Attachment Flashcards
Define, Describe and outline reciprocity as a caregiver-infant interaction in humans
Reciprocity refers to the process in which a behaviour is matched/mirrored during an interaction e.g. smiling back when someone smiles at us. Reciprocity develops, in its simplest form, at a very early age. Interaction flows both ways between the adult and infant; both are active contributors and each is able to elicit a response from the other.
define, describe and outline interactional synchrony as a caregiver-infant interaction in humans
Interactional synchrony refers to how a parent’s speech and their infant’s behaviour become finely synchronised so that they are in direct response to one another (similar to what you’d get in a conversation but a conversation in which only the adult is speaking and the infant moves with the rhythm of the interaction). Adults and babies respond in time to sustain communication as if they are one person/perfectly in time with each other. These symbolic exchanges between parent and child result in the coordination of their social behaviour.
Evaluations of caregiver-infant interactions in humans using research evidence (Melzoff and Moore)
Melzoff & Moore studied Six infants between 12 and 21 days of age by showing them three facial gestures and one manual gesture. Their responses were videotaped and scored by observers who did not know which gesture the infants had seen. The results showed that infants of this young age were able to imitate all four gestures. Such imitation implies that human babies can link their own unseen behaviours with gestures they see others perform. Based on his work on imitation, Meltzoff has developed the “like me” hypothesis of infant development. . This hypothesis suggests that imitation is innate (we are born with it), as it allows children to acquire an understanding of other minds and their mental states.
This study was well controlled which means it has strong internal validity, however there was a very small sample size involved which means it lacks population validity and may not be representative of the way all children interact with their caregivers. This is often a problem with research into young children as it is hard to find willing participants as at such a young age parents are very protective and precious with their babies.
Evaluations of caregiver-infant interactions in humans using the internal validity of the Meltzoff research
An advantage of this research is that it was conducted in a lab based setting. This means that the researchers had control over the independent variable and extraneous variables. For example, the researchers were able to measure how long the infant looked at the gesture to ensure they all looked at it for the same length of time. This is important as babies don’t have focus for long and look away often, monitoring it meant that they could account for this and maintain the total time looking at the gesture at 15 seconds. This means the research has good internal validity and therefore we can say there is valid support for infant communication through reciprocity and interactional synchrony.
Evaluations of caregiver-infant interactions in humans using the ecological validity of Meltzoffs research
A disadvantage of the research is that an artificial context/environment may affect the behaviour of the baby child. For example, the room is new to them and they are not looking at a face that is familiar to them. This could result in them being less focused than they would be if it was their caregiver or mean they’re more distracted by things such as different lighting and sounds. This reduces the ecological validity of the research. However, babies are too young to be aware they are being observed and so they won’t be affected by the hawthorne effect and change their behaviour due to being observed which aids internal validity. Therefore, the research shows a fine balance between ecological and internal validity and overall provides valid support for reciprocity and interactional synchrony.
Evaluations of caregiver-infant interactions in humans using Tronicks research evidence
Tronick used the still face experiment to test the importance of care-giver infant interactions for social development and to see if it children deliberately attempt to illicit responses from caregivers. A mother engaged with the child suddenly stops responding. The child shows serious distress, turns away and cries. Often they would make deliberate and extreme attempts to lure mum back into interaction. This suggests the child is an active and intentional partner in the communication.
Evaluations of caregiver-infant interactions in humans using ethical issues of using infants in research
A limitation of this research is the ethical issues involved. For example, when the child is ignored by the mother, they demonstrate high levels of distress. This could be upsetting for both the child and the mother and could potentially harm their attachment if it went on too long. However, Tronick was aware of this and dealt with them by ensuring informed consent of the mother so she knew exactly what would happen and limiting the time the mother stopped engaging with the child to less than a minute unless they wished to intervene before that. Therefore, the ethical issues have been minimised and distress kept as short as possible.
Evaluations of caregiver-infant interactions in humans using the applications of findings (through real world therapists)
Therapists who work with parents and infants/children who have experienced disruption in their attachment formation (e.g. when children are adopted and attachments with foster carers need to be transferred to adoptive parents) recognise the importance of reciprocity and interactional synchrony in their therapeutic work thanks to research in this area. For example, caregivers are encouraged to mirror and share their child’s emotion by imitating facial expressions and engaging in reciprocal behaviour in response to music or other stimuli.
A report showed that Kenyan mothers spend little time facing their child so cannot cultivate western ideas of interactional synchrony and reciprocity, yet this does not affect the bond made between mother and child. This suggests that reciprocity and interactional synchrony are not essential for attachment.
Define, Describe and outline what is meant by classical conditioning in the learning theory of attachment (mentioning John Watson and Pavlov)
John Watson proposed the process of classical conditioning which was based on Pavlov’s observations of dogs that salivated in response to a bell which had previously been associated with food. According to this idea, everything from speech to emotional responses are simply patterns of stimulus and response formed via the environment as they have been associated together so many times that we learn they are linked. Classical conditioning is simply learning through association, or linking things together.
Classical conditioning states that a baby will naturally react positively to food which is an unconditioned stimulus and response link as it happens automatically without learning. Through repeated association with the food the primary caregiver will become a conditioned (learned) stimulus as the baby will learn to associate them with the pleasure of food, the conditioned response – this is the basis of the attachment bond. We only learn to associate a caregiver with joy and happiness because we have learnt they are associated with food. Eventually the caregiver alone (even without the food) produces feelings of happiness.
Define, Describe and outline operant conditioning as part of the learning theory of attachment.
Operant conditioning focuses on the importance of consequences or in other words reward and punishment. The idea behind operant conditioning is that rewarded behaviours will be repeated by individuals, known as positive reinforcement, while behaviours which produce punishment will not be repeated. We will also behave in such a way so as to avoid a negative outcome, known as negative reinforcement
Explain Dollard and Millers research into the learning theory of attachment
Dollard and Miller (1950) state that from birth a baby’s reward for crying is food – once the baby realises that crying is rewarded with food it is likely to repeat the behaviour as it is getting positively reinforced. Since the primary caregiver provides the food they are a secondary reinforcer (linked to the reward) – it is the caregiver who alleviates the hunger and satisfies the drive for food. The baby will therefore cry or seek to be with the caregiver (secondary reinforcer) to receive the food (primary reinforcer). This is sometimes referred to as “Cupboard love” the expression used to refer to affection that is given purely to gain a food based reward.
Evaluate the learning theory of attachment through its supporting research evidence
The learning theory of attachment is plausible as it is likely that association between the provision of needs and the person providing those needs can lead to strong attachments. There is a lot of scientific evidence that animals learn through conditioning, using food as a way to shape behaviour. For example, Skinner demonstrated that a rat could be conditioned to press a lever if it was rewarded with a food pellet. However, by using mainly animal based evidence as learning theory psychologists assume humans and animals learn in the same way. This is a problem as humans have higher levels of cognitive functioning and a more complex social structure, which may also affect their attachment behaviours.
Evaluate the learning theory of attachment through its contradictory research evidence (Harlow)
Research by Harlow (1962) contradicts the claim that attachments will form with the food provider. They placed baby monkeys in a cage with either a wire mother who provided food or a cloth mother who provided comfort. They found that the monkeys spent more time with and used the cloth mother (18 hrs vs 1 hr) as a secure base and source of fear reduction. This research indicated clearly that food was not the motivation in attachment formation as monkeys raised on a wire mother did not develop normally and suffered long term negative effects; this therefore contradicts the learning theory assumptions.
Evaluate the learning theory of attachment through other contradicting research evidence (Schaffer and Emerson and Lorenz)
Research conducted by Shaffer and Emerson (1964) on 60 human babies also contradicts the main assumption of the learning theory as they found less than half of their sample had a primary attachment to the person who fed them and the main motivator in forming the attachment bond was sensitive responsiveness.
Furthermore, Lorenz criticises the idea that attachments are learned behaviours and instead claimed they are innate, or biological. He supports this claim by showing that birds automatically attach within a few hours; before any learning has taken place.
evaluate the learning theory of attachment through reductionism
The learning theory is further criticised by the fact that it is reductionist as it attempts to explain the complex process of attachment formation in terms of simple stimulus response processes when in fact humans have many complex influences. This is known as environmental reductionism and is a negative point as it does not fully appreciate the complexity of human relationships. This theory being reductionist can be an advantage as it gives individuals something specific to focus on in forming an attachment with a baby – i.e. food. However over all it presents many issues as it fails to see the wider picture of baby – caregiver
Define, describe and outline Bowlby’s monotropic theory, including the concepts of a critical period and an internal working model
Bowlby’s monotropic theory states that attachment is biologically pre-programmed into children to aid survival and that it is encoded in the human genes. It evolves and persists because of its adaptiveness as it enables us to survive better. An infant is too vulnerable to survive without a caregiver and a caregiver cannot pass on its genes to the next generation without a healthy infant.
On a biological level babies prompt a caregiving response as they emit ‘social releasers’ to which adults are biologically attuned. They occur innately and aid our survival for example crying, smiling, gripping etc.
Like Lorenz, Bowlby also thought humans must develop attachments in a set time, but it was longer than the critical period of geese and not as fixed as in animals he also called it the critical period and stated it lasts up to 2 ½ years. He also agreed that the attachment relationship must be formed within the set window and if not, it will never be formed correctly. If attachment is broken/not formed by the end of the critical period it is too late for a normal attachment to ever be formed and this will have negative consequences for development and all future relationships. He later revised his theory and proposed a sensitive period (where an attachment can still form, although it takes longer) of up to 5 years.
Bowlby emphasised the importance of the relationship between a child and ONE primary caregiver during this time. He also said this should be the mother and called this ‘monotropy. Bowlby claimed that a monotropic relationship with the primary caregiver (which he thought should be the mother) is essential within the critical/sensitive period in order for normal child development to take place. Bowlby claimed that if this mother-child bond was missing, incomplete or negative in some way it would lead to development issues for the child, including delinquency, poor mental health and poor future relationships. He called this the ‘maternal deprivation hypothesis’. Bowlby believed the effects to be permanent and irreversible.
Bowlby also believed that early attachments form a schema (expectations / template) for all future attachments called the Internal Working Model. Bowlby stated that this would then lead to a continuity hypothesis – that all future relationships will take on the qualities of the primary attachment relationship due to the schema guiding our relationship expectations and behavioural style.
Evaluate Bowlby’s monotropic theory based on research support from Lorenz
There is research to support Bowlby’s concept of the critical period. Lorenz conducted an attachment study using birds. He made sure that half a clutch of eggs saw him first when they hatched. This led to the geese forming an attachment with him, as evidenced by the fact that they sought proximity and used him for protection. This supports the idea that attachment is innate as they imprinted based on instinct rather than via learning. This supports Bowlby’s concept of a critical period as they needed to attach within the set window following birth. However this evidence can be criticised as lacking in population validity. Although animals and humans can be said to go through the same evolutionary processes, humans have much more complex social environments and cognitions meaning results cannot be fully extrapolated between species.
Evaluate Bowlbys monotropic theory using research from Schaffer and Emmerson
In 1964 Schaffer and Emmerson studied 60 babies from Glasgow at monthly intervals for the first 18 months of life. Via naturalistic observations and interviews stages were identified in the development of attachment. They concluded that at around 7 months old there is a special preference for a single attachment figure, but by a year old the babies had several attachments, including attachments to mothers, fathers, grandparents, siblings and neighbours. This does not support Bowlby’s concept of monotropy being key to attachment as this only occurred in this research from 7-12 months old. However the research does not fully disprove Bowlby’s ideas as it concluded that attachments occur based on the sensitive responsiveness of the parent which supports the purpose of social releasers.
Evaluate Bowlbys monotropic theory using evidence of the internal working model
There is research evidence for Bowlby’s concept of the internal working model. Hazan and Shaver carried out a study called ‘the love quiz’ in the 80’s. They asked 620 people to volunteer to take part in the study from an ad in an American newspaper. They were given 2 questionnaires, one to determine their early relationships with parents, the second their current, adult romantic attachments and how many love experiences they had e.g. number of partners. They found childhood attachment correlated with specific later adult attachments and that securely attached children were less likely to get divorced as adults than insecurely attached children. However this research cannot claim cause and effect, they have only found a relationship and there may be many other factors, like the persons temperament, which caused both child and adult attachments to be of a similar quality. This therefore does not fully support Bowlby’s idea that the first attachment to a caregiver influences all future relationships.
Evaluate Bowlbys monotropic theory using the socially sensitive aspect of the theory (gender)
Bowlby proposed this theory in the UK just after WW2 and it influenced society into believing the best place for the mother was at home with the kids. This is prejudiced against both genders as it excludes the father from the caring role and excludes the mother from returning to work. As Schaffer and Emerson found that half the babies they observed in Glasgow had a main attachment to their fathers this is potentially incorrect and therefore socially sensitive as it unfairly prejudices society into who should be responsible for the care of babies.
