Attcahmnet

Question 1

Caregiver infant interactions

Answer 1

• Help social
• Reciprocity= mutual exchange both respond to each other signal e.g smile
• Alert phases = baby signals readiness for interaction fieldman+eidellman Mother response babies alertness 2/3 find finegold etal Responsiveness vary external forces e.g stress
• From three months the reciprocity more frequent verbal+ facial Felman 2007
• International synchrony= mirror each other emotion+ action synchronised, melzoff +moore observed 2 weeks baby imitate facial expression, synchrony innate
• Isabella et al 30 mothers higher level synchrony associated with better quality mother baby attachment emotional intensity
  Evaluation
• Film observations = increase validity reliability can be looked at again and again
• Controlled setting+ babies low demand characteristics
• But hard to observe babies luck coordination hard to tell if actions deliberate or random hard to prove reciprocity or synchrony
• If synchrony doesn’t mean help develop attachment Feldman Synchrony described purpose not explained but Isabella et al better synchrony strong attachment
• Rebecca Crotwell et al 10-minute Parent-Child Interaction Therapy (PCIT) improved interactional synchrony in 20 low-income mothers+ their pre-school children.
• socially sensitive research- mothers miss work

Question 2

Schaffer’s stages of attachment

Answer 2

• A social stage 0-6 weeks = baby response human+ objects similarly preference familiar adults but little discrimination, preference human voices faces, synchrony
• Indiscriminate state 6w-6m = observable social behaviour, prefer human, except comfort from everyone, no stranger seppreation anxiety, enjoy people
• Specific attachment 7-9mon= stranger separation anxiety, attachment primary figure, most interaction+ response65% most cases mum
• Multiple attachment 9+= attachment expanded beyond primary figure secondary form grandma one year multiple attachments
• Shacffer + Emerson research = 60 babies 31 boys 29 girls from Glasgow mostly working class families visited year and 14 months observed anxiety strange anxiety found 50% shared specific attachment at seven month 80% mu 30% multiplied by 10 by one year 78% multiple 33% five or more
  Evaluation
• Done at babies homes parents reported behaviour less deserver bias baby act naturally but could be social desirability bias makes have exaggerated or misread behaviour demand characteristics low internal
• Poor evidence a social stage babies immobile how to make judgement
• Real world application help understand attachment progress daycare planning
• All from Glasgow working class van ijzendoom collectivist multiple form can’t generalise

Question 3

Role of father

Answer 3

• Anyone who takes role of male caregiver give her not necessarily biological
• Primary strongest not always mother
• Verrisimo et al (2011) better quality of father toddler relationship the more friends the child has at pre-school
• Field (1978) filmed 4 month old babies and found that fathers can be primary caregivers and they were seen to adapt behaviours of mothers
• Schaffer and Emerson (1964) study 75% infants formed secondary attachment with their fathers evident through separation anxiety
• Grossman et al Longtidunal, quality of dads play linked to adsolense attachment show dad have unique role focused on stimulation+ play less nurturing than mom
• Tiffany field filmed compared primary caregiver father’s secondary fathers and mothers primary caregiver dad showed nurturing behaviours similar to mum hold and smile responsiveness matters more than gender dad can be primary if nurture behaviour
  Evaluation
• Confusion over research different researchers focus on different things some see as primary other as secondary so inconsistent
• Conflicting evidence- grossman et al Fathers play distinct role If word primary caregivers children single mothers or same sex should develop differently but don’t show may not be as crucial
• But could be that one gender does the role for father
• No actual evidence why father cant be be but could be oestrogen more nurturing
• Real life application help stay at home fathers economy more mum at work but may lead to bias as playmate

Question 4

Animal studies of attachment

Answer 4

• Lorenz imprinting = investigate imprinting in geese, took clutch of Gosling eggs divide into groups control with mother other an incubator first thing this order ends started to follow him to test effect in printing he must two groups found Gosling quickly divided themselves one followed Lorenz other followed mum he became imprint parent. Concluded animals in print mental image of firstmoving object see within hours of being born. Critical. If not now not never. Sexual imprint birds show mating preference for species imprinted on Peacock on tortoise.
  Evaluation
• Guitian chicks imprinted on yellow gloves but not generalizable to humans unethical
  Harlow contact comfort
• To see the role in attachment 16 monkeys separated from mother two surrogate mothers one dispersed milk other is soft but no milk found monkeys preferred soft cloth mother even though didn’t give any food sought comfort when scared critical period 90 days after this maternal deprivation irreversible
• However even those with a cloth monkey developed socially aggressive behaviour killed the offsprings due to maternal desperation
  Evaluation
• Real world application howe help social workers understand effect child neglect abuse leading to better care zoo breeding programmes improve care off
• Ethical issues aggression reproduction not human
• Seen and abused children
• Unethical
• Lab

Question 5

Explanations of attachment: learning theory

Answer 5

• Learning theory+ attachments = Dolland+ miller attachment learned through conditioning not innate
• Classical conditioning = learning through association, food unconditional stimulus produce pleasure unconditioned response caregiver neutral stimulus chart learns to associate caregiver with pleasure conditions stimulus brings condition response association formed regardless of food or not
• Operant conditioning = learning way consequences positive reinforcement reward baby cries caregiver stop cry negative reinforcement baby crying noise caregiver take noise out removal of something bad
• Robert sears et al hunger primary Drive biological need caregiver give food search attachment develops as a learn secondary drive, attachment reinforced through feeding as baby learning to associate with satisfaction
  Evaluation
• counter evidence from animal studies Lorenz imprint on first moving object not who fed them hollow monkey fur cloth not with food
• Counter evidence from human studies Schaffer + Emerson 39% babies primary attached to person who not fed but comfort
• Some conditions may involved association reinforcement Association with comfort useful in understanding of attachments
• Social learning theory = Hay and Jo Vespo children learn attachment behaviours by observing imitating (modelling) their parents, e.g hugging. Parents reinforce these behaviours by showing approval highlights importance of reciprocity between baby+ adult in forming attachments.

Question 6

Bowlbys mono tropic theory of attachment

Answer 6

• Innate programmed to form attachment from birth
• Monotropy = Has one primary attachment figure mum due to evolutionary survival being close to mum increase chance protection
• Law of Continuity: more constant protective care better quality attachment
• Law of accumulated separation more separation= was outcomes psychological damage
• Social releases= baby born with eight cute behaviour smile social release to trigger caregiver attachment
• Critical period first years if no attachment, Charles struggles with relationships later
• Internal working model= first attachment, blueprint future relationship, secure attachment post view of self+ relationships trust emotional security
• Insecure attachment negative view of self relationships difficult trust commitment issues poor parenting
• Pause down generations parents replicate own early attachment experiences with children
• Link to other relationships hazan Schaffer love quiz, secure attached and healthy romantic relationships
  Evaluation
• Validity challenged Schaffer Emerson most babies formed multiple attachments at same time, no special importance of first attachment over others.If multiple attachments form at the same time and each has similar emotional quality, monotropy may not be a distinct or superior attachment type.challenges Bowlby’s idea that one attachment (usually the mother) holds greater importance than all others.
• T berry brazolton et al observed babies found social realises triggers reaction then told caregiver to Ignore curled up lays down
• Bailey et al. (2007) studied 99 mothers found those with poor attachment to their parents more likely to have poorly attached babies supports Bowlby’s idea that internal working models passed down through families. But Internal working models are abstract can’t directly observe or measure them. no direct evidence that internal working models exist — only that patterns of attachment seem to repeat.
• ## Burman (1994)says too much pressure on mum responsible of future but before bowlby dint know importance of mum.

Question 7

Types of attachment

Answer 7

• Ainsworth strange situation aim to assess individual differences in attachment using strange situation
• Procedure= controlled observation in a lab to be mirror observing how babies 12 to 18 months behave in different situations to assess attachment quality
• Behaviours used to judgement: proximity seeking how close infant stays to caregiver securing attachments stay close, Safety behaviour, stranger anxiety distress when babies separated from caregiver, separation anxiety respond to reunion how people react when returns seeking or avoiding comfort
• Has seven episodes three minutes
• 1. Baby in courage to explore.= tests secure base and exploration
• 2. Stranger comes in talks to caregiver approaches baby tests stranger anxiety
• 3. can give leaves baby stranger together test separation, strange anxiety
• 4. Return stranger leaves Tests reunion behaviour and secure base.
• 5. Caregiver leaves baby alone. Test separation anxiety.
• 6. Stranger returns test strange anxiety
• 7. Caregiver returns reunited with baby reunion behaviour
• Found type a security touched 66% when cake give a present explore strange environment use caregiver secure base show moderate distress when separated goes to comfort when return easily soothe caregiver sensitive to needs
• Type B Insecure avoidant 22% don’t interact with mother and with her don’t your anxiety when left with stranger when you reunite makes no attempt to go close happy to explain environment don’t use her as a safe base caregiver more socially distant
• Type C insecure resistant 12% very distress when separated difficult to console reunion rush to show anger stronger to put down place to resist stranger attempts to interact limited exploration of environment caregiver behaviour consistent sometimes sensitive other rejecting
• Conclusion, sensitivity of significant impact attachment type
  Evaluation
• method good inter-rater reliability. Bick et al found 94% agreement on attachment types suggests less observer bias.
• predicts baby’s later development outcomes.McCormick et al. +Kokkinos found securely attached babies (Type B) have better achievement in school less likely to be bullied.Ward et al.found securely attached babies better mental health in adulthood. Insecure-resistant babies tend to have the worst outcome something meaningful in development.but Kagan might be genetic temperament (e.g. anxiety levels), not attachment, that causes these later outcomes.
• not generalisable to other cultures. Takahashi (1990) showed that SS is not suitable for Japan as mothers are rarely separated from their mothers. means they show high levels of anxiety even if they may be secure.
• should be one more attachment type. Main +Solomon (1986) found disorganised attachment child displays an odd mix of resistant and avoidant behaviours. This suggests the SS is incomplete.

Question 8

Cultural variations

Answer 8

• Culture rules custom morals that bind together members of society
• Van ijzendoom +knoonberg= compare proportions of different attachments types in different cultures compare variation within same country
• Did meta analysis of 32 SS studies from eight countries 2000 infant 15 from USA data combined based on sample size
• Phone secure most common across all coaches support all attachment in Nate universal, insecure wouldn’t most common except Israel and collecativits , insecure resistant least common
• But differences within coaches 1.5 times higher and across cultures confused pattern across cultures seem to be similar to what was found in secure attachment as norm
• Alssednra SimoneLli et al 76 infants 12 months using SS 50% secure felt safe with parents most common insecure avoidant might be because more mums are working long hours and using babysitters.
• Korea - Mi Kyoung Jin Korea,similar test with 87 babies. Most babies still felt safe, just like in other countries secure . But some of the babies who didn’t feel safe were clingy and didn’t want their parents to leave (called “resistant”), and only one baby acted like they didn’t care (avoidant).like babies in Japan, and that might be because Korean and Japanese parents raise kids in similar ways.
• Babies everywhere feel safe with their parents (like Bowlby said), but they show it in different ways depending on how they’re raised in each country.
  Evaluation
• Many studies in cross-cultural research were conducted by indigenous psychologists from same cultural background as participants Grossmann et al. German research team, Takahashi Japanese psychologist Reduces potential problems such as language misunderstandings, communication issues, cultural stereotypes.Increases validity better communication cultural understanding. But some were not Morelli and TronickAmerican researchers studying the Efé of Zaire may be cross-cultural bias+communication difficulties.
• Cross-cultural studies often involve confounding variables Studies vary in methodology+ sample characteristics (e.g., poverty, social class, urban/rural background).Environmental differences like room size toy availability can influence behaviour (e.g., babies explore more in smaller, toy-filled rooms) may lead to misclassification of attachment type (e.g., less proximity-seeking may appear as avoidant).Results may reflect environmental demographic factors, not true cultural differences in attachment.
• Applying one culture’s norms+ methods to another – imposed etic Emic = culture-specific Etic = universal across cultures Strange Situation – designed in the US/UK assumes lack of affection on reunion = avoidant attachmen In Germany, this behaviour may be seen as independence, not insecurity.Cultural meanings differ, so comparing behaviours across cultures may be invalid.
• Cross-cultural studies often find similar attachment types across different countries. Bowlby – attachment innate+ universal. IJzendoorn and Kroonenberg – global media spreads common view of parenting, possibly overriding traditional cultural differences.Similarities in attachment might be due to media influence, not innate attachment.

Question 9

Bowlbys theory of maternal deprivation

Answer 9

• Bond with mother crucial for normal emotional and intellectual development.
• Prolonged separation in early years can cause lasting psychological harm.
• Short separations (e.g., daycare/hospital) don’t cause harm if emotional care continues.
• Deprivation = long-term loss of emotional care, especially without a replacement caregiver.
• Privation = no attachment ever formed (worse than deprivation). extreme neglect deprivation loss of already formed bond
• Critical period: first 2.5 years (risk continues up to age 5). No substitute care = likely permanent damage.
• Intellectual effects: lower IQ (Goldfarb study – institutionalised children had lower IQ than those in foster care).
• Emotional effects: affectionless psychopathy (no guilt/empathy; linked to criminality).
• 44 Thieves Study: investigate link between deprivation+ mission
• did interviews with kids and family and IQ TESTS
• 14 of 44 were affectionless psychopaths.
• 12 of those 14 had prolonged early separations.
• Only 5 of the remaining 30 experienced separation
• control group, only 2 experienced early separation.
• Conclusion: early prolonged deprivation linked to affectionless psychopathy.
  Evaluation
• His own study 14 were effect ion less psychopaths and 12 of those were prolonged separation showes prolonged early separation deprivation cause emotional damage
• Real world application in past mum separate from children hospitals will be led to social change
• He felt properly distinguish between the probation and privation rutter says privation failure to form attachments deprivation loss of attachment after performed says privation more likely to long-term damage not deprivation
• critical period has been found to be more of a sensitive period.
• Jarmila Koluchova two boys that had been isolated from 18 months to 7 years able to recover after looked after by two loving adults. Suggests effects of maternal deprivation not permanent as Bowlby proposed.
• support for Bowlby’s theory that maternal deprivation can have long-term effects. Bifulco et al studied women who experienced maternal deprivation due to either separation for more than a year 25% later experienced depression compared to only 15% of control group.
• Economy women less work less taxes to government

Question 10

Romanian orphans

Answer 10

• Effects of institution care
• Rutter at al = aim test with a good care could make up for poor early experiences and institutions longitudinal study
• Followed 165 Romanian orphans adopted in Britain testing them regularly to assist physical cognitive and social development Control group 52 non institutionalised British children adopted around same time
• When came uk Half showed delayed intellectual development.
• Most were severely undernourished.
• By age 11 Recovery varied based on age of adoption: Adopted before 6 months: mean IQ = 102. Adopted between 6 months–2 years: mean IQ = 86. Adopted after 2 years: mean IQ = 77.IQ differences persisted at age 16 (Beckett et al., 2010). ADHD more common at ages 15 and 22–25 (Kennedy et al., 2016).
• Children adopted after 6 months:
• More likely to show disinhibited attachment.
• attention-seeking, clinginess, indiscriminate friendliness.
• Children adopted before 6 months: Rarely displayed disinhibited attachment.
• Zeanah et al.’s Studied 95 Romanian children (aged 12–31 months) who spent most of their lives in institutional care (90% of their lives on average).
• Compared to 50 control children who had never lived in an institution.
• Attachment assessed using the Strange Situation.
• Carers also asked about unusual social behaviours (e.g. clinginess, attention-seeking towards all adults) to assess disinhibited attachment.
• 74% of control group were securely attached.
• Only 19% of institutionalised children were securely attached.
• 44% of institutionalised children showed signs of disinhibited attachment.
• Less than 20% of the control group showed disinhibited attachment.
• Effect institutionalisation
• Disinhibited Attachment:
• Common in children raised in institutions.
• Children show equal friendliness to strangers and familiar people (unusual behaviour).
• Normally, children around age 2 show stranger anxiety.
• Rutter (2006): disinhibited attachment is an adaptation to having multiple caregivers.
• poor institutions (e.g. Romanian), children may have up to 50 carers.
• Not enough time spent with any one carer to form a secure attachment.
• Intellectual Disability:
• Rutter’s study, many institutionalised children showed signs of intellectual disability when arriving in the UK.
• adopted before 6 months mostly caught up with control group by age 4.
• Suggests intellectual and emotional damage can be reversed if adoption occurs before 6 months, when attachments normally form.

Evaluation
- real life applications. Langton 2006 showed led to improvements in institutions. Now institutions understand that it is important for a child in an orphanage to have only one or two key caregivers and that is now a requirement in institutions. this prevents children from forming a disinhibited attachment.
- fewer extraneous variables than other orphan studies. This is as the children are not in the orphanage for other reasons such as trauma or loss but in there just because their parents can’t afford to raise them.
- However, the research has been criticised for lacking generalisability highly unusual situational variables very poor standards of care extremely low levels of intellectual stimulation.
- long term effects not clear. It could be that children with developmental problems recover when their older or it could be that children that are well now will experience problems in adulthood. This means valid conclusions cant be made

Question 11

Influence of early attachment on later relationships

Answer 11

• internal working model bowlby 1969 Charles only touch with primary forms blueprint for future post experience stable trust love negative rejection difficulty forming bond expectations
• Relationships and childhood = security children for better quality relationships insecure resistant, insecure avoidant more likely to struggle Kenny relationships Wilson+ Smith insecurely attached more likely to be bullied
• Relationship and adulthood = hazan + shaver love quiz secure attachments long lasting romantic insecure wouldn’t fair intimacy struggle with closeness, insecure resistant jealous possessive McCarthy studied women adult relationship security attached had best relation romantic friendship bailey et al study mother’s attachment continuity between own child measured using attachment child measured using strange situation majority same what with mothers
  Evaluation
• Research support = fearon+roisman how to evidence linking early attachments security to later romantic social outcomes effects and moderate
• However, evidence support resistance of close link between early attachment+ later development e.g Becker still et al followed 43 from a year of age at 16 attachment assed using adult attachment interview no evidence continuity maybe other key factors
• Validity issues with the retrospective studies self-reports
• Confounding variables temperament, parenting style life experience can affect relation not just early attachment
• Clarke+clarke said not inventiable that it is cause
• Self furling poor future image