Attachment Flashcards
Caregiver-infant interactions
− Humans are altricial (born at a relatively early stage of development) and so need to form attachment bonds with adults who will protect + nurture them in their early stages of development as they can’t do this for themselves
− Attachments bonds are characterised by an infant’s desire to keep close proximity to an individual + by the expression of distress if the infant is separated from them. The individual (usually the mother) gives the infant a sense of security
− Interactions serves to develop + maintain an attachment bond, communication between carer + infant is rich + complex + occurs in several ways
Examples of caregiver-infant interactions
→ Bodily contact: physical interaction to form attachment bond, especially after birth
→ Mimicking: infants have an innate ability to mimic facial expressions – aids the formation of attachment
→ Caregiverese: adults who interact with infants use a modified form of vocal language – aids communication + strengthens attachment bonds
→ Interactional synchrony: infants move their bodies in tune with rhythm of caregivers spoken language – reinforces attachment bond
→ Reciprocity: interactions between caregivers + infants results in mutual behaviour, both parties produce a repose – fortify the attachment. Infants coordinate their actions with caregivers in a kind of conversation
Reciprocity
− From birth babies move in a rhythm when interacting with an adult almost as if they were taking turns as people do when having a conversation
− Brazelton: Suggested that this basic rhythm is an important precursor to later communication. The regularity of an infant’s signals allows a caregiver to anticipate the infants behaviour + respond appropriately. This sensitivity to infant behaviour lays the foundation for later attachment between caregiver + infant
− Condon + Sander: Analysed frame by frame video recordings of infants movement s to find they coordinate their actions in the sequence with adults speech to form a kind of turn taking conversation, supporting the idea of reciprocity
Interactional synchrony
− Meltzoff + Moore:
→ Conducted a study into interactional synchrony + found that infants as young as 2 – 3 weeks imitated specific facial expressions
→ The study was conducted using an adult model who displayed 1 of 3 facial expressions or hand movements where the fingers moved in sequence. A dummy was placed in the infants mouth during the initial display to prevent any response
→ Found the infants tended to mimic adults specific facial expressions + hand movements, supporting the idea the mimicry is an innate ability to aid the formational of attachment especially as it was subsequently seen in infants of less than 3 days old
− Isabella : demonstrated that interactional synchrony appears to reinforce attachment bonds – they found that infants with secure attachments demonstrated more evidence of interactional synchrony behaviour during their first year of life
Evaluation of caregiver-infant interaction: Practical applications + Klaus + Kennell (research) :)
P: Practical applications – Klaus + Kennell:
E: Compared mums who had extended physical contact with their babies lasting several hours a day with mums who only had physical contact with their babies during feeding in the three days after birth
E: One month later, the mums with the greater physical contact were found to cuddle their babies more & made greater eye contact with them than the mums with lesser contact & these effects were still noticeable a year later
C: This suggests that greater physical contact leads to stronger & closer bond formation
C: Hospitals therefore placed mothers & babies in the same room in the days following birth, rather than the previous practice of rooming them apart, to encourage the formation of attachments
Evaluation of caregiver-infant interaction: Problems with testing infant behaviour :(
P: Problems with testing infant behavior
E: Infants mouths are in fairly constant motion & the expressions that are tested occur frequently (tongue sticking out, yawning, smiling). This makes it difficult to distinguish between general activity & specific imitated behaviours
C: To overcome these problems, Meltzoff & Moore measured infant responses by filming infants & then asking an independent observer to judge the infants’ behaviour from the video – the person doing the judging had no idea what behaviour was being imitated. This increased the internal validity of the data, each observer scored the tapes twice so that both intra-observer & inter-observer reliability could be calculated
Evaluation of caregiver-infant interaction: The behaviour in these studies has been shown to be intentional :)
P: The behaviour in these studies has been shown to be intentional
E: One way to test the intentionality of infant behavior is to observe how they respond to inanimate objects, research has shown that when interacting with 2 objects (one stimulating tongue movements + the other mouth opening/closing) the infants made little response to the objects
C: This shows that infants do not just imitate anything they see – it is a specific social response to other humans
Evaluation of caregiver-infant interaction: Culturally biases :(
P: International synchrony is not found in all cultures
E: Research has found that Kenyan others have little physical contact or interactions with their infant but such infants do have a high proportion of secure attachments
C: This undermines the idea that interactional synchrony is necessary for attachment formation
Stages of attachment (Schaffer)
− Birth – 3 months: Infants become attracted to other humans, preferring them to objects + events. This preference is demonstrated by their smiling at people’s faces.
− 3 – 7/8 months: Infants begin to discriminate between familiar and unfamiliar people, smiling at known people, though they will still allow strangers to handle and look after them.
− 7/8 months onwards: Infants begin to develop specific attachments, staying close to particular people + becoming distressed when separated from them. They avoid unfamiliar people + protest if strangers try to handle them
− 9 months onwards: Infants form strong emotional ties with other caregivers, e.g. grandparents, + other non-caregivers, e.g. other children. The fear of stranger weakens, but attachment to the mother figure remains strong
Schaffer + Emerson procedure (stages of attachment)
− Procedure: Attachment of 60 new-borns + their mother from a working class area in Glasgow was measured using: → Separation anxiety – assessed through several everyday situations, the infants being left alone in a room, in a pram etc. → Stranger anxiety – assessed by the researcher starting each home visit by approaching the infant to see of this distressed the child
Schaffer + Emerson findings + conclusions (stages of attachment)
− Findings:
→ Most infants started to show separation protest when parted from their attachment figure at between 6 – 8 months, with stranger anxiety being shown around 1 month
→ Strongly attached infants = mothers who responded to needs quickly + more opportunities for interactions. Weakly attached infants = mothers who responded less quickly + gave fewer opportunity for attachment
→ Most infants developed multiple attachments. At 18 months 87% had at least 2 and 31% had 5 or more
→ Attachments to different people were of a similar nature, with infants behaving in the same way to different attachment figures
→ 39% of infants prime attachment was not the main caregiver (against Bowlby’s theory of monotropy)
− Conclusion:
→ The process of attachment is biologically controlled (attachment formation is common)
→ Attachments are more easily made with those displaying sensitive responsiveness
→ Multiple attachments of similar quality are the norm (opposing Bowlby’s theory)
Multiple attachments (stages of attachment)
− Most children form multiple attachments (emotional bonds with several people)
− Bowlby: Believed that children had one prime attachment + that although children had attachment to other people, these were of minor importance compared to their main attachment bond
− Rutter: Proposed a model of multiple attachment that saw all attachments of equal importance, with these attachments combining together to help form an child’s internal working model
− Different attachments serve different purposed, e.g. mother for loving acre and father for exciting unpredictable play
Evaluation of stages of attachment: Biased sample (Schaffer + Emerson research) :(
P: Biased sample
E: The sample was a working class population so the findings may apply to that social group but not others
E: The sample was from the 1960s, but parental care has changed considerably - more women go out to work so many children are cared for outside the home, or fathers stay at home & become the main carer, Cohn et al (2014) found that the no. of dads who choose to stay at home & care for their children has quadrupled over the past 25 years
C: If a similar study was conducted today, the findings might be different
Evaluation of stages of attachment: Limitations of stage theories :(
P: Limitations of stage theories
E: These theories suggest development is rather inflexible. In the case of the stage theory of attachment, it suggests that normally single attachments must come before multiple attachments but in some situations & cultures, multiple attachments may come first
C: The problem is that this becomes a standard by which families are judged & may be classed as abnormal
Evaluation of stages of attachment: Disagreement about multiple attachments :(
P: There is disagreement about the importance/equivalence of multiple attachments
E: Bowlby: an infant forms one special emotional relationship – subsidiary to this are many other secondary attachments which are important as an emotional safety net & for other needs i.e. fathers may offer a special kind of care & relationships with siblings are important in learning how to negotiate with peers
E: Rutter (1995): all attachment figures are equivalent – he believes that all attachments are integrated to produce an infant’s attachment type
Evaluation of stages of attachment: Cultural variation :(
P: Cultural variation
E: Individualist cultures focus on the individual where the foremost concerns are with the self whereas collectivist cultures are more focused in the needs of the group rather than the individual where many things e.g. possessions + childcare are shared, in these societies we would expect multiple attachment to be more common
E: when comparing attachments in infants raised in communal environments (collectivist cultures) with infants raised in family based sleeping arrangements research had shown that the closeness of attachment with the mother was almost 2x as common in family based arrangements than in the communal environment
C: This suggests that the stage model applies specifically to individualist cultures
The role of the father
− Traditionally, mothers are seen to be the primary caregiver due to their perceived nurturing nature. However this is not always the case and recently there has been an increase in the number of men actin as primary caregivers to their children
− Degree of sensitivity: more secure attachments to their children are found in fathers who show more sensitivity to children’s needs
− Type of attachment with own parents: single-parent fathers tend to form similar attachments with their children that they had with their own parents
− Marital intimacy: the degree of intimacy a father has within his relationship with his partner affects the type of attachment he will have with his children
− Supportive co-parenting: the amount of support a father gives to his partner in helping care for the children affects the type of attachment he will have with his children
Evaluation of the role of the father: men aren’t as psychologically equipped as women :(
P: Some psychologists would suggest that men are not as psychologically equipped as women to form an intense attachment due to lacking the necessary emotional sensitivity that women offer – this may be due to biological or social factors
E: The female hormone oestrogen underlies caring behaviour so women, generally, are more oriented towards interpersonal goals than men
C: In terms of cultural expectations, there continue to be sex stereotypes that affect male behaviour i.e. it is thought of as rather feminine to be sensitive to the needs of others
Evaluation of the role of the father: evidence has shown that men may not be less sensitive :)
P: Evidence has shown that men may not be less sensitive to infant cues than mothers
E: Frodi et al. (1978) showed videos of infants crying & found no differences in the physiological responses of men and women
C: This contradicts the theory that women are more sensitive as it is clear that on a physiological level, men do respond to the needs of their infants (whether this is shown outwardly or not)
Evaluation of the role of the father: men have an important role as a secondary attachment figure :)
P: Some psychologists believe that men do have an important role as a secondary attachment figure
E: Geiger (1996): a father is an exciting playmate whereas mothers are more conventional & tend to read stories to their children
C: It could be suggested that a father’s role is to provide these challenging, stimulating play environments, whereas the mother’s role is more of a nurturing one
Evaluation of the role of the father: importance of the role of the father :)
Evidence for the importance of the role of the father comes from studies that show that children with secure attachments to their fathers go on to have better relationships with peers, less problem behaviours and are more able to regulate their emotions
Lorenz procedure
→ Lorenz divided the goose eggs into two batches – hatched naturally by the mother + hatched in an incubator, Lorenz making sure he was the first moving object the newly hatched goslings encountered. The following behaviour was recorded
→ Lorenz then marked all of the goslings so he could determine what group they were from and placed them under an upturned box. The box was removed and the following behaviour was again recorded
Lorenz findings + conclusions
− Findings:
→ The goslings quickly divided themselves us – some following their natural mother + the other group following Lorenz
→ Lorenz’s group showed no recognition of their natural mother, this bond appeared to be irreversible
→ Lorenz noted that this process of imprinting is restricted to a very definite period of the young animals life called the critical period (4 – 25 hrs after hatching)
− Conclusions:
→ The fact that imprinting is irreversible suggests that it is a biological process – learned behaviours can often be modified/removed through experience
→ The fact that imprinting only occurs within a brief, set time period influenced Bowlby’s idea of a critical period in human babies (a specific time period within which an attachment between infant + carer must form)
→ The fact that goslings imprint onto humans exhibit sexual advances to humans when adult birds demonstrates the importance of early attachment behaviour upon future relationships (Bowlby’s continuity hypothesis)
Lorenz evaluation
→ :( We can’t necessarily apply these findings to humans as there are extrapolation issues with animal studies – the attachment behaviour of geese is not necessarily the same of that of humans
→ :) Guiton demonstrated that chicks who were exposed to a yellow rubber glove for feeding them during their first few weeks became imprinted on the gloves – this supports Lorenz’s findings as animals have a predisposing to imprint on any moving thing that is presented during the critical period. Furthermore it was found that the make chickens later tried to mate with the gloves showing that early imprinting is linked to later reproductive behaviour
→ :( It was originally proposed that imprinting is irreversibly stamped on the nervous system, now it is understood that imprinting is a more plastic + forgiving mechanism. E.g. Guiton found that he could reverse the imprinting in the chickens who had initially tried to mate with rubber gloves, he found that after spending more time with their own species they were able to engage in normal sexual behaviour with other chickens. Suggests that perhaps imprinting is not a biological process but in fact learnt – learning takes place rapidly with little conscious effort + is fairly reversible
Harlow procedure
− Procedure: Two types of surrogate mother were constructed, a harsh wire mother + a soft towelling mothing. 16 baby monkeys were used 4 in each condition, a cage containing:
→ Wire mother producing milk + towelling mother producing no milk
→ Wire mother producing no milk + towelling mother producing milk
→ Wire mother producing milk
→ Towel mother producing milk
− Harlow tested the attachment by:
→ The amount of time spent with each mother as well as feeding time was recorded
→ The monkeys were frightened with a load noise to test for mother preference during stress
→ A large cage was also used to test the monkeys degree of exploration
Harlow findings + conclusions
− Findings:
→ Monkeys preferred contact with the towelling mother regardless of whether she produced milk
→ Monkeys with only a wire surrogate had diarrhoea, a sign of stress
→ When frightened by a load noise monkeys clung to the towelling mother in conditions where she was available
→ In the larger cage conditions monkeys with towelling mothers explored more and visited their surrogate mother more often
− Conclusions:
→ Rhesus monkeys have an innate unlearned need for contact comfort suggesting that attachment concerns emotional security more than food
→ Contact comfort is associated with lower levels of stress + willingness to explore indicating emotional security
Harlow evaluation
→ :( Human behaviour differs to that of animals as human behaviour is governed by conscious decisions therefore we cannot necessarily extrapolate (generalise) the results to humans
→ :( Ethical issues – the study created lasting emotional harm as monkeys later found it difficult to form relations with their peers + there are ethical issues involving the separation of baby monkeys + the stressed caused to them
→ :( The two stimulus objects varied in more ways than just cloth covered or not. The two heads were also different which acted as a cofounding variable because it varied systematically with the IV. It is therefore possible that the infants preferred one mother to the other because the cloth covered mother had a more attractive head. (Lack of internal validity)
Learning theory as an explanation for attachment: Classical conditioning
− Classical conditioning involves learning through association
Food (unconditioned stimulus) ➡ Pleasure (unconditioned response)
Food (UCS) ➕Caregiver (neutral stimulus) ➡ Pleasure (UCR)
Caregiver (conditioned stimulus) ➡ Pleasure (conditioned response)
Learning theory as an explanation for attachment: Operant conditioning
− Operant conditioning involves learning through punishment + reinforcement. Dollard + Miller suggested:
→ Hungry infant feels discomfort ➡ Drive to reduce the discomfort ➡ Infant is fed ➡ Drive is reduce ➡ This produces a sense of pleasure (a reward)
→ Food is therefore the positive reinforcement because it reinforces the behaviour in order to avoid discomfort
→ The person who supplies the food is the secondary reinforecer as they are associated with the avoiding the discomfort + and are a source of reward in his/her own right
Learning theory as an explanation for attachment: Social learning theory
− Social learning theory, Hay + Vespo suggested that modelling could be used to explain attachment behaviours – they proposed that children observe their parents affectionate behaviour + imitate this, parents would also deliberately instruct their children about how to behave in relationships + reward appropriate attachment behaviour e.g. giving kisses + hugs
Evaluation of learning theory as an explanation for attachment: Harlow :(
Harlow – learning theory suggest that food is the key element in the formation of attachment however Harlow showed that infant rhesus monkeys were most ‘attached’ to the mother that provided contact comfort not food
Evaluation of learning theory as an explanation for attachment: Schaffer + Emmerson :(
Schaffer + Emerson – in 39% of cases the mother figure (usually the main caregiver) was not the baby’s primary attachment figure suggesting that feeding is not the primary explanation to attachment – this therefore does not lens support the learning theory
Evaluation of learning theory as an explanation for attachment: Reductionist :(
Behaviourist explanations are reductionist as they explain complex behaviours in the simplest way possible – when explaining attachments as simple down to feeding behaviourism does not consider internal cognitive processes or the emotional nature of attachments
Evaluation of learning theory as an explanation for attachment: Research support (Dollar + Millar) :)
− Dollar + Miller support the idea that attachments are learned through operant conditioning – in their first yr. babies are fed 2,000 times generally by their main caregiver which creates ample opportunity for the carer to become associated with the removal of the unpleasant feeling of hunger a form of negative reinforcement
Bowlby’s monotropic theory of attachment: Innate
− It is thought that infants are born with an innate drive to form an attachment that enhances their chances of survivable, adults are also thought to be biologically programmed to attach to their infants. Attachment is therefore adaptive (gives our species an adaptive advantage making us more likely to survive)
Bowlby’s monotropic theory of attachment: Monotropy
− Infants become strongly attached to the person who interacts best – the person who responds most sensitive to their needs. This person becomes the infants primary caregiver + plays a special role in the infants emotional development. Called monotropy
→ Harlow’s monkeys – The monkey received no responsive care + consequently all developed into maladjusted adults – they were poor parents + had difficulties in reproduction relationships
→ Tronick et al. – Studied the Efe in Africa who lived in extended family groups. Infants + children are looked after by whoever is closest to hand – they are breastfed by different women but often sleep with their own mother. By the age of 12 months the infants still showed a preference to their mothers – a single primary attachment
→ Schaffer + Emmerson – Even though infants do form multiple attachments they appear to usually have one primary attachment. Strongly attached infants had mothers who responded to their needs quickly, while weakly attached infants had mothers who responded less quickly. BUT 39% of children had their main attachment to someone other than the main carer
