Attachment Flashcards
AO1
learning theory for attachment
reinforcement
The Behaviourist approach takes the view that attachment is learnt through reinforcement, this is the process of conditioning. This approach believes that, as humans, we are born ‘blank slates’ and that all our actions are the product of our reinforcement history.
AO1
learning theory
The Behaviourist approach takes the view that attachment is learnt through reinforcement, this is the process of conditioning. This approach believes that, as humans, we are born ‘blank slates’ and that all our actions are the product of our reinforcement history.
ao3
learning theory
pavlov
However, one criticism of this classical conditioning theory is it is based on animal studies. Example Pavlov. This is a limitation because animals do not possess the same complex higher order functions that humans have, as a result, our behaviour is far more complex than reinforcement since we have greater control of our actions – we are not just the product of our reinforcement history. Therefore, the results from these animal studies aren’t generalisable to complex human behaviour, like attachment, since learning theory disregards the important differences between human and animal behaviour.
AO1
learning theory
Learning theory also sees attachment as learnt through operant conditioning, this is where behaviours are more likely to reoccur as they are reinforced. In regards to attachment, behaviours are positively reinforced by drive reduction. This is where there is a positive response for reducing discomfort. Infants have a “drive” (motivation) to reduce their hunger for example, so when they receive food, they then become happy – this behaviour is repeated (positively reinforced) as they then associate food (primary reinforcer) with happiness and reduced discomfort. Moreover, the care-giver (most often mother), then becomes the secondary reinforcer, as the infants learn to associate them with the happiness of when they receive food.
AO3
learning theory
drive reduction
Although, one limitation of this drive reduction theory is it is overlooked today. This is because we don’t put ourselves in situations which require us to reduce discomfort – we are capable of living in situations which don’t see us distressed and uncomfortable. As a result, drive reduction theory can only be used to explain certain behaviours (only in situations of discomfort), and fails to explain more general behaviours which don’t need to reduce discomfort. Therefore, due to drive reduction theory lacking temporal validity (outdated), and being unable to explain more common behaviours , operant conditioning fails to provide a strong explanation for attachment.
AO3
learning theory
Moreover, another limitation of the operant conditioning explanation for attachment, is that contact comfort is more important than the feeding bond (secondary reinforcers). Harlow’s study of rhesus monkeys found that all the monkeys spent more time with the “mother” than provided them comfort when scared or exploring – regardless of whether they were fed by this “mother” or not. This demonstrates that attachment is more likely to develop from a loving relationship with the care-giver and isn’t dependent on the feeding bond. Therefore, operant conditioning lacks validity as an explanation for attachment due to this contradictory evidence – even if this study lacks generalisability as it’s an animal study.
Role of the Father
point
a weakness of research into the role of the father is that there is contradictory research.
role of father evidence
g
grossman 2002
The reason for this is that different researchers are interested in different research questions. For example Grossman (2002) looked at both mothers and fathers behaviour and compared this to the quality of children’s attachment. However other researchers have tried to understand the role of fathers as secondary attachment figures, and others looking at the father as a primary attachment figure. The former seeing gathers behaving differently to mothers and having distinct roles. The later found fathers take on a more maternal role.
role of father explain
conflicts, unrepresentitive
This means that with this conflicting research we are unable to draw definitive conclusions about the role of the father as we cannot be sure. However Grossman (2002) conducted a longitudinal study, and there are issues with this research method. The main issue is that because the study happens over a longer period of time this would mean that the sample is at risk of sample attrition, which means the study may not have a representative sample. We need to be aware of this as this may contribute to the conflicting evidence for the role of the father.
role of father
link
Therefore this is a weakness because psychologists cannot answer the question about who infants become attached to, and ultimately the role of the father.
role of father 2
point
another issue with research on the role of fathers in attachment is that the father’s distinct role may not be as important as research suggests.
role of father 2
evidence and explain
Grossman (2002) found that fathers as secondary attachment figures had an important role in their children’s development. However MacCallum and Golombok (2004) have found that children growing up in a single or same sex – parent families do not develop any differently from those in two – parent heterosexual families.
role of father 2
link
Therefore this is an issue as the father’s role as a secondary attachment figure may not be as important as assumed by research.
bowlby theory 1
The idea of an Internal Working Model is testable because it predicts that patterns of attachment will be passed on from one generation to the next.
Bailey (2007) tested this idea. They assessed 99 mothers with one-year-old babies on the quality of their attachment to their own mothers. They used a standard interview and their attachment with their own infant through observation.
It was found that mothers who reported poor attachment to their own parents in the interviews were much more likely to have children classified as having a poor attachment according to the observations.
This supports Bowlby’s idea of the internal working model as being a predictor of individuals later life relationships. Showing that one of the main elements of Bowlby’s theory is applicable to real life situations, increasing the external validity.
bowlby theory 2
There is conflicting evidence for the role of monotropy. Bowlby believed that an infant must form one specific attachment before forming other attachments.
However, This is not supported fully by Schaffer and Emerson, they found that the majority of babies did form one specific attachment before multiple attachment develop. However, they also found that a significant minority appeared able to form multiple attachments at the same time.
This shows that Bowlby’s Monotropic theory may not be accurate in explaining attachments as the main idea of monotropy is not the only way to form an attachment but just that primary attachments have a higher quality than others.
This weakens the credibility of Bowlby’s theory of attachment as it brings into question how important the attachment is to one caregiver.
