Attachment P1 Flashcards
(126 cards)
1
Q
what is attachment?
A
The formation of a strong, reciprocal emotional bond between an infant and a primary caregiver
2
Q
what is meant by reciprocity?
A
a description of how two people interact. Mother - Infant interaction is reciprocal in that both infant and mother respond to each others signals and each elicits a response from the other.
3
Q
what is meant by interactional synchrony?
A
Mother and Infant reflect both the actions and emotions of the other and do this in a co-ordinated way
Non- verbal interactions (communicating without words/ sounds) may determine the formation of attachment.
Interactional synchrony - simultaneous actions from the caregiver and baby reflect each others actions and emotions.
4
Q
Explain Interactional synchrony, refer to research
A
• Two people are said to be synchronised when they carry out the same act at the same time
• Takes place when a mother and babies actions and emotions mirror each other
• Meltzoff and Moore (1977)observed this in 2 week old infants, adults displayed one of three facial expressions or gestures the baby copied.
Isabella (1989) observed 30 mothers and infants, High levels of synchrony associated with better quality attachment.
5
Q
explain reciprocity more …
A
• Babies have ‘alert phases’ and signal that they are ready for interaction. Mothers respond 2/3 of the time- Feldman and Eidelman 2007
• From three months interaction is frequent and involves close attention to each others facial expressions and verbal signals- Feldman 2007
• Interaction is reciprocal when each person responds to the other and elicits a response from them
• The baby also takes on an active role
• Mother and Baby take turns in initiating interactions
Brazelton (1975) describes this as a ‘dance’ as they respond to each others moves like a couples dance
6
Q
a strength of care-giver interactions is the use of filmed observations
A
Mother-baby interactions are usually filmed, often from multiple angles. Very fine details of behaviour can be recorded and analysed later.
Also babies don’t know they are being observed so their behaviour does not change in response to observation.
-> this means that the studies of C-I interaction have good reliability & validity
7
Q
A limit for Caregiver infant interaction is the difficulty of observing bias
A
It is hard to observe babies’ behaviour as they are not very co-ordinated. we just observe small gestures and small changes in expression.
It is also hard to interpret the meaning of babies’ movements. e.g. deciding if a hand movement is a response to the caregiver or a random twitch.
-> this means we can’t be certain that any particular interactions observed between baby and caregiver are meaningful.
8
Q
A limit for Caregiver - infant interactions is difficulty interfering developmental importance.
A
Fieldman 2012 points out that synchrony simply describes behaviours that occur at the same time. These are robust phenomena in the sense that they can be observed, but this is not useful as it does not tell us about their purpose.
-> this means that we can’t be certain from observations that reciprocity or synchrony are important in development.
9
Q
Counterpoint for limit of feildman -C-I interactions
A
there is some evidence from other sources e.g. isabella 1989, to suggest that good levels of reciprocity and synchrony are associated with good quality attachments.
-> this means that on balance, these early interactions are likely to have importance for development
10
Q
what are the four stages of attachment?
A
Asocial
Indiscriminate attachment
specific attachment
Multiple attachments
11
Q
what happens during the asocial stage of attachment?
A
0-8weeks
baby’s behaviour towards people & inanimate objects is similar
-preference for familiar people, as more easily calmed by them
-happier in the presence of other people
12
Q
what happens during the indiscriminate attachment stage?
A
2-7 months
- babies display more observable social behaviour, w a preference for people rather than inanimate objects
- recognise and prefer familiar people
- don’t show stranger or separation anxiety
- attachment is indiscriminate = some towards all people
13
Q
what happens during the specific attachment stage?
A
from 7 months
experience stranger anxiety and separation anxiety when separated from 1 particular person - said to form a specific attachment with primary attachment figure
- in most cases, this is the person who offers most interaction and responds to a baby signals with the most skill - 65% = mothers
14
Q
what happens during the multiple attachment stage?
A
in the first year
secondary attachments with other adults are formed shortly after specific attachment
In schaffer & emersons study, 29% of babies had secondary attachments within a month of forming a primary attachment
by one, most had multiple secondary attachments
15
Q
the Schaffer and Emerson 1964 stages of attachment study: the procedure
A
60 babies from glasgow, mostly from working class families
researchers visited mothers and babies at home every month for a year and again at 18 months
-separation anxiety measured by asking mothers about their children’s behaviour during everyday separations e.g. adult leaving room
-stranger anxiety measured by asking mothers questions about the children’s anxiety response to unfamiliar adults
16
Q
the Schaffer & emerson study: the findings
A
Babies developed attachments through a sequence of stages, from asocial to specific - multiple (Supports the stages(
-the specific attachment tended to be to the person who was most interactive and sensitive to babies signals and facial expressions - not person spent most time - quality over quantity
17
Q
A strength of schaffer & emersons study is that is has external validity
A
Most of the observatioins were made by parents during ordinary activities and reported to the researchers. the alternative would be to have observers present in the babies’ homes. this may have distracted the babies or made them feel more anxious.
-> this means that it is highly likely the participants behaved naturally while being observed
18
Q
counterpoint to strength of schaffer and emersons study
A
mothers may hav ebeen biased in what they reported e.g. they might not have noticed when their baby was showing signs of anxiety or may have misremembered it.
-> this means that even if babies behaved naturally their behaviour may not have been accurately recorded
19
Q
A limit of stages is poor evidence for asocial stage
A
this is because of their physical development young babies have poor co-ordination and are fairly immobile.
this makes it difficult for mothers to accurately report signs of anxiety and attachment for this age group.
-> this means that the babies might actually be quite social, but due to flawed methods they appear asocial.
20
Q
A strength for stages of attachment is real-world application to day care
A
In the early stages babies can be comforted by any skilled adult. But if a child starts day care later during the specific stage, care from an unfamiliar adult can cause distress and longer-term problems.
-> this means that Schaffer and Emerson’s stages can help parents making day care decisions.
21
Q
extra eval for stages is the generalisability
A
S&E based their stages on a single but large-scale study of babies' development conducted in working class glasgow. However, child-rearing practices vary considerably according to cultural and historical context. e.g. multiple attachments the norm in collectevist cultures -> ijzendoorn 1993 -> this means that some of the observatioins from this study may not generalise to other populations
22
Q
what does the role of the father consist of?
A
- primary attachment usually with mothers but sometimes both
- 75% eventually form secondary attachments with father
- a distinctive role for the father
- fathers can be primary attachment figures
- level of response is most important
23
Q
what is meant by primary attachment forms usually by mothers but sometimes can be both?
A
Schaffer & Emerson 1964
found that the majority of babies became attached to their mother first (happens around 7 months)
in only 3% of cases the father was the first object of attachment
-in 27% of cases the father was joint first attachment with mother
24
Q
What is meant by 75% of babies eventually form secondary attachments with their father?
A
in 75% of babies studied an attachment was formed with the father by the age of 18 months
-this was indicated by the fact the babies protested when their father walked away, a sign of attachment.
25
what distinctive role does the father play?
grossmann 2002 - longitudinal study looking at parents' behaviour & its relationship to the quality of children's attachments into their teens
- this found that quality of attachment within the father was less important for adolescent attachment than the quality of attachment with the mother
- therefore fathers may be less important in the long term emotional development.
26
grossmann 2002 counterfindings
however, grossmann also found the quality of father's play with the babies was related to the quality of adolescents attachments.
-suggesting that fathers have a different role in attachment, one that is more to do with play and stimulation and less to do with emotional care.
27
what is meant by fathers can be primary attachment figures?
some evidence suggests that when fathers do take on the role of being the main caregiver they adopt behaviours more typical of mothers
- field 1978 filmed 4 month old babies and found that primary caregiver fathers, spent more time smiling, imitating and holding babies than secondary caregiver fathers.
- these behaviours are related to interactional synchrony and the formation of an emotional attachment
28
what is meant by the level of response is most important in role of father?
smiling, imitating and holding babies are behaviours that are important un building a primary attachment with a baby
- seems the father can be the more emotional attachment figure
- the key to the attachment relationship is the level of responsiveness not the gender of the parent
29
A limit of role of father is confusion over research questions
Some psychologists want to understand the role of fathers as secondary attachment figures. but others are more concerned with fathers as a primary attachment figure.
the former have tended to see fathers as behaving differently from mothers and having a distinct role. the latter have found that fathers can take on a maternal role.
-> this means psychologists can't easily answer the simple question: what is the role of the father?
30
A limit of the role of the father is conflicting evidence from different methodologists
Grossmann 2002 suggest fathers have a distinct role in children's development, involving play and stimulation. However, McCallum and Golombok 2004 found that children w/o a father do not develop differently.
-> this means the question of whether fathers have a distinctive role remains unanswered.
31
A counterpoint of conflicting evidence for role of father
findings may not be in conflict, fathers may typically take on particular roles in two parent hetero sexual famililes, other family structures adapt to not having fathers,
-> this means that findings may be clear after all - there may be a distinctive role for fathers when present, but families adapt to not having one
32
A strength of the role of the father is using findings in parenting advice
Mothers feel oressured to stay at home and fathers to focus on work. This may not be the best soluftion for all families.
research on the flexibility of the role of the father can be used to offer reassuring advice to parents.
-> this means that parental anxiety about the role of fathers can be reduced and parenting decisions can be made easier.
33
What did Lorenz study?
theories of attachment
| -Use goose eggs to measure imprinting
34
how did Lorenz's 1952 procedure go?
Lorenz randomly divided a large clutch of goose eggs
- one half were hatched in an incubator where the first moving object they saw was lorenz
- other half were hatched with mother goose in their natural environment
- mixed all goslings together (after hatched) to see whom they would follow
- lorenz also observed birds and their later courtship behaviour
35
what did lorenz conclude from his 1952 imprinting study?
The incubator group followed Lorenz, whereas the control group followed the mother
- Lorenz identified a critical period in which imprinting needs to take place e.g. a few hours after hatching
- if imprinting didn't occur within that time, chicks did not attach themselves to the mother figure
- sexual imprinting occurs whereby the birds acquire a template of the desirable characteristics required in an mate
36
A strength of lorenzs' study is support for the concept of imprinting
Regolin & Vallortigara 1995 exposed chicks to simple shape combinatioins that moved.
When shown a range of moving shapes the chicks followed these in preference to other shapes.
-> this suggests that young animals are born with an innate mechanism to imprint on a moving object
37
A limit of lorenzs' study is generalising from birds to humans.
The mammalian attachment system is quite different from imprinting in birds.
For example, mammalian mothers show more emotional attachment to their young.
-> This means that it may not be appropriate to generalise Lorenzs' ideas about imprinting to humans
38
A strength of lorenz is applications to human behaviour
The concept of imprinting can explain some human behaviour. For example, 'baby duck syndrome', in which computer users become attached to their first operating system.
-> this means that imprinting is a meaningful process in humans as well as birds/
39
A strength of lorenz is applications to human behaviour
The concept of imprinting can explain some human behaviour. For example, 'baby duck syndrome', in which computer users become attached to their first operating system.
-> this means that imprinting is a meaningful process in humans as well as birds/
40
Explain what happened during Harlows' 1958 procedure? - importance of contact comfort
Harlow reared 16 rhesus monkeys with two wire models 'mothers'
- Condition 1, milk was dispensed by the plain-wire mother
-Condition 2, milk was dispensed by the cloth-covered mothers
the monkeys preferences were measured
to measure attachment behaviour, Harlow observed how the monkeys reacted when placed in a frigthening situations. For example, harlow added a noisy mechanical teddy bear to the environment.
-Harlow & His colleagues continued to study the monkeys who had been deprived of their 'real' mother into adulthood.
41
What did Harlow 1958 find about the importance of contact comfort?
Baby monkeys cuddled the cloth-covered mother in prefernce to the plain-wire mother regardless of which dispensed milk. -> suggests that contact comfort was more of importance than food when it came to attachment behaviour.
-the monkeys also sough comfort from the cloth mother when frigthened
42
How did Harlows study affect the monkeys later on as adults?
as adults, the monkeys who had been deprived of their real mothers suffered severe consequences - more aggressive, less sociable and less skilled in mating than other monkeys
43
A strength of harlows study is it has real-world value
It has helped workers understand risk factors in child abuse and thus intervene to prevent it - from Howe 1998. We also understand the importance of attachment figures for baby monkeys in zoos and breeding programmes.
-> this means that Harlow's research has benefitted both humans and animals
44
A limit of harlows study is generalising from monkeys to humans.
Monkeys are clearly more similar to humans than Lorenzs' geese and all mammals share some similarities in their attachment systems.
However they are not human and in some ways the human mind and behaviour are much more complex.
-> this means that it may bot be appropriate to generalise Harlow's findings to humans.
45
A limit for harlow is the ethical issues of his methodology
Harlows procedures caused severe long-term distress to his monkey participants, though the research led to useful applications. However, his findings and conclusions have important theoretical and practical applications.
-> this suggests that in spite of its benefits, Harlows research perhaps shouldn't have been carried out.
46
Dollard and Miller 1950 learning theory of attachment
-shows importance of food
'cupboard love' -emphasises the importance of food in attachment formation, children learn to love whoever feeds them.
-involves classical conditioning & operant conditioning, negative reinforcement and drive reduction
47
Dollar and Miller 1950 LToA, The role of classical conditioning:
classical conditioning involves learning to associate two stimuli
in attachment: UCS (food) leads to a UCR(a feeling of pleasure). this response is not learned so it is an unconditioned response
48
How does a baby learn that mother produces a sense of pleasure?
A caregiver starts as the neutral stimulus -> no response
However, when CG provides food over time, they become associated with food (UCS) and become conditioned stimulus.
-Once conditioning has taken place the sight of the caregiver produces a conditioned response of pleasure. According to a learning theorist, the conditioned pleasure response is the basis of love
- now an attachment has formed & the caregiver becomes an attachment figure.
49
what is the role of operant conditioning in learning theory of attachment?
- explains why babies cry for comfort, a building block for attachment.
- Crying leads to a response from the CG e.g. feeding, as long as CG gives correct response, crying is reinforced as it produces a pleasurable consequence
50
what role does negative reinforcement have on the learning theory of attachment?
when the baby is reinforced for crying, the caregiver recieves negative reinforcement as the crying stops - escaping something unpleasant,
-this interplay of positive/negative reinforcement strengthens an attachment
51
why is drive reduction related to the learning theory of attachment?
hunger = primary drive, innate biological motivator
we are motivated to eat to reduce the hunger drive
-Attachment is a secondary drive learned by an association between the caregiver & the satisfaction of a primary drive
-Sears 1957, suggested that as CG's provide food the primary drive of hunger becomes generalised to them
52
A limit of learning theory of attachment is counter-evidence from animal studies.
Lorenzs' geese imprinted on the first moving object they saw. Harlow's monkeys attached to a soft surrogate in preference to a wire one w milk.
In both these animal studies, imprinting didn't develop as a result of feeding.
-> this shows that factors other than feeding are important in attachment formation
53
A limit of learning theory of attachment is counter evidence from human studies.
Schaffer & Emerson 1964 showed that for many babies their main attachment was not to the perosn who fed them. Also, Isabella 1989 found that interactional synchrony predicted attachment quality.
-> this again suggests that other factors are more important in attachment formation than feeding
54
A strength of learning theory of attachment is some elements of conditioning could still be involved.
it seems unlikely that association with food is central to attachment, However, conditioning may still play some role in attachment. For example, a baby's choice of primary attachment figure may be determined by the fact a caregiver becomes associated with warmth & comfort.
-> this means that conditioning could still be important in choice of attachment figures, though not the process of attachment formation.
55
A counterpoint to strength of learning theory
However, this point of view ignores the fact that babies take a very active role in the interactions that produce attachment. For example, they imitate interactions.
-> this suggests that learning theory may be inappropriate in explaining any aspect of attachment
56
What is meant by bowlby's monotropic theory 1958-69?
attachment is innate like imprinting
- monotropic = having a primary attachment figure
- babies are born with social releasers
- there is a critical period
- first attachment forms an internal working model of relationships
57
what is meant by attachment is innate?
bowlby gave an evolutionary explanation - that attachment is an innate system that gives a survival advantage
-imprinting & attachment evolved because they ensure young animals stay close to their caregivers & this protects them from hazards
58
what is meant by monotropic?
- emphasis on the child's attachment to one caregiver, mono = one and tropic = leaning towards
- this attachment is different from others & is more important
- bowlby believed that the more time a baby spent with the primary attachment figure the better due to: Law of continuity and Law of accumulated separation
59
what is meant by law of continuity?
the more constant a child's care, the better quality the attachment
60
what is meant by law of accumulated separation?
the effects of every separation add up
| 'the safest dose is therefore a zero dose' - no separation
61
what is meant by social releasers?
Bowlby suggested that babies are born with a set of innate 'cute' behaviours e.g. smiling, cooing, gripping, that encourage attention from adults.
- purpose of social releasers is to activate adult social interaction e.g. make an adult attach to the baby
- it is a reciprocal system
62
what is meant by a critical period?
bowlby proposed that there is a critical period of two years when the infant attachment system is active, viewed more of a sensitive period.
-A child is maximally sensitive at 6 months -> extend up to 2 years, if attachment is not formed child will find it harder to form attachments later
63
what is meant by the first attachment forms an internal working model of relationships?
bowlby argued that the child forms a mental representation of the relationship with their primary figure, the internal working model is a template for other relationships
- a child whose first experience is a loving relationship with a reliable caregiver will tend to form an expectation that all relationships are loving & reliable
- the internal working model effects the child's later ability to be a parent themselves
64
a limit of the monotropic theory is that the concept of monotropy lacks validity
the relationship with the primary attachment figure may simply be stronger than other attachments, rather than different in quality, as bowlby believed.
other family members may well develop attachments with the baby that have the same qualities such as comfort and a secure base from which to explore.
-> this means that bowlby may have been wrong to suggest that there is a unique quality to a child's primary attachment.
65
A strength of the monotropic theory is evidence supporting the role of social releasers
Brazelton 1975
instructed primary attachment figures to ignore their babys social releasers. Babies who were previously shown to be normally responsive, initially showed some distress but eventually some curled up and lay motionless.
-> this supports the idea that social releasers play an important role in attachment development
66
A strength of monotropic theory is support for the idea of the internal working model
The idea of the internal working model predicts that patterns of attachment will be passed on from one generation to the next. Bailey 2007, studied 99 mothers, those with poor attachment to their own parents were more likely to to have one year olds which were poorly attached.
-> this supports Bowlby's idea of an internal working model as it is being passed through families.
67
A counterpoint for strength of monotropic theory, support of the IWM
there are other influences on social development. for example, a baby's genetically influenced personality is important in the development of social behaviour, including their later parenting style.
-> this suggests that Bowlby overemphasised the importance of the internal working model in develoment.
68
What are the three attachment types identified by Ainsworth 1970?
secure
insecure - avoidant
insecure - resistant
69
what was the reason behind Ainsworth & Bells 1970 strange situation?
Ainsworth & bell developed the SS to assess the quality of a baby's attachment to a caregiver
-controlled observation in a lab, controlled, with a two-way mirror through which psychologists can observe a baby's behaviour.
70
what are the categories used to judge attachment in Ainsworth's strange situation?
Proximity seeking - well attached babies stay close to CG
Exploration and secure base behaviour - good attachment -> baby is confident to explore & uses CG as point of safety
stranger anxiety - displayed by well attached babies
separation anxiety - displayed by well attached babies
response to reunion with the caregiver after separation for a short period of time - babies are enthusiastic
71
what was the procedure of Ainsworths strange situation?
7 episodes, each lasting three minutes:
- baby is encouraged to explore by CG
- Stranger enters & talks with CG, approaches baby
- CG leaves
- GC returns, stranger leaves
- CG leaves baby alone
- stranger returns
- CG returns
72
what were the findings of ainsworths strange situation?
A & B found distinct patterns in the way babies behaved, identifying three main types of attachment.
- secure (65%-75% of british toddlers)
- insecure avoidant (20-25% british toddlers)
- insecure resistant (3% of brittish toddlers)
73
what are some characteristics of securely attached babies?
baby is happy to explore but seeks proximity
shows moderate separation & stranger anxiety
requires and accepts comfort from CG on reunion
74
what are some characteristics which insecure avoidant babies show?
baby explores freely, doesn't seek proximity
shows little/no separation & stranger anxiety
avoids contact at the reunion stage
75
what are some characteristics which insecure resistant babies show?
Baby explores less and seeks greater proximity
shows considerable stranger & separation anxiety
resists comfort when reunited with CG's
76
A strength of Strange situation is good predictive validity
Attachment type predicts later development. for example, secure babies typically have greater success at school. In contrast, insecure resistant attachment is associate with the worst outcomes, e.g. bullying and adult mental health problems.
-> this is evidence for the validity of the concept because it can explain future outcomes.
77
Counterpoint for strength of SS - predictive validity
Although the strange situation measures something that predicts later development, it may be measuring genetic differences in anxiety.
-> this means that the SS may not actually measure attachment
78
A strength of SS is good inter rater reliability
different observers watching the same babies generally agree on attachment type. Bick found 94% agreement in one team. This may be because the strange situation takes place under controlled conditions and because the behavioural categories are easy to observe.
-> this means that we can be confident that the attachment type of a baby identified in the SS doesn't just depend on who is observing them
79
A limit of SS is that it may be a culture-bound test
The SS test might not have the same meaning in countries outside Europe and the US where it was created. Cultural differences in children's experiences mean they respond differently. e.g. japanese babies show anxiety because they are not used to being left by their caregiver.
-> this means it difficult to know what the SS is measuring in some countries/ cultures
80
what was the procedure of Van ijzendoorn & Kroonenberg 1988, when looking into cultural variations?
meta-analysis
they looked at the proportions of secure, insecure-avoidant and insecure-resistant attachments across a range of countries
-they found 32 attachment studies where the SS had been used, these conducted in 8 countries, 15 in US. Overall the studies yielded results for 1,990 children
-results were combined and weighted for sample size
81
what were the findings of Van ijzendoorn & Kroonenberg 1988?
secure attachment was the most common in all countries but ranged from 50% in china to 75% in britain
- in individualistic cultures rates of insecure-resistant attachment were similar to Ainsworths original sample, different for collectivist cultures like samples from china, japan and israel where rates were above 25%
- > suggests that were cultural differences in distribution of attachment
- variations between results of studies within the same country were 150% greater than those between countries
- in the US one study found 46% securely attached compared to one sample of 90%.
82
what were the most extreme results found from Ijzendoorns & Kroonenbergs 1988 meta-analysis?
in germany, highest amount of avoidant attachment due to high levels of independance and self reliance
-japan had few avoidant but high proportion of resistant children
83
what did simonelli 2014 find in relation to cultural variation in attachment?
simonelli assesed 76 babies aged 12 months in italy using the SS to see whether the proportion of attachment types still matched preious studies in italy
-found that 50% were secure, 36% insecure avoidant -> low rates caused by increase of mothers working long hours and use of childcare -> shows that cultural changes can effect patterns of attachment
84
what did Jin 2012 study in relation to cross cultural variation & find?
- compared the attachment types of 87 Korean babies to proportions in other studies
- found similar patterns of secure & insecure attachment to other studies, however the proportion with insecure category were different - only one was insecure avoidant. -> similar to japan due to similar child-rearing styles.
85
A strength of cross cultural variation studies is the use of indigenous researchers.
Indigenous researchers are those who come from the same cultural background as the participants, e.g. grossmann, german working with german ppt's. Using indigenous researchers aids communication between researchers and ppt's, aswell as helping prevent misunderstandings.
-> this means that there is an excellent chance that researchers and ppt's communicated successfully, increasing the validity of the study.
86
counterpoint for strength of x cultural variations - indigenous researchers
this had not been true of all cross cultural attachment research, e.g. Morelli & Tronick 1991 investigated the Efe in Zaire.
-> this means that some cross cultural attachment research may have communication errors and therefore lacks validity
87
A limit of cross cultural study is the impact of confounding variables.
Studies conducted in different countries may not be matched for sample characteristics, e.g. studies in different countries may use children of different ages and social classes. Environmental variables may also differ e.g. using smaller rooms which might encourage babies to explore more
-> this means that studies assessing attachment types carried out in different countries may tell us little about cultural differences in attachment
88
a limit for cross cultural studies is imposing etic- test designed in one culture
Using a test in a different cultural context from the one for which it was designed for may be meaningless. The strange situations was designed in the US wwhere lack of affection at reunion represents insecure attachment. However, in Germany it would be seen as a sign of independence.
-> this means that it may be meaningless to compare attachment behaviours across countries
89
what is bowlby's theory of maternal deprivation?
1951
- continued emotional care
- separation leads to maternal deprivation
- separation is different from deprivation
- critical period of 2 1/2 years
- intellectual development is lower -> LOW IQ's
- emotional development -> affectionless psychopathy
90
why is continued emotional care important in the theory of maternal deprivation?
continuous emotional care from a mother is necessary for normal emotional and intellectual development
91
why does separation lead to maternal deprivation?
bowlby believed that mother-love in infancy is as important for mental health as are vitamins and proteins for physical health
92
what is the difference between separation and deprivation?
separation - child not being physcially in the presence of the primary attachment figure
deprivation - losing emotional care as a result of the separation, can be avoided if alternative emotional care is offered therefore separation =/ deprivation
93
why is there a critical period of 2 1/2 years in the theory of maternal deprivation?
if a child is separated from their mother w/o substituded emotional care for an extended time during the first 2.5 years -> psychological damage is inevitable
risk continues up to age 5
94
why does maternal deprivation lead to a low levels of intellectual development?
if a child is deprived of maternal care for too long during the critical period -> mental retardation
goldfarb 1947 found lower IQs in children from institutions compared to fostered children.
95
why does maternal deprivation effect emotional development?
lack of emotional care may lead to affectionless psychopathy - inability to experience guilt or strong emotion towards others.
-> this prevents the person developing normal relationships and is associated with criminality
96
what was the procedure of bowlby's 44 thieves study?
the sample was 44 delinquent teenagers accused of stealing
- all 'thieves' were interviewed for signs of affectionless psychopathy: characterised by lack of affection, guilt & empathy
- families were also interviewed to establish any prolonged separations from mothers
97
what did bowlby find in the 44 thieves study?
14/44 thieves could be described as affectionless psychopaths
12/14 of these had experienced prolonged separation from their mothers during the critical period of their lives,
- contrastingly, only 5 of 30 remaining thieves had experienced separations -> suggests pronged early separation/deprivation caused affectionless psychopathy
98
A limit to maternal deprivation is that sources of evidence are flawed
The 44 thieves study is flawed because it was open to bias - Bowlby himself assessed both deprivation and psychopathy, knowing what he'd hope to find. Also, Goldfarb's 1943 study of wartime orphans is flawed because he used traumatised ppt's who lacked good aftercare. This introduced confounding variables.
-> this means that Bowlby originally had no solid evidence on which to bas his theory of maternal deprivation.
99
counterpoint for limit of MD, flawed evidence
There is some evidence from newer studies to support the theory of maternal deprivation. For example, Levy 2003 found that separating baby rats for one day had a permanent effect on their social development.
-> this means there is now some evidence for the theory of maternal deprivation after all
100
A limit for maternal deprivation is Bowlby confused deprivation and privation.
Rutter 1981 made the distinction between deprivation and privation - failure to form attachment, privation has more serious effects. The children Bowlby studied and others he based his ideas on may have been prived rather than deprived.
->this means that Bowlby probably exaggerated the effects of deprivation on development
101
A limit for maternal deprivation is the critical period is more of a sensitive period
Koluchova 1976 conducted a case stuDy of Czech twin boys isolated from age 18 months who were locked in a cupboard. Later they were looked after by two loving adults and appeared to recover fully. Shows that severe deprivation can have positive outcomes provided the child has some social interaction and good aftercare.
-> this means that the period identified by Bowlby may be a sensitive one but it can't be critical
102
what are the main studies looking into institutionalisation?
Rutter, english & romanian adoptee study
| Zeanah Bucharest early intervention project
103
what was the procedure of rutter 2011, ERA study?
the researchers have followed a group of 165 romanian orphhans who experienced very poor conditions before being adopted into the uk.
- longitudinal study, tested the extent to which good care can make up for poor early experiences in institutions
- physical, cognitive & emotional development was assessed at 4,6,11,15 & 22-25 years.
- control group was 52 adopted children from the UK
104
what were the findings from Rutters ERA study?
half of the orphans showed delayed intellectual development when they came to the UK
-At age 11, recovery rates were related to their age at adopotion, those adopted before six months had a mean IQ of 102, those adopted after two years had a mean IQ of 77 - differences continued to be apparent at age 16
105
how was freuqency disinhibited attachment related to the age of adoption in Rutters 2011 ERA study?
apparent in children adopted after 6 months: clinginess, attention-seeking and indiscriminate affection
-rare in children adopted before 6 months
106
what did rutter conclude?
these findings support Bowlby's view that there is a sensitive period in the development of attachments - a failure to form an attachment before the age of 6 months appears to have long lasting effects
107
what was Zeanahs procedure 2005, Bucharest early intervention project?
used the strange situation to assess attachments in 95 Romanian children aged 12-31 months who had spent most of their lives in institutional care.
-They were compared to a control group of 50 children who had never experienced institutional care.
108
what did Zeanah 2005 find?
only 19% of the institutionalised group were securely attached compared to 74% of the control group
-44% of the institutionalised group has characteristics of disinhibited attachment, only 20% of controls
109
what are the effects of institutionalisation?
Disinhibited attachment - children tend to be equally friendly and affectionate towards people they know as well as strangers, may be an adaption to many carers
Damage to intellectual development - shows signs of intellectual disability, not as pronounced if the children are adopted before 6 months
110
A strength of roman orphan studies is real-world application
Results from this research have led to improvements in the way in which children are cared for institutions, Langton 2006. Children's homes now avoid having large numbers of caregivers for each child. They have one or two key workers who play a central role.
-> This means children in institutional care have a chance to develop normal attachments and disinhibited attachment is avoided.
111
A strength of romanian orphan studies is fewer confounding variables than other research
There were many orphan studies before the Romanian orphans became available to study. These often involved children who experienced loss of trauma before they were institutionalised. Neglect, Abuse and bereavement meant it was hard to observe the effects of institutionalisation in isolation. The children were affected by multiple factors functioning as confounding variables.
-> this means we can be fairly sure that differences in institutionally-cared for children are the result of this type of care.
112
A counterpoint to the fewer confounding variables in the romanian orphan studies
Romanian orphan studies may have confounding variables because the quality of care was so poor, making it hard to separate effects of institutional care.
-> this means that internal validity might not be better than in previous studies after all.
113
A limit to romanian orphan studies is the lack of data on adult development.
it is too soon to say whether children suffered permanent effects because we only have data on their development as far as their early twenties. it will be some time before we have information about some key research questions e.g. orphans ability to form and maintain romantic and parenting relationships.
-> this means the romanian orphan studies have not yet yielded their most important findings, some children may 'catch up'.
114
what is meant when explaining the influence of early attachment on later relationships
the internal working model
| Hazan & Shaver 1987 research support
115
the internal working model states that the first attachment is a template for future relationships
the quality of a child's first attachment is crucial because it provides a template that will affect the nature of their future relationships
-due to the influence of the internal working model created by that first attachment
116
the internal model states that a good attachment = good relationship expectation
a child whose first experience is a loving relationship with a reliable attachment figure assumes this is how all relationships are meant to be
they will then seek out functional relationships and behave functionally within them
117
the internal working model also states that bad attachment = bad relationship expectations
a child with these bad experiences of their first attachment will bring these experiences to bear on later relationships
- this means they will struggle to form relationships in the first place or not behave appropriately
118
the internal working model also effects childhood relationships
securely attached babies tend to go on to form the best quality childhood friendships.
-securely attached children are less likely to be involved in bullying whereas insecure-avoidant children are more likely to be victims & insecure-resistant are likely to be bullies
119
The internal working model also effects adulthood as it links with parenting style
People base their parenting style on their internal working model.
Bailey 2007 found the majority of mothers had the same attachment classification to their babies as they had to their own mothers
-Hazan & Shaver
120
what was the procedure of Hazan & Shaver 1987?
Love quiz
- researchers analysed 620 replies to a love quiz printed in an American local newspaper
- the qui assessed 3 different aspects of relationships; current & most important relationship, general love experiences and attachment type.
121
what did Hazan & Shaver 1987 find from the love quiz?
the respondents attachment type was reflected in their romantic relationships
- secure respondents were the most likely to have good and longer lasting romantic relationships
- avoidant respondents tended to be jealous & fear intimacy
121
what did Hazan & Shaver 1987 find from the love quiz?
the respondents attachment type was reflected in their romantic relationships
- secure respondents were the most likely to have good and longer lasting romantic relationships
- avoidant respondents tended to be jealous & fear intimacy
122
a strength of early attachment is strong research support
There are many studies showing a link between infant attachment type and later development, inclulding bullying, success in romantic relationships and parenting.
A review by Fearson & Roisiman 2017 concluded that infant attachment influenced development in many ways. Disorganised attachment was most predictive e.g. of later mental disorder.
-> this means that insecure attachment appears to convey a disadvantage for children's development
123
A limit of early attachment is validity issues with retrospective studies
Most studies assess participants attachment type in adulthood using questionnaires or interviews. These rely on honest answers. A further problem is that these studies assess attachment in late childhood or adulthood and assume it has remained the same since infancy.
-> this means that the measures of attachment may not be valid
124
A limit of early attachment on later relationships is possible confounding variables.
Some studies do make assesments of how infant attachment and follow up children, assessing their later later development.
However, these studies may be affected by confounding variables. For example, parenting styles and personality might affect both attachment and later development.
-> this means that we can never be sure that it is infant attachment and not some other factor that is influencing later development.
125
counterpoint to strength of early attachment
Not all evidence supports the link between infant attachment and later development. For example, the Regensburg longitudinal study found no evidence of continuity of attachment type from age 1-16 years.
-> this means that it is not clear how strongly attachment influences later development
