Unit 4 part 2 The first two years of life Flashcards
(33 cards)
Attachment theory
-> focuses in a specific type of relationship called attachment relationship -affectionate bond or emotional tie
-> are seeked when individual perceives potential alarm or discomfort
–> quality does not matter
- John Bowldy’s Attachment theory (1958) - from psychoanalysis + evolution +ethology = promotes adaptation and survival
Attachment system
= innate motivation, activated in distress, fear, tired, sick
-> attachement is a GOAL DRIVEN SYSTEM to promote optimum proximity
-> works with internal operating models/expectations
-> based on their early experience with with figure, children develop expectations about their attachment figure’s future behavior (in alarming situations)
What did early mother-child bond ruptures cause?
Isolation, emotional distancing, and interpersonal difficulties
–> the formation of a successful attachment was done during a critical period
(6m to 3yrs)
-> critical period => SENSITIVE PERIOD; time frame that is conducive for forming strong attachment
(these conclusions came from the ethology studies of imprinting)
KONRAD LORENZ
(1952) observed imprinting: when newborns recognise and seek proximity with the first object they encounter
-> goslings saw him first so then he was MOTHER
-> concluded there was a critical period as after a certain point they would no longer bond to other caregivers
-> BOWLDY concluded = need to attach is ever present
BEH system: following, clinging, crying
MOTIV. system: maintain proximity to an attachment figure as protection
Internal Operating Model
attachment system takes reference of the internal operating model of the attachment FIGURE and the self in relation to the baby
-> secure attachment: self DESERVES love (other was loving and attentive)
-> insecure attachment: the self is worthy of REJECTION (other was unavailable)
The goals of the infant is to ___ while ____
to explore and learn, this develops in opposition to the tendency of forming attachment
-> while exploring, CAREGIVER is SAFE BASE
Separation activates the system of attachment
-> must first distinguish them THEN they are be able to vocalise and move reasonably and independent
MONOTROPISM (any child can form a strong attachment to one person)
SEPARATION PROTEST
at 6m, when child is able to explore environment alone -> may cry or reach out to prevent departure
–> coincides with STRANGER ANXIETY
PHASE 1 & 2 (Birth to 2m + 2m to 7m)
B to 2m
-> Show little differentiation to caregiver and others - no recognition
2m to 7m
-> Begins to recognise caregiver (more comforted) BUT still lack object recognition
(if you cannot recognise set as an object you cannot recognise it’s absence) thus they still may present separation protest
Phase 3 to 4 (7-9m to 2yrs + 2-3yrs onwards)
7-9m to 2yrs
-> clearer signs of proximity seeking, separation protest and stranger anxiety (increasingly clearer)
2-3yrs onwards
-> Phy + Cog. Ab. mature = more complex, explore with greater independence
-> Attachment becomes an abstract, internal representation with an understanding of other needs
-> develops trust, understanding of caregiver’s needs (availability) - don’t happen at the same time but inevitably their goal of proximity is equal amongst infants
Maternal deprivation hypothesis
-> Bowlby focused on abnormal social development that results from severe parental neglect or long-term separation from parental figures
-> Prolonged disruption in attachment to the mother figure = maternal deprivation CAUSES illness, abandonment, or institutionalisation
Willian Goldfarb (1947)
studied different outcome variables in 30 children, given up by their moms before 9m
–> 1/2 foster care
–> 1/2 institutionalised (and then) foster care after 3.5 yrs
- measured intelligence, reading, and arthmetic at 10-14yrs
RESULT = they observed worse performance in institutionalised children than foster care kids
-> also fearful, restless, unpopular, and needier
–> maladaptive development was due to institutionalisation and the lack of attachment with a caregiver
He added that maternal deprivation can be
reverse with adequate care, correcting the disruptive effect, ONLY IF its given before the 2.5 yrs
ASSUMES the critical/sensitive period
Harlow and Zimmerman Rhesus monkeys
-> Mesh wire surrogate mom + milk bottle
—> used exclusively for food
-> ANOTHER with Terry cloth that had no food
—> used for comfort (prefered)
bad consequences= real psychological damage, hostile, couldn’t reproduce, or provide adequate care for offspring
What did Boldly influence to the general public
-> perception on child rearing and parenting, social policy (childcare), and parenting
-> BUT mother deprivation isn’t as severe as thought < environmental enrichment can compensate
-> they also found that institutionalisation isn’t as irreversible as Bowlby thought. it can be mitigated with prepared adoptive parents that were READY to resolve past traumas
MARY AINSWORTH
-> continued attachment = measuring the emotional state of the children in relation to the type of attachment
- Ainsworth observed the communication between mother and baby
-> beh of baby when mother absent, and when parent returned
Strange situation study/procedure
-Ainsworth: quality of attachment rather than intensity or duration
->7 phases/ 3min each (one-way mirror) - org done with bbs 1-2yrs
assessed on 5 scales, Proximity and contact, Contact maintaining, Avoidance of proximity, Resistance to contact, Search beh
What are the phases for Strange Situation Study
p1: P+C introduced to room w/ toys
p2: stranger comes in sits, talks, and plays for a minute each
p3: P leaves, stranger plays for 3min then sits
p4: P returns, stranger leaves. Puts C settle + sits
p5: P leaves, C completely alone for 3min
p6: Stranger comes back tries to settle C 3min
p7: S leaves and P comes back and tries to settle
What did Ainsworth identify
-> lasts 20 minutes but it is cut short if child is really stressed
-> infant displays willingness to use parent as safe base to derive SECURITY, in reunions (p4+7)
-> identified 4 attachment types
- Type B: secure attachment
- Type A: Insecure-avoidant attachment
- Type C: Insecure-resistant/ambivalent attachment
- Type D: Disorganised attachment (Mary Main)
Type A: Insecure-Avoidant attachment
Child show few or no signs of missing parent; when absent and actively ignores parent in reunion -> emotional distance
-> If picked up there may be squirming but not active rejection
-> treats mom and stranger the same
-> during separation there is a lack of distress
- 14% to 15%
Type B: secure attachment
-> C shows signs of missing parent, makes efforts to reunite w/ parent - figure is trusted - safe base to explore the environment
-> Desire for proximity and contact maintenance + Prefers mom. In distress can find some comfort in stranger but prefers mom
-> 44-60%
Type C: insecure-resistant/ambivalent attachment
-> C is clingy, no exploration. when alone extremely distressed w/ stranger
-> distressed when left alone, cannot be settles when parent comes back
-> they are pleased to see the mother but is angry and reject parent
-> Child shows resistance beh
- 8-11%
(reflect the child’s lack of willingness to use the parent as a safe base)
Type D: Disorganised attachment (Mary Main)
Lack of consistent beh., hesitation about approaching mom but confusion about separation -> NO standard response
-> uncertain about how to make use of caregiver as a source of security
5-15% general population; 28-30% clinical population
Ainsworth critique
SSS/SSP: shows ^ ecological validity
-> can be generalised to other real-life situations
-> confined to the artificiality of Labs
-> demonstrates nature of attachment (C can have different attachment with different ppl)
-> SSS doesn’t reflect where child. is left alone in the care of others
Ways parents are in the first years of life influences…
attachment style
warm and attentive (no regard to bio or not) -> secure
negative acts or rejection -> Insecure-avoidant
unreliable or inconsistent care (smts unresponsive + smts overbearing) -> insecure-ambivalent
inadequate care -> disorganised attachment
