Attachment Flashcards
1
Q
Attachment definition
A
A close two-way emotional bond between two individuals in which each individual sees the other as essential for their own emotional security
2
Q
What/who is attachment between?
A
Only people not an inanimate object
3
Q
What three behaviours are displayed through attachment?
A
Proximity
Separation distress
Secure-base behaviour
4
Q
Proximity definition
A
Physical closeness to attachment figure
5
Q
Separation distress definition
A
Distress when attachment figure leaves
6
Q
Secure-base behaviour definition
A
Regular contact with attachment figure
7
Q
Which 2 people studied animal research for attachment?
A
Lorenz
Harlow
8
Q
Aim of Lorenz’ animal study
A
Imprinting + how goslings attach to caregivers
9
Q
Lorenz’ procedure for animal study
A
- randomly divided clutch of goose eggs
- half hatched with mother goose in natural environment
- half hatched in incubator where Lorenz is first moving object
10
Q
Lorenz’ animal study findings
A
-followed first moving object
-put the 2 groups together
-control group followed mother
-experimental group followed Lorenz’
This is called imprinting
11
Q
strengths of Lorenz’ study
A
- goslings imprinted irreversibly so early in life supports imprinting
- standardised procedure so is reliable
- measured what I wanted to investigate so is valid
12
Q
Weaknesses of Lorenz study
A
- birds attachment is not same as humans so study isn’t generalisable
- not ethical to remove birds from habitat
13
Q
Aim of Harlows animal study?
A
Importance of contact comfort
14
Q
Harlows animal study procedure
A
- 16 baby monkeys with 2 wire model ‘mothers’
- milk dispensed by plain wire mother in one condition
- milk dispensed by cloth cover mother in another condition
- time measured of how long each monkey was with surrogate mother + how long they cried for biological mother
15
Q
Harlows animal study findings
A
- baby monkeys cuddled soft object in preference to wire one
- sought cloth comfort regardless to which one dispensed milk
- willing to explore room full of toys when cloth covered monkey was present
- phobic responses when only wire surrogate was present
16
Q
Harlows animal study conclusion
A
Showed contact comfort was more important than food with attachment behaviour
17
Q
Strengths for Harlows study
A
- standardised so was reliable as could be replicated easily
- helped social workers understand risk factors in abuse + neglect (changed how zoo animals are treated)
18
Q
Limitations of Harlows study
A
- monkeys not same as humans so not generalisable
- monkeys suffered great psychological harm so not ethical
19
Q
Learning theory definition
A
A theory that uses classical + operant conditioning to explain attachment
20
Q
Who proposed the learning theory?
A
Dollars + Miller
21
Q
Classical conditioning explanation linked to learning theory
A
UCS (food) -> UCR (pleasure)
NS (mother) -> NR (no response)
UCS + NS -> UCR
CS (mother) -> CR (pleasure)
22
Q
Operant conditioning explanation linked to learning theory
A
Crying leads to comfort (positively reinforced) Crying ignored (negative reinforcement)
23
Q
Attachment as secondary drive definition
A
Food is primary drive
Attachment is secondary drive learned through association with food
24
Q
Learning theory strengths
A
-unlikely food is central to attachment but conditioning is sill important - baby’s primary caregiver choice is based on comfort (Harlow) - conditioning important in attachment figure choice
25
Learning theory weakness
- Harlow
- Isabella et al
- babies attachment went to cloth surrogate not the wire model that was supplying food - shows feeding isn't the key element to attachment
- other factors like reciprocity + interactional synchrony are associated with attachment - best attachment is with sensitive carers that respond to infants - hard to reconcile these findings in idea of 'cupboard love' - there would be no need for these interactions if feeding was the main attachment factor
26
What is Bowlby’s monotropic theory?
An evolutionary explanation of attachment
27
What is Bowlby’s evolutionary explanation of attachment?
Attachment is an innate system that gives a survival advantage
28
Why did imprinting + attachment evolve?
ensures animals stayed close to caregivers
29
Who did Bowlby’s believe the monotropic bond was with?
Mother
30
What does the law of continuing state?
The more constant a child’s care, the better attachment quality
31
What does the law of accumulated separation state?
Effects of every repetition from the mother add up
32
What did Bowlby’s believe about the amount of time the baby spends with the primary attachment figure?
More the better
33
What is the purpose of social release era?
Achieve adult attachment system + make adult feel love towards baby
34
What did Bowlby’s notice about attachment?
It’s a reciprocal process
35
What is a critical period?
The time where attachment must form if it is to form at all
36
What did Bowlby’s think the critical period was for human?
Two years
37
What is the sensitive period?
When the child is maximally sensitive to developing an attachment
38
What is an internal working model?
The frame work we have based on our primary caregiver relationship
39
What does the internal working model effect?
future relationships
40
Strengths of Bowlby’s monotropic theory
- Brazelton et al
- Bailey et al
- observed mothers + babies supporting interactional synchrony - primary figure instructed to ignore babies social releasers - babies showed initial distress then lay motionless/ curled up - shows significance of infant social behaviour in eliciting caregiver
- tested IWM - 99 mothers + 1 year old babies on attachment quality using standard interview + observation - mothers who has own parent poor attachment = more likely poor attachment from observation - supports IWM passed through families
41
Weaknesses of Bowlby’s monotropic theory
- Schaffer + Emerson
- Suess et al
- S+E found significant minority could form multiple attachments without having to form one primary attachment first - found nothing different about first attachment compared to others
- studies found nothing different about primary attachment but mothers attachment are more likely to predict later behaviour HOWEVER - this could just mean primary is stronger not different
42
What did Mary Ainsworth’s Strange Situation assess?
The nature and quality of attachment behaviour
43
Steps of Mary Ainsworth strange situation study
- 100 middleclass American infants + mothers
1) child + caregiver enter unfamiliar play room
2) stranger comes to interact with child
3) caregiver leaves
4) caregiver returns + stranger leaves
5) caregiver leaves child alone
6) stranger returns
7) caregiver reunited with child
44
Secure attachment results
- explore happier but regular interaction with caregiver
- moderate separation distress + stranger anxiety
- comfort in reunion stage
- 60-75%
45
Insecure avoidant attachment results
- explores freely but doesn’t seek proximity
- little reaction when caregiver leaves
- little stranger anxiety
- littler contact on reunion
- 20-25%
46
Insecure resistant results
- explore less + seek greater proximity
- huge stranger anxiety
- resist comfort in reunion
- 3%
47
SS strength
- validity
- reliability (bick et al 2012)
- method evaluation points
- secure = better outcomes, insecure resistant = worst outcomes e.g. bullying - valid because can explain subsequent outcomes
- good inter-rater reliability - controlled conditions - easy to observe behavioural categories - (bick et al 2012 agreement 94% babies)
(-based on observation)
48
SS limitation
- generalisability (takahashi 1990)
- method evaluation points
- culture bound test - different caregivers - generalisability problems- takahashi (1990) said SS doesn't work in Japan as mothers are rarely separated from babies = higher separation anxiety
(-ethical issues by separating children from caregiver, procedure based on only Americans, controlled conditions = lacks generalisability to other situations)
49
Meta-analysis definition
Examination fo date from a number of different independent studies of the same subject
50
What are the 3 studies of cultural variation?
- van ijzendoorn & kroonberg (1988)
- simonella et al (2014)
- jin et al (2012)
52
What did van ijzendoorn & kroonberg (1988) study?
Types of attachment across 3 cultures
53
van ijzendoorn & kroonberg (1988) method
Data from 32 studies on 8 different countries all using strange situation
54
van ijzendoorn & kroonberg (1988) findings
- secure attachment most common
- low percent of secure attachment in China
- higher secure attachment in Britain
- avoidant more common in west germany
55
Aim of Simonella et al (2014)
Whether proptortions of babies of different attachment types match this found in previous studies
56
Simonella et al (2014) method
Assessed 76 12 month old babies using strange situation
57
Simonella et al (2014) finding
- 50% secure (lower than in previous studies)
| - 36% insecure avoidant
58
Simonella et al (2014) conclusion
Cultural changes made big difference
59
Jin et al (2012) aim
Compare proportions of attachment types in Korea to other studies
60
Jin et al (2012) method
87 babies assessed using strange situation
61
Jin et al (2012) findings
- Secure + insecure resistant similar to other countries
| - Only 1 Korean baby assessed as insecure avoidant
62
Strength of cultural variation
large amounts of evidence - van ijenzdoorn + kroonberg 2000 babies - good internal validity
63
Weaknesses of cultural variation
- unrepresentative of cultures - V+K meta analysis comparison between countries not cultures - country comparisons = little meaning
- biased assessment - SS = American researcher - unsure if can be applied to other cultures
- alternative explanations for cultural similarities - Bowlby = innate attachment
64
Jin et al (2012) conclusion
- Strange situation is a valid measure
| - cultural differences
65
van ijzendoorn & kroonberg (1988) conclusion
Universal characteristics that under on infant and care interactions (secure)
66
Weaknesses for Bowlby’s maternal deprivation theory
- poor evidence - Bowlby used traumatised orphans so could have caused later development difficulties rather than separation - 44theives biased
- counter evidence - Hilda Lewis (1954) - larger thieves scale - prolonged separation didn't predict criminality - suggests other factors predict criminality
67
Strengths of Bowlby’s maternal deprivation theory
-Animal studies - long term affects - Levy et al (2003)- separate rats from mothers = social development affect
68
What is Bowlby’s theory of maternal deprivation?
The emotional + intellectual consequences of separation between a child and their mother/mother substitute
69
Bowlby’s maternal deprivation study?
- 44 teenagers accused of stealing
- interviewed for lack of affection
- 14/44 had psychopathy traits
- 12/44 had maternal deprivation when younger
70
Deprivation defining
Emotional + intellectual consequences of separation
71
Institutionalisation definition
attachment which refers to the effect of growing up in orphanage or children’s home
72
What are the 4 possible effects of institutionalisation?
- physical underdevelopment
- intellectual underdevelopment/mental retardation
- disinhibited attachment
- poor parenting
73
2 studies of institutionalisation
- Rutter’s ERA (English + Romanian adoptee) study
| - Bucharest early intervention project
74
Rutters ERA study for institutionalisation aim
The extent good care could make up for experiences in institutions
75
Rutters ERA study for institutionalisation findings
-adopted before 6 months (102 IQ)
-between 6 months + 2 years (86 IQ)
-after 2 years (77 IQ)
Disinhibited attachment after 6 months
76
Rutters ERA study for institutionalisation method
- 165 Romanian orphans adopted to Britain
- physical, cognitive + emotional development asses at 4, 6, 11 + 15 years old
- 52 British adoptees for control group
77
Rutters ERA study for institutionalisation conclusion
Institutionalisation has effect in children’s attachment + intellect
78
Bucharest early intervention project aim
Compare attachment types between Romanian children in institutionalised care + those not
79
Bucharest Early intervention project for institutionalisation method
- Strange situation to assess attachment type in 95 children ages 12-31 months in Romania
- control group of 50
80
Bucharest Early intervention project for institutionalisation findings
- 74% control group securely attached
- 19% of institutionalised group securely attached
- 65% of institutionalised group disorganised attachment
81
Romanian studies + effect of institutionalisation strengths
- validity - previous studies participants may have trauma - Romanian don't so increased internal validity
- application - enhanced understanding - improved children's care - practical valubility
82
Romanian studies + effect of institutionalisation weaknesses
- generalisability - worse conditions than institutional care - unusual situational variables - not applicable to other cultures
- no clear long term effects - no assessments in midteens - no adulthood affect shown
83
Bucharest Early intervention project for institutionalisation conclusion
-Institutionalisation more likely to experience disorganised attachment
84
How does early attachment effect relationships in later childhood?
-Myron-Wilson + Smith
-(196 questionnaires = children 7-11 in London)
Secure = best friendships (unlikely bullying)
Insecure avoidant = friendship difficulties (bully victims)
Insecure resistant = bully’s
85
3 influences of early attachment
- later childhood
- adulthood with romantic partners
- adulthood as a parent
86
How does early attachment effect relationships in adulthood as a parent?
-Bailey et al
(99 mothers to babies + own mothers using SS + interviews)
| found same attachment with both
87
Weaknesses of influence of early attachment on later relationships
- Issues with validity - a lot of studies use self report techniques (e.g. Hazan + Shaver) - relies on accurate recollection + honesty
- attachment evidence is mixed - McCarthy doesn't support continuity -HOWEVER- Zimmerman (2000) = little relationship quality between infant + adolescent attachment -limitation as not what we would expect if IWM was important in development
- Studies suggest infant attachment type causes attachment - HOWEVER- there are other continuity explanations e.g. parenting style or child's temperament - counteracts Bowlby's view that IWM caused these outcomes
