Attachment Flashcards
How do we first form an attachment?
- non-verbal communication
- more sensitive to signals the deeper the relationships
What is reciprocity?
- related response
- increasing matched reactions Infant and their caregiver are able to reliably produce responses in each other
What is interactional synchrony?
Infant and caregiver coordinate their activity to form a type of conversation without language
- Characterised by turn-taking, when one has finished interacting the other takes over
What did Melzoff and Moore observe?
- Interactional synchrony
- Babies could imitate both facial expressions and manual gestures
- building blocks for social and cognitive development
- Results indicated that babies aged 12-27 days old could imitate both facial expressions and manual gestures
- So therefore infants are innately primed to copy their caregivers gestures helping to develop attachments
What is proximity?
People try to stay close to those who they are attached to
What is a secure base?
Even when we are independent we tend to make regular contact
What is separation anxiety?
People become distressed when an attachment figure leaves
Evaluation into caregiver-infant interactions
- A strength is controlled observations capture fine details as they are well-controlled, and babies are unaware they are being studied. This means no demand characteristics increasing validity of findings as baby behaves naturally
- Careful as mum might show DC which could affect baby
- Weakness is observations does not show the purpose of synchrony and reciprocity so significance of their interactions are unclear and therefore decreases validity in terms of context of development and attachment
What did Shaffer and Emerson study?
The process of development of attachment
Describe the key characteristics of Shaffer and Emerson’s development of attachment study?
- Longitudinal study
- Working class family homes
- 60 infants
- Glasgow
- mother would say how child reported to separation
How did Schaffer and Emerson measure attachment?
- By how much seperation protest and stranger anxiety
Schaffer and Emerson results
- Seperation protest in most infants between 6 and 8 months
- Stranger anxiety started one month later
- Strong attachments developed between babies and caregiver when they were very responsive and sensitive to babies needs not those who spent most time with the baby
- 39% infants primary attachment was the mother
Stages of attachment and ages associated with them
- Asocial (Birth to 2 months)
- Indiscriminate (2-7 months)
- Specific (around 7 months)
- Multiple attachment (After 9 months)
Most important factor in forming attachments between baby and caregiver
Those who plays and communicates not feeds and changes him/her
What is asocial attachment
- Similar response to all objects
- Towards end of stage, child shows preference for being with people
- Time reciprocity and time synchrony help establish the child’s relationships with others
What is indiscriminate attachment
- Child showed marked preference for people rather than inanimate objects
- Recognise and prefer familiar adults
- Do not show stranger or seperation anxiety
What is specific attachment
- Show stranger anxiety when seperated from specific adult
- This attachment is called primary attachment figure
What is multiple attachments
- Child displays attachment behaviour towards other people with whom they are familiar.
- These are secondary attachments
Evaluation of Emerson and Schafferson study
- Longitudinal study design may have affected development of attachment
- Ecological validity and mundane realism as infants were monitored in own homes so natural behaviour
- Some subjective bias may have affected data as mothers opinion
- Individual differences in timings of attachments
Why do mothers build an early attachment with the child
Sensitive responsiveness
How do fathers build an attachment?
- Not neccesarily biological
- PLAY IS MOST IMPORTANT
- Degree of sensitivity - fathers who show sensitivity to the needs of the child and are quick to respond to them
- Marital intimacy between parents as supportive co-parents - more supportive fathers develop more secure attachments
- Type of attachment with own parents: if dad is main caregiver then attachment bond is similar ot one with own parents
3 limitations on research into role of the father
- Stereotypes may cause observer bias as they may see what they want to see and unintentionally don’t record reality. Means conclusions about role of father are difficult to seperate from social stereotypes
- Some research points to traditional gender roles and other research indicated that biological factors like hormones are why females are usually the primary attachment figure. No definite conclusion psychologists can make
- Role cannot be defined and so no clear conclusions can be drawn regarding it. So limited understanding among psychologists
Lorenz (1935) animal study method
- Clutch of goose eggs split into 2 groups, half hatched under mother and half with Lorenz
- When hatched Lorenz imitated mother goose noises and observed the goslings
- To test imprinting had occurred, both groups put together under cardboard box and lifted to see which mother they would go to
Lorenz results and conclusion
- Geese imprint on the first moving object they see
- 12 hour critical period indicating attachment is innate and imprinting occurs without feeding
- Occurs for safety
- Early environmental influence critical for attachment to occur otherwise if imprinting didn’t occur then they did not attach to mother figure
Evaluation of lorenz’s goslings
- Ethical issues as animals used
- Can’t be generalised to humans
Harlow (1959) monkey study
- Harlow raised infant monkeys in isolation with 2 surrogate ‘mothers’. On surrogate made from wire covered in cloth and one wire.
- Infant monkeys observed to see which surrogate they spent the most time with and which they used deliberately as a safe base when purposely frightened
Harlows monkeys results and conclusions
- Surrogate cloth mother preferred and used as a safe base. Monkeys raised in isolation grew up unable to form social relationships with others
- Attachment not based on food as predicted by learning approach but for security and comfort. Social contact crucial for normal development
Harlows monkeys evaluation
- Advanced our understanding of attachment
- Supports change in childrens homes to ensure childrens needs are met
- Study adds validity to Lorenz’s findings on geese as mnkeys genetically and behaviourally similar to humans
- Ethical issues - severe harm and distress caused to monkeys
- Human infants develop differently to humans so findings not completely generalisable to humans
What is the learning theory of attachment?
- infants learn to become attached to caregivers
- Two theories: classical and operant conditioning
Classical conditioning learning theory of attachment
- Before learning: UCS –> UCR e.g. food to satisfaction
- During learning: UCS + NS –> UCR e.g. food plus caregiver leads to satisfaction
- After learning: CS –> CR e.g. caregiver without food gives satisfaction
Food satisfies a need by removing hunger and children associate this feeling with the caregiver
Operant condition learning theory of attachment
- Linked to drive reduction
- The baby feels hungry which is a negative drive state so primary caregiver feeds the baby and therefore reduces the negative drive state. The primary caregivers presence is negatively reinforced by reduction of hunger and baby becomes attached to them
Evaluation of learning theory of attachment (for food)
- Strong theoretical support as demonstrated several times experimentally on animals (STRENGTH)
- Schaffer and Emerson show multiple attachments where they form attachments to people who do not feed them, casting doubt on theory. The most important factor here is sensitive responsiveness
- Theories offer simple explanations to complex behaviour making them reductionist as ignore many aspects of attachments and different types
- Theories cannot explain evidence from Harlow as infant monkeys attached to cloth mother without food rather than a wire monkey with food. Most important factor for attachment is comfort for security
- Lorenz’s goslings attach to the first moving object they saw, so they attached for safety and not food
What is the basis of the learning theory of attachment
Infants attach because it wants food
Reason for attachment for Schaffer and Emersons study
Sensitive responsiveness
Reason for attachment in Lorenz’s Goslings
Safety
Reason for attachment in Harlows monkeys
comfort for security
What does bowlby’s theory of attachment suggest
Children come into the world biologically preprogrammed to form attachments with others because this will help them survive and pass on genes
What does bowlby say determinant of attachment is
sensitive responsiveness and care of the parent to the baby so they feel secure
Key features of Bowlby’s monotropic theory of attachment
- Innate
- Criticial period
- Internal working model
- Social releasers
- Monotropy
Innate in Bowlbys theory
Infants biologically programmed with innate behaviours to ensure attachment occurs
Evolutionary advantage
Critical period of bowlbys theory
- 0 to 2.5 years
- If attachment not developed in this time then it may well not happen at all
Internal working model of bowlby’s theory
- Child’s relationship provides template which influences later relationships
- 3 main features:
- Model of others being trustworthy
- Model of self as valuable
- Model of self as effective when interacting with others
Social releasers of Bowlby’s theory
- Behaviours designed to attract attention and response from adult like crying or smiling
- Determinant of attachment sensitive responsiveness
Monotropy of bowlby’s theory
- Child has innate need to attach to one main attachment figure
- One relationship more important than all others which is the primary bond
- Hierarchy of attachments follow primary one
How does Lorenz’s research support Bowllby’s theory of attachment
- Innate behaviour to follow first large object to keep them safe
- Critical period for this to happen
- One main object to attach to
Why must we be careful with extrapolating findings from animal studies to humans?
- We are more complex
- Variable may be important in context of attachments but cannot be studied in animals
Explain how Harlow’s monkey experiment supports bowlby’s monotropic theory
- Bowlby said you attach for security shown by Halow monkey study as monkeys attached to cloth mother
- Critical period which supports bowlby
- Comfort more important than food as proves infant needs to feel emotionally secure
Ainsworth (1978) The strange situation
- Controlled observation
- Child is observed playing in room for 20 minutes while caregiver and strangers enter and leave room
- Mum and baby introduced to new room and exploratory behaviour observed
- Stranger enters
- Mum leaves and baby becomes distressed as stranger attempts to interact with him
- Reunion behaviour as mum returns
- Everyone leaves and baby is distressed
- Stranger comes back in to comfort
- Reunion
Strengths of Ainsworth’s ‘A strange situation’
- Interobserver reliability - high reliability of results as behaviours seen were same
- Each child had 8 equal episodes of observation
Weaknesses of Ainsworth’s ‘A strange situation’
- Sampling bias as only middle class middle aged white mothers used
- cultural bias as Americans
- Problems generalising
- Ethical issues as baby becomes distressed breaching psychological guidelines about harm
- Control observation means demand characteristics may be shown, making it difficult to generalise
What is meant by culture?
Patterns of learnt and shared behaviours and beliefs
Individualistic cultures
More concerned with themselves, support independence like USA, Germany
Collectivist cultures
More concerned with the group or community than themselves
What did Van Ijzendoorn and Kroonenberg study
Cultural variations in attachments
Van Ijzendoorn and Kroonenberg procedure
- Meta-analysis combining the findings of 32 other studies of the strange situation from a variety of countries, including observations of over 2000 children
Van Ijzendoorn and Kroonenberg results
- GB has the highest percentage of secure attachments
- Germans have a high percentage of avoidant attachment behaviours typical of independent children
- Israeli children have highest percentage of resistant attachment behaviours
Limitations of meta-analysis conducted by Van Ijendoorn and Kroonenberg
- Biased samples since only one study was conducted in China but 18 in the USA so not representative
- Argued to be an ethnocentric procedure as developed in America based on American norms so may only be suitable to study western cultures
Strengths of the Van Ijendoorn and Kroonenberg study
The study can explain cultural differences in child rearing
- E.g. German children are reared to show an avoidant attachment style because german parents seek ‘independent, non-clingy infants who obey commands’
Grossman and Grossman findings 1991
Found german children tended to be classified insecurely rather than securely attached
Effects of disruption of attachment - what does the PDD model stand for
- P - protest (crying, distressed)
- D - despair (withdrawn, deregulation of emotion, rejects attempts of adult interaction)
- D - detachment (rejection of caregiver, no emotion)
What is the PDD model
- Developed by Bowlby and Robertson
- They believe that short term separation from an attachment figure can lead to distress, the three progressive stages being: protest, despair, detachment
Robertson and Robertson study - PDD
- 8 observational studies conducted of children between 17 months and 3 years
- John put into nursery for 9 days - protests and anger ignored
- Went through all 3 stages and then became emotionally detached
- Concluded that children need high quality care fairly continuously
Strengths of Robertson and Robertson study
- Natural observation so behaviour is real
- Research was carried out when somebody visited the child, so real effects shown and less demand characteristics
Limitations of Robertson Robertson study
- Natural observation means demand characteristics as aware of being studied. Different observers interpret differently so results may be biased
- Longitudinal research requires time so risk of gathering data that is not 100% accurate. Requires a large sample size
What is maternal deprivation
The emotional and intellectual consequences of the separation between a child and his mother
Seperation vs deprivation
Separation is when a child is not near attachment figure whereas deprivation is caused by extended periods of separation leading to harm
Bowlby’s maternal deprivation critical period
30 months - if child away for extended period losing her care then during this critical period psychological damage is inevitable
Effects on development seen by Bowlby’s maternal deprivation
- Intellectual development - Bowlby believed that if children were deprived of maternal care for too long they would suffer mental retardation - low IQ
- Emotional development - Bowlby identified affection-less psychopathy as inability to experience guilt or strong emotion. Prevents a person developing relationships
Maternal deprivation - Bowlby’s 44 juvenile thieves study procedure
- 44 thieves compared with 44 non-thieves from a delinquency centre. Data collected via interviews and questionnaires from the 88 juveniles
Results of 44 juvenile thieves study
- In thief group 14 children identified as affection-less psychopaths (a lack of normal affection, shame or sense of responsibility), 12 of these had experienced prolonged periods of separation of more than 6 months during first 2 years
- Out of 44 children in control group, 2 had experienced prolonged separations and neither were affection-less psychopaths
- So supports the maternal deprivation hypothesis as link between disruption to attachment and later maladjustment
44 juvenile thieves weaknesses
- Questionnaires and interviews used so responses may have been subject to distortions and inaccuracies making findings less valid
- Researcher confirmation bias as Bowlby conducted so interpreted alone, may have ignored other factors as was focused on one thing
- Conclusions are correlational so cannot conclude that separation was the cause of affection-less psychopathy
- Highly biased as opportunity sample
44 juvenile thieves strengths
- Application to real life - in nurseries and hospitals we can ensure kids get high quality care
Strengths of maternal deprivation hypothesis supported by other studies
- Bifulco et al study supports as studied 250 women who had lost mothers before 17. Found loss of mother though separation or death doubles risk of depression and anxiety disorders in adult women. Rate was highest in those who lost mothers before age of 6. These women may have lost mothers during critical period, leading to deprivation and causing emotional consequences
- Harlow’s monkeys found baby monkeys were unable to socialise with others and showed the impact of contact comfort on primate development. Deprivation caused profound psychological and emotional distress and even death
Strengths of maternal deprivation hypothesis
- Has research to support like 44 thieves study
- Goldfarb (1955) found war orphans not adopted had very low IQ’s supporting Bowlby’s claiM
Limitations of maternal deprivation hypothesis
- Not all kids react to separation the same way so some develop emotional problems due to other factors not considered
- Goldfarb only found a correlation between institutionalised care and low IQ, so cannot conclude that MD caused it
What is privation?
When a child has never formed an attachment, can occur due to severe neglect or when there is poor emotional care
What is an institution?
A place where people go a live for a long time e.g. orphanages
Effects of institutionalisation: Rutter and Songua-Barke (2010) study
- Method: 165 romanian children (previously lived in institutions) of these 111 adopted before age of 2 and 54 before age of 4
- Compared to 52 british children adopted by 6 months
- Results: At time of adoption romanian children found to be behind british children in cognitive, physical and emotional development
- They were cognitively classified as mentally retarded
- By age of 4 most romanian infants had caught up with the british infants
- Conclusion: There are negative effects of institutionalisation but these can be reversed if adopted at an early age. If children do not form an attachment consequences are severe. 6 month critical period shorter than Bowlby’s
- Evaluation: Not studied into adulthood so do not know full effects
Rutter and Songua-Barke study strengths
- Real life application as research has led to improvements in care e.g. in care homes etc
- Romanian orphan studies did not suffer same confounding variables as other studies - children in other studies suffered extreme trauma etc, making the studying the effects in romanian orphans more valid
- Ethical as researchers did not interfere with the adoption process
Rutter and Songua Barke study weaknesses
- Study has correlation and does not measure cause and effect so questions strength of relationship
- Conditions were so severe in romanian orphan studies that results cannot be applied to children who experienced deprivation in high quality institutions so we can’t generalise or compare findings
What is disinhibited attachment
When a child does not seem to prefer his parents over other people including strangers. Seeks comfort from anyone without distinction. Because he never secured an attachment before age of 4
The case of Genie (Curtis-1977)
- Discovered at 13
- Had been tied to commode most of day, never had social interactions
- Couldn’t walk, speak, understand language, severely undernourished
Evaluating case of Genie
- Unique opportunity to study in great detail
- We don’t know of any underlying abnormalities she had before she was born, so we don’t know if she was unable to develop skills due to privation or any underlying learning disabilities
- Researchers may have not had her best interests which is unethical
- She did form attachments to researchers however
Reversing privation in terms of Genie
- Privation cannot be reversed as brain did not have capacity (was too small and couldn’t make connections)
- Passed critical period for learning a language
- Some aspects were reversed as she was able to learn words but not formulate sentences
The case of the Czech twins (Koluchova-1976)
- Identical Czech twins discovered at 7
- Kept in isolation in a cellar and had been beaten and mistreated
- Little speech and communicated with gestures
- By 14 had caught up to normal 14 year olds and by 20 had above average intelligence and could form relationships with others
Evaluating case of Czech twins
- Discovered at 7 rather than 13 like genie
- Not completely isolated as had each other so may have attached to each other, which may have protected them from effects of privation
- Not known how well negative effects were reversed
- Cannot be generalised
Reversing privation in terms of Czech twins
- Privation was reversible
- Indicates that if reversed at an earlier age like 7 rather than 13, it is possible to reverse
- Can’t be sure why it was reversible in their case rather than Genies
