Bowlby + Attachment Flashcards

(35 cards)

1
Q

Attachment Definition

A

-relationship between caregiver + child
- child’s beh towards caregiver
- construct of close relationship
to any sig other

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
2
Q

Bowlby 1944

A

-1944 study on 44 Juvenile thieves who’s mother figure was quite absent
-reported to WHO on problems Assoc with Maternal deprivation after WW2
- return Freud’s idea of infant- mother relationship importance

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
3
Q

Maternal deprivation definition

A

Lack consistent support from mother
- long-term separation

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
4
Q

Before Bowlby + attachment

A
  • Attachment believed to form between those who provided for Childs physiological needs ( food, warmth)
    -Based on psychoanalytic theory of attachment as a secondary drive
How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
5
Q

Bowlby 1958

A
  • proposed infants had an innate, primary drive to form close relationship with a caregiver
  • primary attachment beh: sucking, clinging, crying, smiling, following
How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
6
Q

Bolwby 1958- primary drive supporting evidence - Freud + Dann

A
  • Mutual attachment of 6 3-4 year olds who lived together in a concentration camp
  • formed really strong bunds
  • where each others attachment figures
  • Didn’t Meet physiological needs
  • infants have primary drive to form attachment
How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
7
Q

Bolwby 1958- primary drive supporting evidence - Harlow + Zimmerman

A

-Rhesus monkeys
- Infant monkey had a choice of 2 surrogate mothers
-1 that feeds you but made of wire
-1 that comforts you
- Baby fed from wired + ran to cloth one when frightened
- After presenting fearful stimuli monkey ran to comfort Monkey not food
- Attachment > food need

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
8
Q

criticisms of 1958 Bowlby theory

A
  • generalisation difficult from clinical observations to normal rearing at home
  • concerned with making + breaking of attachment
  • monotropy: single attachment to mother - other mothering from others not good enough
How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
9
Q

Mary Ainsworth’s early observations

A
  • interested in indiv differences affecting quality of infant- mother interaction
  • observed attachment in Ganda
  • mothers drop baby off at nursery whilst they work
  • infants formed multiple attachment to people providing care, not just mother
  • lack of uniformity in infants attachment = indiv differences
  • Challenges monotropy
How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
10
Q

Schaffer + Emerson- challenging monotropy

A
  • Multiple attachments observed in Scottish infants
  • Attached to both parents, grandparents + siblings
  • supported abandoning secondary drive theory
How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
11
Q

James Robertson - supporting abandonment of secondary drive

A
  • films of children staying in hospital
    -stages if children hospitalised for long duration
    -separation initially caused extreme distress
    -prolonged separation had potential to at break attachment
    -sequence of protest, despair + detachment
How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
12
Q

Bowlby’s revision

A
  • studies led him to believe psychologically healthy children can have more than 1 attachment figure
    -Abandoned monotropy
How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
13
Q

Bowlby 1969- goal system

A
  • goal-corrected system rather than innate responses
  • mother is Most noticed + interesting cue in env
    -proximity to mother became set goal
  • Attachment depends on env conditions
How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
14
Q

Bowlby’s strengths

A
  • courage of own convictions to propose radically different theory
    -willingness to adapt + improve h is theory
    -very powerful theory that’s a widely used theoretical framework
How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
15
Q

Ainsworth’s strange situation procedure

A
  • used to Assess security of infant -caregiver attachment
  • 1- 2 year old infants
    -waiting room context where infant response to separation from + reunion with caregiver is observed
  • Infants placed into 1 of 3 categories based on reunion beh
How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
16
Q

organised patterns of attachment -strange situation study

A
  • Assesses beh on 4 dimensions: proximity- seeking, contact maintenance , avoidance, resistance
  • securely Attached (Type B) -70% -> Try get mothers attention during reunion + feel happy + comforted
  • insecure-avoidant (Type A) - 20% -> Mum returns - don’t actively seek to interact , interested with toys + stranger doesn’t affect them
  • Insecure-resistant (TypeC) -10% -> No interested in toys, don’t like stranger, extremely distressed when separated but not comforted by reunion
17
Q

category VS Dimension of organised pattern of attachment

A

Al A2 Bl B2 B3 B4 C2 C1
- each category has sub-categories
- form dimensional spectrum of attachment

18
Q

Main + Solomon- 4th category of attachment

A

-Type D-> insecure-disorganised
- infants are anxious, disorganised, disoriented
-Have no obvious strategy for gaining contact with mother or being comforted
- show bizarre conflicting beh
- Disorganisation is orthogonal to ABC categories -> infants given forced choice ABC classification
-usually had organised strategy that’s become disorganised

19
Q

4 way attachment study

A
  • Van ljzendoorn et al
    -meta analysis
  • used ABCD system for non-clinical middle class us families
  • 62 % secure (B)
    -15. avoidant ( A)
  • 9% resistant ( c)
    -15% disorganised (D)
20
Q

recent study of ABCD attachment

A
  • 20,000 strange situations Meta analysis
  • 51.6% secure - B
    -14.7% avoidant - A
  • 10.2 % resistant (c)
    -23.51% disorganised ( D )
  • shift from secure to disorganised category over the years
21
Q

Factors affecting disorganised attachment

A

-low socioeconomic status 31%
- parent psychopathology: 31%
- child maltreatment: 65%
-origins of disorganisation are very complex
- mothers responding to infants in 1st year sensitively = secure
- insecure-avoidant = Mother ignores cues
- insecure-resistant= inconsistent Mothering
-maternal insensitivity =mother attempts to socialise when baby is hungry, play when tried

22
Q

Attachment beyond infancy intro

A
  • measures in older children can be beh or representation of their attachment
23
Q

Attachment beyond infancy - Preschoolers

A

-Behavioural :
-> strange situation- longer separation + no stranger
-> 7 Attachment Q-SOrt - observe beh in natural env have cards about beh then organise in Q -sort
- Representational:
-> separation anxiety test
-> story-stem tasKs
-> difficult to indicate their representations are of their own experiences

24
Q

Attachment beyond infancy - school Age

A
  • problems
    -separation anxiety + story-stem suitable for lover age
  • child attachment interview used 8 + - now child tales about it
    -self-report measures for older school age
    -none are beh
25
Attachment beyond infancy - Adolescents
- child attachment interview -self-report Measures: parental barding instruments, attachment history questionnaire , inventory of parent peer attachment
26
Attachment beyond infancy- adults
-early experiences reflect indivs later close relationships - Internal working model: -> representation of you in attached relationship -> Are they sensitive, responsive, available, rejecting -> 2 Models: self + others -> models can be pOS or neg -> initial plasticity (changes) becomes fixed at 4 or 5
27
The Adult Attachment Interview
-Main et al -Assesses internal working model - semi-structured interview for classifying adults state of mind - Dismissing -> lack of recall, devalue/ idOlise attachment - Preoccupied > don't more on from early experience, overwhelmed - Autonomous -> attachment is open, value it, may not have been present early - unresolved- > become incoherent when discussing loss/abuse
28
Longitudinal stability in attachment
- Do infant strange situation map onto later childhood/adulthood - Not good for strange situation classification even over 6 months (Belsky et) -> only 1/2 stay same category - only 46 % stable from 15-36 months
29
Long -Term stability classification
- secure -> Autonomous AAI - Avoidant -> Dismissing - Resistant -> preoccupied -Disorganised -> unresolved
30
long-term studies
2 found longitudinal stability (Hamilton, waters et al) - 2 found no longitudinal stability (weinfeld, Lewis eta) -All studies identified life events (divorce) as predicting adult attachment -co-hort study in US (Booth-Laforce + Roisman) - No stability from infant to adult attachment
31
Attachment + delinquency
- Attachment assessed between 6+38 years old -Delinquency between 7+38 - 82% found them concurrently so they tell us nothing about Whether early attachment predicts delinquency
32
Indiv development definition -Bowlby
- Turns at each stage of the journey on an interaction between organism as it has der up to the Moment + its env
33
secondary drive definition
- an object can acquire reinforcing properties by being Assoc with satisfaction of an indIVs primary drives
34
Phases of attachment
- pre -> 0-2 Months: little differentiation in response to familiar + unfamiliar people - 2nd -> 2-7 months: attachment foundations, recognise caregiver, no attachment upon separation -3rd -> 7 + months : clear-cut attachment, protests separation + has stranger anxiety - final- 2 years: attachment becomes goal-corrected partnership, independent - onwards = internal working models
35
Mind-mindedness - factor Affecting attachment
- caregivers accuracy in interpreting infants thoughts -Better predictor of attachment security - secure mothers obtain high scores + low for non-attuned comments -identify maternal be h associated with types of insecure attachment