attachment Flashcards
(32 cards)
infant caregiver interactions AO1
Reciprocity – responding to one another
Feldman & Eidelman – mothers respond to alertness 2/3rds of the time
Brazelton et al. – described reciprocity as a “dance”
Interactional synchrony – carry out actions simultaneously
→ temporal co-ordination of micro-level social behaviour (Feldman)
Meltzoff & Moore – association between adult gesture + baby actions
Isabella et al. – 20 mothers, ↑ synchrony = better quality attachment
infant caregiver interactions strengths
Strength
-High reliability
-Observations such as Meltzoff and Moore’s study- controlled procedures such as using a pacifier to ensure the infants all begin with same facial expression, and interactions being recorded
-videos can be watched again by the same or other observers leading to test-retest and inter-observer reliability- increases reliability and validity
Strength
-good validity
-infants do not know that they are being studied
-not able to change their behaviour to demonstrate reciprocity or interactional synchrony or deliberately choose not to display such behaviours
-Good internal validity
infant caregiver interactions limitations
Limitation
-It is hard to know what is happening when observing infants as they cannot articulate what they are thinking or feeling
-Therefore, it is impossible for psychologists to tell whether the imitation or turn taking that is seen is conscious and deliberate
-This means that the behaviours displayed by infants may not have any special meaning
-Lack validity
Limitation
-Socially sensitive
-Mothers returning to work= less interactional synchrony
-suggest that children may be disadvantaged by parental choice and may make some women feel guilty about the decisions that they have to or choose to make
stages of attachment AO1
Schaffer and Emerson
Aim- investigate the formation of early attachments (age and emotional intensity)
60 newborn babies (31 male 29 female) from Glasgow
Visited every month for 1 yr and again at 18 months
Attachment was measured in two ways: separation and stranger anxiety
25 and 32 weeks of age, about 50% of babies showed specific attachment
of 40 weeks, 80% of the babies had a specific attachment and almost 30% displayed multiple attachments
1- asocial 0-2m- Babies’ behaviour towards non-human objects and humans is similar
2- indiscrimate attachments- Babies start to show a preference for people, but their behaviour is not different towards any one person
3- specific- Babies start to develop stranger anxiety as they have formed a specific attachment to one adult
Multiple- Attachments to two or more people. Most babies appear to develop multiple attachments once they have formed one strong attachment to one of their caregiver
stages of attachment strengths
Strength
-good external validity
-It was carried out in the families’ own homes
-This means that the environment is ‘natural’ for the parents and children
-applicable to everyday situations
Strength
-Longitudinal design
-Same children observed regularly
-Higher internal validity- no confounding variables/ ppts variables
stages of attachment limitations
Limitation
-The behaviours used to measure attachment are crude
-Schaffer and Emerson used stranger and separation anxiety to distinguish which stage of attachment an infant was in
-Attachment may involve more complex emotions and behaviours than the two typically used
-stages are reductionist
Limitation
-There is mixed evidence on when infants develop multiple attachments
-Bowlby suggested that infants form attachments to a single primary caregiver before they can develop multiple attachments
animal studies of attachment A01
Lorenz
randomly divided goose eggs:
½ hatched with mother
½ hatched in incubator with Lorenz
→ followed mother (control group) or followed Lorenz
Imprinting – birds attach to 1st moving object. Critical period is a few hours.
Sexual imprinting – birds imprinted on humans displayed courtship to humans.
Harlow
16 baby rhesus monkeys with 2 wire mother models:
1 – milk dispensed by wire mum
1 – milk dispensed by cloth mum
→ monkeys cuddled soft cloth mum, sought comfort from cloth despite no food.
Contact comfort > food
Maternal deprivation = aggressive, unsociable, mating/neglect young
Critical period = 90 days
animal studies of attachment strengths
Strength
Harlow’s procedure was standardised
He controlled all the conditions and made sure the same ‘mothers’ were used for the condition
This allows Harlow’s research to be replicated by other researchers
Strength
Lorenz’s research has good internal validity
This is because Lorenz controlled the independent variable of how the goslings hatched
established that the gosling’s behaviour was caused by the change in the independent variable, rather than by other factors
animal studies of attachment limitaions
Limitation
-There were several ethical issues involved in Harlow’s research
-The monkey’s suffered greatly from psychological harm as they had been separated from their mothers
-The monkeys who were only given the wire ‘mother’ had severe diarrhoea which is a sign of stress
-This questions whether the benefits of Harlow’s research outweigh the cost of the monkey’s health
Limitation
-There are extrapolation issues with animal studies
-The way a human infant develops an attachment with their primary caregiver is very different to the way geese form an attachment with their primary caregiver
-Geese are highly mobile from birth so need to be able to follow their mother for survival, whereas human infants are not as mobile at birth and so have no reason to imprint
-findings cannot be generalised
Role of the Father AO1
The Father as a Playmate
Fathers’ play is often more physical, unpredictable, and exciting than mother
Grossman (2000)- A longitudinal study of 44 families comparing the role of mothers’ and fathers’ contributions to their children’s attachment experiences
↳ fathers have a different role in attachment. Their role may be more to do with play and stimulation and less to do with emotional development
The Father as a Secondary Attachment
Available evidence suggests that fathers are much less likely to become babies’ first attachment figure compared to mothers
Schaffer and Emerson (1964)- found that most babies attached to their mother first, at around 7 months- In only 3% of the cases, was the father the first sole object of attachment- In 27% of cases, the father was the joint first object of attachment with the mother
The Father as a Primary Caregiver
4-month-old babies, primary care giver fathers + mothers = interact in same way and are nurturing
Fathers have the potential to be the more emotion-focused primary attachment figure if required. This suggests that the key to the attachment relationship is the level of responsiveness, not the gender, of the parent
Role of the Father strengths
Strength
-Research into the role of the father can be used to offer advice to parent
-Mothers may feel pressured to stay at home because of the stereotypical view of mother’s and father’s roles and fathers may feel pressured to work rather than parent
-Research into the role of the father can be used to offer reassuring advice to parents that fathers are able to take on the primary caregiver role and have an important role in the development of children
Strength
-benefits for fathers aiming to be granted joint or full custody of their children
-Research suggesting that fathers have a unique role to play (Grossman, 2002) or that they can be just as nurturing if they take on the role as primary caregiver (Field, 1978) highlights the importance of a paternal relationship
-important real-life implications
role of the father limitation
Limitation
-Fathers may be preferred as playmates by children, but only in certain situations
-Lamb (1987) found that children sought interaction with their fathers when in a positive emotional state and looking for stimulation, but turned to their mothers for comfort during negative emotional states—even if play was involved
-it may depend on what the infant is feeling as to who they prefer as a playmate- father may not have a distinct role with regards to attachment
learning theory of attachment AO1
Classical conditioning
Food= unconditioned stimulus pleasure =unconditioned reaction
Care giver= neutral stimulus → conditioned stimulus
Pleasure= conditioned reaction
Operant conditioning
Crying= care giver response e.g. feeding = positive reinforcement
Feeding= crying stops = negative reinforcement for caregiver
Secondary drive
Hunger= innate primary drive
Sears et al- primary drive associated to caregiver
Attachment = secondary
learning theory of attachment limitations
Limitations
-Reductionist
-Explains complex bonds into simple stimulus and response in relation to food- does not consider cognitive processes or the emotional nature of attachment
-More of a holistic view is needed
Limitation
-Contradicting evidence
-Schaffer and Emerson (1964) found infants developed a primary attachment to their biological mother even though other caregivers did most of the feeding
-feeding is not the key element to attachment
-Limits validity of explanation
Limitation
-Contradictory evidence
-Lorenz’s research- geese imprinted on the first moving object that they saw, not the person who fed them
-Harlow’s research demonstrated monkeys preferred the cloth mother rather than the one who offered food
-attachment does not develop because of feeding
learning theory of attachment strength
Strength
-Social learning theory has also made an important contribution to the original learning approach as an explanation of attachment
-Hay and Vespo (1988) suggest that parents teach children to love them by modelling attachment behaviour and rewarding them when they display attachment behaviour
-This means that learning theory has contributed to psychologists understanding of attachment
Bowlby’s monotropic theory AO1
Evolutionary explanation that attachment is an innate system that gave us a survival advantage
Monotropy- one attachment is different from all others and of central importance to the child’s development- didn’t have to be biological mother
Law of continuity- the more constant and predictable a child’s care, the better the quality of attachment
Law of accumulated separation- the impact of every separation from the mother figure adds up
Social releasers- born with a set of ‘cute’ behaviours like smiling to activate adult attachment systems and so make an adult attach to the baby
Critical period- 30 months where the infant attachment system is maximally active
Internal working model- attachment to primary care giver cats as a template for all future relationships
Bowlby’s monotropic theory strengths
Strength
-Supporting evidence for social releasers
-Brazelton et al., (1975)- whin primary attachment figures ignored social releasers babies became distressed then motionless
-shows that social releasers are important in eliciting a caregiving response from adults
-Increases validity of the theory
Strength
-Supporting evidence for internal working model
-99 mothers with 1yr old babies- standardised interview procedure
-Mothers with poor attacment to their own mothers were more likely to have poor attachments to babies
-internal working model can be passed from one generation to the next
-Increases validity of the theory
Bowlby’s monotropic theory limitations
Limitation
-mixed evidence for monotropy
-Schaffer and Emerson’s (1964) study showed that some children were able to form multiple attachments at the same time
-his goes against the idea that there is one specific attachment which is more unique and special than all others
-questions the validity of Bowlby’s monotropic theory
Limitation
-Monotropy is a socially sensitive idea
-Burman (1994) and other feminists have suggested that this places a burden of responsibility on mothers because the life choices that the mother makes, such as going back to work, means that they are blamed if anything goes wrong for the child later in life
-This approach assumes that a mother’s presence is the most important factor in ensuring healthy child development, which disregards the benefits of professional fulfilment, financial independence, and broader familial and societal support structures
Ainsworth strange situation AO1
Aim- observe key attachment behaviours as a means of assessing the quality of a child’s attachment
Controlled observation- controlled room with 2-way mirror
Secure- 70% -happily explore, moderate separation anxiety, moderate stranger anxiety, accept comfort in reunion
Insecure avoidant- 15% -explore freely, don’t seek proximity, no separation anxiety, low stranger anxiety, avoids contact in reunion
Insecure resistant- 15% -seek proximity, explore less, huge separation + stranger anxiety, both seeks and rejects comfort in reunion
Ainsworth strange situation strength
-Good reliability
-It consists of seven fixed episodes, each lasting around three minutes (except the first, which lasts 30 seconds), with specific behavioural criteria
-standardisation allows researchers to replicate the method across various studies and consistently categorise infant attachment types. The operationalised behavioural categories provide clear expectations for observers, leading to high inter-observer reliability
Ainsworth strange situation limitation
Limitation
-Unethical
-Deliberately stresses infants to see their reactions
-There were concerns that the emotional distress caused by separation caused could have lasting effects on the children- particularly if they are already prone to attachment issues
Limitation
-At least one or more attachment
-Main and Solomon (1986) pointed out that a minority of children display atypical attachments that do not reflect Type A, B or C behaviour
-This atypical attachment is commonly known as ‘disorganised attachment’ and children display a mix of resistant and avoidant behaviour
-Questions validity
Limitation
-Ethnocentric
-Takahashi (1990) noted that the procedure does not really work in Japan because Japanese mothers are so rarely separated from their babies that there are very high levels of separation anxiety
-Cultural differences in childhood experiences are therefore likely to mean that children respond differently to the Strange Situation
-This means that infants from different cultures cannot be classified correctly into an attachment type, and it would be inappropriate to use the Strange Situation to do this
cultural variations in attachment AO1
van Ijzendoorn and Kroonenberg (1988)
A meta-analysis was conducted that consisted of 32 studies from 8 countries with 1990 children
Secure was most common- 75% UK, 50% USA
Insecure resistant least common
↳ But this was not true for the collectivist samples from China, Japan, and Israel where rates were above 25%
Insecure avoidant most seen in Germany (35%) and least in Japan (5%)
Variations within countries 150% greater than between countries
Simonella et al., (2014) = Italian- 50% secure, 36% insecure avoidant due to increasing number of mothers of very young children that work long hours and use professional childcare
Jin et al., (2012)- similar findings to japan + similar parenting styles
cultural variations in attachment strength
Strength
-Cross-cultural research uses large samples
-In van Ijzendoorn and Kroonenberg’s meta-analysis there were nearly 2000 babies in the sample
-A large sample size increases the internal validity, by reducing the impact of anomalous results caused by participant variables or bad methodology
-Increased generisability
cultural variations in attachment limitations
Limitation
-The Strange Situation procedure is culturally biased
-It is based on experiences that are typical in Western cultures such as short separations and brief interactions with strangers
-This will not accurately assess attachment behaviour in cultures where children are rarely separated from their mother (e.g., Japan), or where they are raised in a communal environment (e.g., Israel)
-Using the Strange Situation as a tool for studying cultural differences in attachment could result in the misclassification of attachment types
Limitation
-confounding variables on findings
-Studies conducted in different countries are not usually matched on methodology when they are compared in reviews or meta-analyses e.g. the size of the room and availability of toy
-Babies may appear to explore more in studies conducted in small rooms with attractive toys, compared to studies that are conducted in large, bare rooms
-Infants that do not explore the room due to the lack of toys may be classified as insecure-resistant when they are not
-This means that looking at attachment behaviour in different non-matched samples may not tell psychologists anything about cross-cultural patterns of attachment
Limitation
-Contradicting evidence
-Rogoff (2003) found that in a lot of Black American families, infants are encouraged to be friendly to stranger
-If these children were placed in the Strange Situation, it could activate their interest to explore and acknowledge the strangers
-This means that the Strange Situation has different meanings in different cultures
-Psychologists may need to look at child-rearing practices to interpret the findings of the Strange Situation correctly
