week 3= attachment classification has long term consequences across a variety of domains

Question 1

plan

Answer 1

1. introduction
2. competence hypothesis in early relationships
3. competence hypothesis in meantal health
4. continuity hypothesis eval

Question 2

1a. Introduction

Answer 2

What is attachment?
Bowlby= a secure base from which a child can make sorties into the outside
This is formed through the quality of parental care an infant receives,
Why is attachment important
Over the years it has been reported that quality of care in early childhood was vital for mental health. Bowlby’s 44 thieves demonstrates that ‘prolonged separation’ had long term consequences, growing up to be insecure past infancy + delinquent (1947)

Question 3

1b. introduction

Answer 3

The competence hypothesis
Secure attachment leads to positive outcomes in a variety of domains .. Thus , essay will look at evidence for this

Question 4

2a. competence hypothesis in terms of later relationships

Answer 4

Ainsworth 1985
Ainsworth argues for this hypothesis stating “secure infants…build up a sense of competence which gives him confidence that we will have an effect of the world around him”  quote shows the benefits of a secure attachment.
Evidence
- To test long term impact of security Groh et al (2014) =meta analysis looked at social competence (ability to build and maintain relationships) . Researchers looked at children early in infancy for attachment security and followed them up in school to measure social competence
- Children who are insecurely attached tend to have worse social competence than secure .No matter the category of insecure, there seems to be an effect. Tells us that the relationship a child had with their PCG sets them up for later social relationships beyond family

Question 5

2b. competence hypothesis in terms of later relationships

Answer 5

Directionality?
Due to this being a simple longitudinal design, with no baseline measure of SC its difficult to have confidence in these findings. It may be that confounding variables be at play. Stams et al 2002 found temperament and SC to have sig correlations therefore perhaps explaining the results. Additionally, extensions of research looking into social competence find that whilst there is indeed a difference in secure children displaying pro social behaviours, effect size is small and we cannot conclude attachment security is the primary thing that drives social competence

Question 6

3a. Attachment security in the case of mental health

Answer 6

Attachment security and long term effects on later relationships lack so we may want to look at other domains e.g. mental health
It may be explained that infant with sensitive caregivers a working memory of a reliable PCG , attentive when upset. Enforcing that theyre worthy of love and care. This means indiv will have a pos expectations of others and how to behave when stressed, basis of mental health
Hypothesis
Insecure resistant= internalizing , insecure avoidant= externalising, disorganised= both (Fearson et al. 2010)
Evidence
Fearson et al 2010 longitutional study on attachment and externalising problems, support found there was a moderate effect size between insecure vs secure in externalising behaviours, insecure more likely . Same for disorganised children

Question 7

3b. attachment security in the case of mental health

Answer 7

However
Further investigations reveal that when looking at specifically avoidants, there was a and did not predispose of externalising behaviours therefore lack of specificity . May suggest reconsideration of hypothesis . Reinforcing from (Groh et al 2012) and internalising problems . Found weak association between secure vs insecure but that avoidants had elvanted risk of interlsiing instead.
Explanation
Matches their classifications where they minimises problems according to Ainsworth’s original strange situation study .
Overall
Suggests that there is a link that maybe attachment security is some sort of protective factor of later mental health in children, but not a very strong way.

Question 8

4a. the continuity hypothesis

Answer 8

It may be that we aren’t seeing these advantages consequences because attachment isn’t stable so we are unable to reap consequences
States patterns of attachment are stable over the life span (continuity hypothesis ) . However revisionist accounts state these could be updated. ((Fraley, 2011) e.g. PCG gets sick and cannot tend to child = growing insecure

Question 9

4b. the continuity hypothesis

Answer 9

Explanation
It may be that although children were measured at the very beginning , updates to their internal working model shifts their classifications as we are unable to identify real pos consequences
Evidence
Groh 2014 investigated SS from 15m to AA at 18yrs = secure whilst majority secure at beginning did map to later security but in the other categories about only a third of avoidants remined avoidant etc, identifying a .01 correlation. Overall found children’s performance at 15 months is not a reliable predictor on category they got in AAI a].