Attachment- P1 Flashcards
(22 cards)
Caregiver- infant interactions AO1
Reciprocity
* = the actions of one person get a response from the other e.g. baby cried, mother comforts
* turn-taking behaviour= conversation like interactions between carer and baby
* alert phases= babies have period phases in which the signal that they are ready for an interaction (e.g. eye contact), mothers respond to these 2/3 of the time
* active involvement= both caregiver and baby play active roles in the interactions
Interactional synchrony= when 2 people carry out the same action at the same time- mirrorring, e.g. mother smiles, baby smiles
Caregiver- infant interactions AO3
Reciprocity
* S: research support: Tronick et al- still face expt. filmed controlled observations to observe the baby’s reaction to the mother disengageing, during the still face phase the baby showed signs of distress ( e.g. pick me up gestures)
* W: ethical issues- socially sensitive as it places the baby in distress and places emphasis on mothers being constantly engaged
HOWEVER- has practical value for parenting
Interactional synchrony
* S: research support- Meltzoff and Moore: controlled observations, infants 2-3 weeks old, adult made facial expressions and hand gestures- response was observed: there was an association between behaviour of the infant and adult
* S: methodology- research into this area tends to use filmed observations= inter-rater reliability, the results are also internally valid because the baby won’t know its being observed so no demand characteristics
* W: difficulty observing babies- hard to interpret their actions, they lack co-ordination and mobility- is a smile a smile or wind?= issues with cause and effect
Stages of attachment AO1
- Schaffer and Emerson
- logitudinal 2 year study, followed 60 working class glaswegian infants, observed every 4 weeks, attachment is measures in 2 ways- separation and stranger anxiety
- stages:
1. asocial phase= babies don’t distinguish between people and objects
2. indiscriminate attachment= can’t distinguish between different people but can recognise people from objects, no stranger or separation anxiety
3. specific attachment= form one strong attachment to a specific individual, their primary attachment figure, they show stranger and separation anxiety
4. multiple attachments= attachment behaviour is extended towards other, secondary attachment figures
Stages of attachment AO3
- S: good external validity- most observations were made by parents during ordinary activities, this means the babies would not behave differently like they may if the researcher was there
- W: however, issues with mothers’ observations- unlikely to be objective, may be biased in what they reported, wouldn’t want to seem like bad parents
- W: poor evidence for asocial phase- young babies have poor coordination and are immobile, anxiety may be quite subtle, babies may not be asocial just unable to show it
- S: real-world application: applies to daycare and orphanages: in stage 1 and 2 it doesnt matter who the skilled adult is but in the specific stages, one key worker is important
Role of the father AO1
Role is important
* Field: observed PCG mothers, PCG fathers and SCG fathers: found that PCG fathers behaved in the same way as mothers= fathers can be as emotion focussed as mothers IF they are the PCG
* Lamb: fathers who are the PCG can quickly develop densitive responsiveness, this is not limited to mothers
* Belsky: in intimate marriages, fathers can quickly develop secure attachments to children
Role isn’t important
* Hardy: fathers are less able to detect low levels of infant distress= males are less suitable to being the PCG
* Grossman et al: longitudinal (from babies to teens), quality of attachment to mothers was reflected in adolescent relationships, whereas father’s role was more to do with play than emotional development
* Geiger: fathers have more of a playmate role
Role of the father AO3
- S: (for role isn’t important)- biological sex differences= women have oestrogen hormone which is associated with caring behaviour, explains the heightened emotional sensitivity
HOWEVER- biological determinism - W: conflicting evidence- difficult to draw conclusions from the research- each study takes a different focus (e.g. whether the children are in 1 or 2 parent households)
-FURTHERMORE: research into same-sex couples suggests that the children develop in the same way (no deficits) - S: practical applications- research can be used to offer advice to parents, they often don’t know who should take the primary care giver role, mothers may feel pressure to do this, but fathers are capable
Animal studies AO1
Harlow
* aim- to show that attachments aren’t based around food
* 16 Rhesus monkeys taken from mother at birth, studied for 165 days, put in cage with 2 surrogate mothers, a cloth one and a wire one and their milk bottle was placed on one of them
* all monkeys preferred the cuddly mother regardless of where their food was, contact comfort> food
* they also developed abnormally (couldn’t have normal social interactions) and sexually abnormal, couldn’t cradle their own offspring
* if they were in the expt. for longer than 6 months the damage was permanent
Lorenz
* studied imprinting, lab expt, divided a clutch of greylag goose eggs into two groups
* one group hatched next to him, the other group next to their mother
* findings: they followed whoever they hatched next to (imprinting), even when mixed up they separated to respective mothers
* concluded: critical period of 24 hrs in which they had to imprint
* sexual imprinting= animals will choose to mate with the species upon which they imprinted
Animal studies AO3
Harlow
* W: ethical issues- permanent harm, no consent or withdrawal
* S: practical applications to childcare practices- importance of comfort in attachment= foster homes used more than orphanages now
* S: extrapolation to humans: primates are genetically and behaviourally close to humans, Schaffer and Emerson also found that we don’t attach to whoever feeds us
* W: confounding variable: surrogate mothers were given different faces and heads- they may have preferred the cloth mother because of the face
Lorenz
* W: generalisability to humans- difficult to extrapolate findings to humans, geese are mobile and can feed themselves from birth whereas humans have a period of dependency (we don’t have a critical period of 24 hrs)
* S: influential in informing the work of Bowlby who suggested a 2.5 year critical period for humans
* W: contadictory evidence for sexual imprinting- Guiton et al: chickens who had imprinted on rubber gloves would initally try to mate with them but later on would engage in normal mating behaviour, sexual imprinting isn’t permanent
Learning theory of attachment AO1
- Dollard and Miller- ‘cupboard love’ theory, emphasises the importance of the attachment figure as a provider of food
- classical conditioning= learning to associate two stimuli together to cause a response, the caregiver who feeds the baby becomes associated with pleasure through stisfying their hunger drive
- initially: mother=NS, food= UCS, pleasure= UCR
- during: mother becomes associates with the pleasure produces by food
- after: mother=CS, CR= pleasure
- operant conditioning= learning through reinforcement and consequences, behaviours that are reinforced will be repeated
- positive reinforcement, negative reinforcement and punishment
- food is the primary reinforcer, caregiver is secondary reinforcer (provides the primary)
- baby cries because it is hungry, mother feeds baby (positive reinforcement), mother is also negatively reinforced as the crying stops
Learning theory of attachment AO3
- W: contradictory evidence
-animal studies: Harlow found monkeys preferred contact comfort over food (preferred the cloth ‘mother’), Lorenz’s geese imprinted on whoever they saw first regardless of food
-Schaffer and Emerson: less than 1/2 the children attached to whoever fed them the most, interactivity was most important - W: generalisability to humans: learning theory is based on attachment in animals so may not be generalisable
- S: some conditioning may be involved- baby may associate feeling warm and comfortable with a particular adult, making them more likely to attach to them
- HOWEVER: learning theory suggests that babies play a passive role in attachment but research suggests their role is active (reciprocity and interactional synchrony)
Bowlby’s monotropic theory of attachment AO1
- Bowlby rejected the learning theory and proposed an evolutionary theory
- attachment is innate and provides an adaptive advantage
- monotropy= we are driven to attach to one caregiver (mother figure)
- law of continuity= the more constant and predictable their care, the better their attachment
- law of accumulated separation= the effects of separation from the mother ‘add up’
- social releasers= babies have physical and behavioural characteristics which make adults want to care for them (e.g. big eyes/ smiling)
- critical period= attachment should occur within 2.5 yrs but the optimum is 6 months, if an attachment isn’t formed within this time it’ll be much harder to form one later on
- internal working model= the mental representation of our attachment to our primary attachment figure forms a template for all later relationships
Bowlby’s monotropic theory of attachment AO3
- S: influential- encouraged other researchers like Ainsworth, concept of monotropy has changed childcare practices in institutions (foster care is preferred) or giving the child one or two key workers
- W: HOWEVER: socially sensitive- places pressure on mother, laws of continuity and accumulated separation suggest they shouldn’t go to work, ignores role of the father
- S: support for IWM- Hazan and Shaver’s love quiz: 205 males and 415 females, those who reported secure attachments to parents also had healthier adult relationships
HOWEVER- correlational, self report methods - contradictory evidence for monotropy- Schaffer and emerson, multiple attachment pphase, these other attachments may provide other things like emotional support
- ethnocentric: only applies to western cultures, child rearing practices are different in other cultres e.g. Israeli Kibbutz chilren are brought up by a metapelet (foster mother) so the child may form multiple attachments
Types of attachment AO1
- Mary Ainsworth’s strange situation- observation of key attachment behaviours to assess quality of attachment
- assesses: proximity seeking, secure base behaviour, stanger anxiety, separation anxiety and reunion behaviour
- procedure: 7 episodes of 3 mins each-
1. mother and baby alone
2. stranger enters
3. mother leaves baby and stranger alone
4. mother returns, stranger leaves
5. mother leaves baby alone
6. stranger returns
7. mother returns
Types of attachment:
* secure= 60-75% British babies, explore but regularly return to mother, moderate stranger and separation anxiety
* insecure avoidant= 20-25%, explore freely but do not seek proximity/ secure base, little stranger or separation anxiety, little reunion behaviour
* insecure resistant= around 3%, seek proximity, explore less, high stranger and separation anxiety, resist comfort upon return
Types of attachment AO3
- S: good methodology- highly controlled, systematic procedure, replicable, all infants responding to the same procedure= internal validity, inter-observer reliability: ainsworth achieved a near perfect agreement when rating behaviours
HOWEVER- lacks ecological validity: the ‘strange’ nature of th expt. meant the babies may have behaved abnormally - W: 4th classification type- Main and Cassiday: identified a ‘disorganised’ attachment type, child’s behaviour is inconsistent, confused and indecisive
- S: predictive validity- attachment type is useful for predicting aspects of later development, better attachment= better outcomes e.g. better peer relationships and better mental health
- W: HOWEVER- cultural relativism: was developed on American middle class children, may not apply to other cultures e.g. might not apply to german babies, high proportion of avoidant
Cultural variations AO1
Van Izjendoorn and Kroonenberg
* aimed to establish proportions of secure attachment types between and within different cultures
* meta-analysis of 32 strange situation studies across 8 countries (15/32 were in USA)
* secure was most common in all countries- 75% in UK vs 50% in China
* insecure- resistant rates in individualist cultures were similar to Ainsworth’s study but were higher in collectivist cultures
* variations were greater within the same country than between countries
Takahashi
* aimed to test whether SS is valid for other cultures
* 60 japanese mothers and babies, babies were extremely stressed when mother left so this phase was often removed
* 0% avoidant- avoidant behaviour is considered rude in Japanese cultures so attachment is impacted by social norms
Simonella
* Italian study, found a lower proportion of secure than previous research- possibly because more mothers were going out to work
Jin et al
* Korean study, found similar results to Japan
* Korea and Japan have similar cultures and child rearing practices
Cultural variations AO3
- W: imposed etic- cross-cultural attachment research often imposes the strange situation (a test designed to be valid for american cultures) onto other cultures, meaning their results may not have the same meaning, e.g. Germany- avoidant behaviour is not considered insecure, it is considered independent
- W: confounding variables- studies conducted in different countries are not always matched for methodology- differences in environmental factors like size of the room or appearance of the stranger, limits what we can conclude
- S: indigenous researchers- much of the cultural variations research uses research by indigenous psychologists: Van Izjendoorn and Kroonenberg used research by German and Japanese psychologists- avoids researchers misinterpreting language/ having difficulty communicatinf instructions/ stereotyping
Bowlby’s theory of maternal deprivation AO1
- maternal depriation= the emotional and intellectual consequences of separation between child and mother
- ‘mother love in infancy and childhood is as important for mental health as vitamins and proteins for physial health’
- extended periods of separation between mother and baby can lead to deprivation (not the same as privation= failure to form an attachment)
- critical period= 2.5 yrs, deprivation in this time would inevitably lead to psychological damage (according to Bowlby)
- effects= mental retardation (low IQ), affectionless psychopathy (no empathy/strong emotions for others), delinquency (minor crime), aggression and depression
- 44 thieves study= Bowlby interviewed 44 teenage thieves for igns of affectionless psychopathy, and interviewed their families to assess for early separations from mother
- found: 14/44 thieves were affectionless psychopaths, 12/14 had prolonged separation
Bowlby’s theory of maternal deprivation AO3
- W: flawed evidence- researcher bias: Bowlby conducted interviews of families and assessed for affectionless psychopathy (he knew what results he wanted to obtain)
- FURTHERMORE: Bowlby’s theory was also based on Goldfarb’s flawed research on wartime orphanages- confounding variables because so many of the children had early truama as well as separation
- HOWEVER: newer research has provided some support for maternal deprivation- Levy et al showed that separating baby rats from their mother for as little as a day had lasting effects on thier social development
- W: deprivation vs separation- Bowlby confused some types of early experience, Rutter distinguished that privation is the failure to form an attachment in the first place, the long term damage identified by Bowlby is more likely a result of privation than deprivation, the children in Goldfarb’s study and the 44 thieves study may have been ‘prived’ rather than deprived
- W: critical vs sensitive period- Bowlby said that if an attachment wasn’t formed in first 2.5 years, damage was inevitable, instead evidence suggests that quality aftercare can make up for it, Koluchova: reported the case of twins who had experienced severe physical and emotional abuse from 28 months- 7 yrs old, after this they recieved excellent emotional care and by their teens had fully recovered
Institutionalisation- romanian orphan studies AO1
- Romania’s orphan crisis= 1990’s president Nicolai Ceaucescu banned abortion and contraception meaning many children ended up in large, overrun orphanages with very poor conditions
- institutionalisation= effects of living in an institution for a continuous period of time, often with very little emotional care
Rutter’s research: - part of the ERA= english and romanian adoptee study
- longitudinal study of 165 romanian orphans, investigated if good care could make up for poor early experiences
- compared to a control group of 52 british adoptees at ages 4,6,11,15 and mid 20’s
- results: romanians had poorer cognitive, social and physical development, those adopted before 6 months could catch up by age 4, those adopted after 6 months demonstrated disinhibited attachment= attention seeking, and indiscriminate clinginess to all adults
Zeanah’s research: - Bucharest early intervention project, assessed attachment types of 95 Romanian children who had lived in an institution for an extended period of time
- compared them to a control group using the strage situation
- results: 19% secure (vs 74% control group), 44% disinhibited attachment
Institutionalisation- romanian orphan studies AO3
- S: few confounding variables- many previous orphan studies (from the war like Goldfarb’s) had confounding variables like trauma, however the romanian orphans were mostly given up by loving parents who couldn’t afford to keep their children (=less likely to have trauma)
- HOWEVER- generalisability: conditions in the orphanages were so severe that the research cannot be applied to all institutions
- S: real- world applications: findings can be used to improve institutional care for children, e.g. childrens homes now avoid having many carers for each child, instead they have 1 or 2 key workers
- W: socially sensitive research- studies show that those adopted later are likely to have worse outcomes, this was published as the adoptees were growing up, so they may have been treated differently e.g. by teachers (this can lead to a self-fulfilling prophecy)
- W: lack of adult data- the latest data looked at them in thier mid-20’s, we have no data on the long term effects such as sucess at forming adult relationships/ parenting skills, it will take time to obtain this data
Attachment and later relationships AO1
childhood relationships
* Sroufe- assessed p’s early attachment and later social competence, concluded there was continuity between the two, secure= more likely to be popular and less isolated- continuity hypothesis
* Kerns- peer relationships in childhood were found to be related to perception of security in their relationship to their mother, secure= more responsive, less critical, greater companionship with friends
* Myron-Wilson and Smith (bullying)- studied 198 children aged 7-11 using a questionairre, secure= uninvolved in bullying, insecure avoidant= victims, insecure resistant= bullies
adult relationships
* Bailey et al: studied 99 mothers with 1 year old babies, found that the mothers’ attachment type to their mother was likely to be the attachment type they had with their own child
* Hazan and Shaver’s love quiz: asked p’s about their early relationships with parents and their adult romantic relationships, found those with secure attachments had more successful adult relationships
Attachment and later relationships AO3
Childhood relationships
* S: all studies agree that there is continuity between attachment type and childhood relationships
* W: HOWEVER, alternative explanation- temperament hypothesis= our personality impacts how we interact with our mother in infancy so also impacts how we engage with peers
* W: research relies on self-report methods: e.g. Myron Wilson and Smith’s study relied on the children being honest, social desirability bias= they may not have wanted to be deemed as bullies or victims- reduces internal validity
**Adult relationships **
* S: support- Bowlby’s IWM: attachment with mother acts as a template for later relationships (this supports Bailey and Hazan and Shaver), Harlow: monkeys didn’t know how to cradle offspring
* W: HOWEVER: contradictoty evidence- Zimmerman and Regensberg- found not correlation between attachment and later relationships= evidence is mixed
* W: all research is correlational- probabalistic, cannot establish cause and effect, many other factors involved in the sucess of relationships
