• there may be bias from the traditional role of mothers and fathers

Question 15

what was Lorenzo’s research into imprinting and findings?

Answer 15

• he had half a clutch of goose eggs raised by their mother and half raised by him. Lorenzo was the first moving thing they saw
• the second group (incubator group) followed him around everywhere.
  - when the groups were mixed the second group would continue to follow Lorenzo not the biological mother
  - there is a critical period (a few hours for geese) in which if imprinting doesn’t take place it never will
  sexual imprinting: a peacock that imprinted on a giant tortoise showed mating habits only to giant tortoises as an adult

Question 16

What is Harlow’s research into attachment and findings?

Answer 16

• he reared 16 monkeys with wire model ‘mothers’.
• in one condition the plain wire mother had milk and the cloth covered mother did not.
  - the monkeys cuddled the cloth mother more regardless of which had food and when scared would always go to the cloth- covered mother showing that contact comfort is more important than meeting survival needs
  - the maternal deprivation had lasting effects the monkeys were dysfunctional (aggressive, unskilled at mating, likely to neglect their young)

Question 17

evaluate animal studies

Answer 17

+ research support for lorenzo’s imprinting
> Regolin and Vallortigara did a similar experiment with chicks and shape combinations
+ Harlow’s research has real world application
> helps social workers and clinical psychologists understand the importance of attachment figures and the risks if an infant doesn’t bond with anyone
- both lack generalisability
> humans are not mokey’s or geese so may act differently
- ethical issues
> protection from harm, concent, withdrawal ect

Question 18

Who proposed the learning theory of attachment?

Answer 18

Dollard and Miller

Question 19

what is classical conditioning in attachment?

Answer 19

food (US)= happy baby (UR)
Mother (NS)= neutral baby (UR)
food+mother= happy baby (UR)
Mother(CS)= happy baby (CR)

Question 20

what is operant conditioning in attachment?

Answer 20

Mother and baby reinforce each other:
Baby cries and gets comforted. Baby is positively reinforced to cry for mothers attention for the reward of comfort
Mother is negatively reinforced to comfort the baby to avoid the punishment of it crying

Question 21

what is attachment as a secondary drive?

Answer 21

Children are born with innate biological motivators (primary drives) e.g. the drive to eat when we’re hungry. The mother reduces that drive (e.g. by feeding them) so becomes associated with the reduction of that drive (drive reduction theory). Attachment is therefore a secondary drive as it is secondary to and a result of the biological motivators.

Question 22

Evaluate the learning theory of attachment

Answer 22

-conflicting evidence (animal studies)
> Lorenzo’s research they imprinted regardless of association with food
> Harlow’s research they would go to the cloth mother even if it wasn’t what was feeding them

• conflicting research (human studies)
  > Schaffer and Emerson: infants tend to attach to mothers regardless of feeding
  > Isabella et al: high levels of interactional synchrony predicted quality of attachment not feeding

+ conditioning may play a role
> feeling comfortable and safe in the presence of a particular adult may influence the choice of attachment
CA: Both CC and OC have the baby play a passive role
> Feldman and Eidelman: they play an active role in reciprocity and interactional synchrony

+ social learning theory
> Hay and Vespo: Parents model and reward attachment behaviour

Question 23

what is Bowlby’s monotropic theory?

Answer 23

He put great emphasis on attachment to one caregiver (the mother though not necessarily the bio mother or female). he had two principles:
the law of continuity: the more consistent and predictable the child’s care, the higher the quality of their attachment
The law of accumulated separation: Every little separation and the effects add up and the safest dose is a zero dose

Question 24

what are social releasers?

Answer 24

Innate ‘cute’ behaviour like cooing, smiling, ect. that encourages adult attention and activates adult social interaction
Attachment in reciprocal and hard-wired into mother and infant

Question 25

What is the critical and sensitive period

Answer 25

The critical period is the time in which an attachment must form (up to the age of 2). The sensitive period is around 6 months when the infant is most sensitive and most likely to form an attachment.

Question 26

what is the internal working model?

Answer 26

the infant has a mental representation of their relationship with their primary caregiver and bases future relationships off of it. If they had a loving reliable relationship, they will expect that from future ones.

Question 27

Evaluate Bowlby's monotropic theory

Answer 27

- lacks validity > schaffer and emerson: not all babies form just one attachment, a vast minority form multiple at the same time > first attachment may just be stronger not difference + support for social releasers > Brazelton et al: babies trigger interactions with adults > if they didn't get a reaction they would lie motionless > shows social reseasers are important for development of attachment + support for internal working model > Bailey et al assessed attachment relationships in 99 mothers and their 1 year old baby > mothers poorly attached to their primary attachment figure were more likely to have poorly attached babies CA: other effects on social development > there may be other variables/ influences e.g. genetic differences in anxiety + ethical concerns > suggests mothers are to blame for everything that goes wrong with there child

Question 28

Ainsworth's strange situation: aim

Answer 28

Aimed to observe key attachment behaviours as a means of assessing quality of attachment.

Question 29

Ainsworth's strange situation: behaviours for judging attachment

Answer 29

Behaviours used to judge attachment: **Proximity seeking**- baby with good attachment will stay fairly close to their caregiver **exploration and secure -base behaviour**- baby with good attachment can confidently explore using primary attachment figure as a base **stranger anxiety**- well attached baby will be weary of strangers **separation anxiety**- good attached baby will protest separation **reunion behaviour**- greet caregiver and seek comfort

Question 30

Ainsworth's strange situation: procedure

Answer 30

- baby is in an unfamiliar playroom with toys - baby is encouraged to support (exploration and secure base) - stranger comes in and approaches baby (stranger anxiety) - caregiver leaves (separation/stranger anxiety) - stranger leaves, caregiver returns (reunion/ exploration from a secure base) - caregiver leaves baby alone (separation anxiety) - stranger returns (stranger anxiety) - caregiver returns (reunion behaviour)

Question 31

Ainsworth's strange situation: findings

Answer 31

secure (B) > 60-75% > explore confidently > proximity seeking behaviour > moderate stranger/ separation anxiety > accept comfort in reunion Insecure- avoidant (A) > 20-25% > explore confidently > don't show proximity seeking behaviour >little stranger/separation anxiety > may avoid contact during reunion Insecure- resistant (C) > about 3% > explore less > greater proximity seeking > high levels of stranger/separation anxiety > resist comfort in reunion

Question 32

evaluate ainsworth's strange situation

Answer 32

+ good predictive validity > toddlers assessed to be type B tend to have better achievement, less bullying experience and better mental health than the other two CA: while it clearly measures something, it is not necessarily attachment (Kagen suggested it may be because of genetics) + good interrelater reliability > Bick et al agreed in 94% of cases > not subjective as it is measuring large clear movements - Culturally bias > may only be valid in cultures similar to that of USA and UK - other attachment types > main and solomon found a fourth attachment type: disorganised > mix of resistant and avoidant behaviours > unusual and often a result of abuse

Question 33

Cultural variation: Van Ijzendoorn and Kroonenberg

Answer 33

- look into the proportion of the different types of attachment across different countries - located 32 studies across 8 countries - used meta-analysis **findings** - secure was most common across all cultures though it varied from 50% (china) to 75% (UK) - proportion of insecure-avoidant and -resistant was similar to ainsworth for individualist cultures but not collectivist (where rates of insecure resistant were higher) - there could also be variations across the same country (USA type B ranged from 46% to 90%)

Question 34

Cultural variation: Simonelli et al

Answer 34

- study in italy to see if the proportions of attachment matched other studies - 76 babies aged 12 months using the strange situation - 50% secure - 36% insecure-avoidant - researchers suggests this is because of increasing number of young children going into professional child care as mothers have to work

Question 35

Cultural variation: Jin et al

Answer 35

- study of the proportions of attachments in korea - 87 babies using the strange situation - similar proportion of secure and insecure however more of the insecure were resistant - researchers suggest this is because of their child rearing style

Question 36

Cultural variation: Evaluate

Answer 36

+ Indigenous researchers > less likely to misinterpret/ misunderstand behaviour CA: not true across all studies Morelli and Tronik - confounding variables because they're across different countries they may not be matched on methodology and environmental variables may differ (e.g. room size) - imposed etic > when we assume an idea or technique that works in one culture will work in another > strange situation may not accurately measure attachment in different cultural contexts

Question 37

Bowlby's theory of maternal deprivation: what is the difference between separation and deprivation?

Answer 37

separation is simply when the child is not in the presence of the primary caregiver. deprivations are extended separations and can be harmful.

Question 38

Bowlby's theory of maternal deprivation: what is the critical period?

Answer 38

the age at which deprivation is most harmful/ impactful. First 2 1/2 years but up risk to 5

Question 39

Bowlby's theory of maternal deprivation: what are the effects on development?

Answer 39

**intelectual** children deprived of there mothers in the critical period will have delayed intelectual development characterised by low IQ **emotional** the mothers emotional care affects the childs emotional development a child deprived during the critical period may be an affectionless psychopath

Question 40

Bowlby's theory of maternal deprivation: 44 thieves

Answer 40

- 44 teens accused of stealing were interviewed for signs of 'affectionless psychopathy' by Bowlby - there families were interviewed for signs of prolonged early separation from their mother - he had a control group of 44 non- criminal thieves **findings** - 14 of the 44 thieves were 'affectionless psychopaths' - 12 of the 14 had experienced early seperation - 5 of the remaining 30 had experienced early separation - only 2 of the control group had experienced early childhood separation **conclusion** - early extended separation causes psychopathy

Question 41

Bowlby's theory of maternal deprivation: evaluate

Answer 41

- flawed evidence > Bowlby carried out the interviews himself > may have been bias > other studies also have confounding variables like goldfarb's study the children had early childhood trauma as well as separation CA: Levy et al found separating baby rats from their mother for as little as a day had long term effects on their social development - deprivation VS privation > Rutter made a distinction between deprivation (loss of an attachment figure) and privation (never forming an attachment) > Bowlby's findings may be due to privation not deprivation - critical period > there is evidence to suggest children who experience neglect and abuse during their critical period can experience little to no damage with the right aftercare > chez twins > better seen as a sensitive period

Question 42

Romanian orphans studies (institutionalisation): Rutter et al

Answer 42

- Followed 165 romanian orphans for years assessed there physical, cognitive and emotional development at ages 4,6,11,15 and 20-25 - assessed 52 english adopted children as a control **findings** - by age 11 they showed different rates of recovery depending on when they were adopted: <6 months: IQ 102 6-2yrs: IQ 88 >2: IQ 77 - children adopted after 6 months showed signs of disinhibited attachment: attaching to adults indiscriminately

Question 43

Romanian orphans studies (institutionalisation): zeanah et al

Answer 43

- assessed 95 romanian orphans aged 12-31 months who had spent most of their lives in institutions - compared to 50 who had never lived in institution - measured their attachment type using the strange situation - asked caretakers about unusual social behaviour e.g. clingy, attention seeking directed at all adults **findings** - 74% of the control group and 19% of the institutional group were securely attached - less than 20% of the control group and 44% of the institutional group had disinhibited attachment

Question 44

effects of institutionalisation:

Answer 44

Disinhibited attachment - children who have spent most of their lives in institution often show this - equally friendly and affectionate to familiar and stranger adults (little to no stranger anxiety) - Rutter explains it as an adaptation to living with multiple caregivers during the sensitive period Intellectual disability - In Rutters study, when the children arrived in england they showed signs of intellectual learning disability, however, those adopted before 6 months had caught up by age 4 - attachment is important in intellectual development

Question 45

evaluate: institutionalisation romanian orphan studies

Answer 45

+ real world application > showed the important of attachment and lead to the introduction of 'key workers' in child care settings + fewer confounding variables > as the children came from loving families there is less likely to be previous trauma CA: the quality of the care in romanian orphans was remarkably poor so it may be the result of bad institutions not all institutions - lack of adult data > we don't know the full long term effect of institutionalisation because it's such a recent event - social sensitivity > results of these studies are coming out while they are still growing up so people may have been expecting less of them possibly even creating a self - fulfilling prophecy

Question 46

Influence of early attachment on later relationships: internal working model

Answer 46

- a baby's first relationship with their primary attachment leads to a mental representation of it - this 'model' will be the child's expectation of how relationships should be and will lead to them seeking out these kinds of relationships

Question 47

Influence of early attachment on later relationships: relationships in childhood

Answer 47

quality of peer relationships is related to attachment type: - securely attached children will form the best quality friendships while insecurely attached children may have more difficulties with friendship and are more likely to be involved in bullying (Myron-wilson and smith: insecure avoidant more = victim, insecure-resistant=bully)

Question 48

Influence of early attachment on later relationships: relationships in adulthood

Answer 48

- internal working model effects: **romantic relationships** - McCarthy (studied 40 women): securely attached babies had the best adult friends and relationships. Insecure- avoidant women were more likely to struggle with intimacy **relationship with children** - people tend to base there parenting styles on their parents parenting style (Bailey et als study of 99 mothers found that mothers tended to have the same classification type to their babies and their own mothers)

Question 49

Influence of early attachment on later relationships: evaluate

Answer 49

+ research support >e.g. fearon and roisman CA: conflicting evidence > backer-stoll et al followed 43 individuals from 1 yr-16 yrs old and there was no evidence of continuity - retrospective studies > most studies are not longitudinal so some data may not be accurate as participants may lie or misremember - confounding variables > there may be factors other than early attachment that effects later attachment styles e.g. parenting style, genetics - potential ethical issues > could become a self fulfilling prophecy (if you expect an insecure-avoidant babie to become and insecure avoidant adult you may push those expectations onto them so they end up that way)