Attachment Flashcards
What is attachment?
Attachment is a strong emotional bond (between an infant and their caregiver)
Who studied goslings?
Lorenz (1935)
What are the 2 types of animal studies?
- Lorenz (1935)
- Harlow (1959)
Harlow (1959) Procedure [4]:
- 2 wire mothers, each with a different head
- One wire mother was wrapped in cloth
- 4 monkeys had the milk bottle on cloth mum and 4 had on plain mum
- Measured amount of time infants spent with each mum
Harlow (1959) Findings [4]:
- All 8 monkeys spent most of their time with cloth mum
- Monkeys who fed from wire only spent short time while feeding with wire mum
- When frightened ALL monkeys clung to cloth mum
- Monkeys often kept one foot on cloth mum when playing with new toy for reassurance
Long-lasting effects of Harlow [3]:
- Motherless monkeys (even with cloth comfort) were socially abnormal e.g. froze or ran from other monkeys
- Didn’t show normal mating behaviour & didn’t cradle their babies
- Monkeys that spent a few months with peers recovered but only if it was b4 they were 3 months old
Lorenz (1935) procedure [4]:
- Clutch of goslings divided into 2 groups
- 1 group left with acc mum & other eggs put in incubator
- When incubator eggs hatched the 1st moving thing they saw was Lorenz
- Lorenz marked the 2 groups to distinguish em and put em together
Lorenz (1935) Findings [4]:
- Goslings quickly divided back into their groups
- Lorenz’s group followed him & the others followed their acc mum
- Lorenz’s group showed no recognition of their acc mum
- Process of imprinting is restricted to a period where they’re very young
Lorenz (1952) Long-lasting effects [3]:
- Imprinting is irreversible & long-lasting
- One of the geese who imprinted on him (Martina) used to sleep on his bed every night
- Early imprinting has an effect on mate preferences
Lorenz evaluation- Research support for imprinting [3]:
+ Guiton (1966)
+ Leghorn chicks exposed to yellow rubber gloves while being fed in their first few weeks imprinted on em
+ supports the view that animals are not predisposed to imprint on a specific object it just has to be during critical period
Lorenz evaluation- criticisms [4]:
- Sum dispute over the characteristics of imprinting
- imprinting was irreversible- object was stamped 4eva now it is a more plastic & forgiving mechanism
- Guiton (1966) found u can reverse imprinting on chickens made to mate with rubber gloves by spending time with their acc species
- suggests imprinting isn’t so different from other learning
Harlow evaluation- Appearance of monkeys [3]:
- 2 mothers varied more than cloth vs non-cloth
- the heads were also diff which acts as a confounding variable
- This makes the findings in his study less reliable cus results coulda been caused by different heads
Harlow and Lorenz evaluation- animals [3]:
- Animal studies are to generalise findings onto humans
- But humans differ from animals in important ways e.g their behaviour is governed by conscious behaviour
- animal findings can be used as a guide but research on humans would always be more appropriate
Learning theory of attachment- Classical conditioning [5]:
- Pavlov
- UCS = food & UCR = pleasure
- During child’s early months things become associated w/ food cus they were present at feeding time e.g mum
- Mum = NS then eventually CS
- Mum = CS = Pleasure CR
Learning theory of attachment- Operant conditioning [5]:
- Skinner
- Baby hungry so cries/ discomfort
- When infant is fed the drive is reduced = pleasure
- This be negative reinforcement
- Behaviour is likely to be repeated because it is rewarding
Learning theory of attachment- SLT [4]:
- Bandura
- Modelling = Mediational processes explain attachment
- Kids observe parents’ affectionate behaviour and imitate it
- parents instruct kids on how to behave in relationships & reward appropriate behaviour with hugs & kisses
Learning theory of attachment ao3- animals [4]:
- Largely based on animal studies e.g skinner, Harlow
- Behaviourists believe animals no different from humans
- However humans diff from animals cus behaviour controlled by conscious thought
- Animal studies may not be suitable research support
What are social releases?
Behaviours that elicits a particular response from the caregiver, leading to attachment e.g. crying, smiling, making sound
Continuity hypothesis:
Attachments formed during childhood affect later relationships
Internal Working Model (IWM) [definition]:
[2]:
- Mental model of the world tht allows individuals to predict & ctrl their environment.
- In attachment its abt ppl’s expectations for relationships
Explain why attachments are formed using bowlby’s monotropic theory. [5]:
- Attachment behaviour evolved for survival
- A child who isn’t attached is less well protected
- Our infant ancestors would be in danger if they weren’t close to an adult
- Parents must attach to kid to keep em safe & cared for
- Parents who look after offspring are more likely to produce subsequent generations
Critical period [definition]:
Biologically determined period of time where certain characteristics develop. They will not develop outside of this time window
Bowlby believes that babies…
have an innate drive to become attached
When is the critical period for attachments?
Around 3-6 months
Monotropy [definition]:
Idea that the 1 relationship the infant has w/ their primary caregiver is significant to their emotional development
How does attachment form according to bowlby? [6]:
- Bby has innate drive to attach so they can survive
- Bby possesses social releases which make others wanna care for it
- Child has 1 main attachment figure
- Attachments must be formed in critical period
- Early attachment provides IWM which tells them how loveable they & how trustworthy ppl can be
- Attachments formed as child will affect later relations
Critical vs sensitive period [2]:
- According bowlby it isn’t possible to form attachments after 6 months
- Researchers use sensitive period now instead
Consequences of attachment [2]:
- short term: gives the child insight into caregiver’s bhvr & enables child to influence caregiver’s bhvr
- long term: acts as template for all future relationships cus it generates expectations abt what loving relationships look like
Bowlby- IWM [4]:
- cognitive framework on understandings of the world, self & others
- Ppl’s interactions r guided by mem/experience from IWM
- Around age of 3 this becomes part of child’s personality
- Primary caregiver acts as prototype for relations via IWM
Bowlby’s monotropic theory ao3- critical vs sensitive [3]:
- Bowlby = impossible to form attachments after 6 months
- Rutter et al shows attachments past period are less likely but not impossible
- For this reason researchers prefer sensitive period rather than critical
Bowlby’s monotropic theory ao3- multiple attachment model [3]:
+ MAM= all attachments are integrated into IWM
+ Doesn’t acc contradict cus bolby’s theory still suggests secondary attachments r important for development its just 1 is the most important
+ therefore supports bowlby’s theory
Bowlby’s maternal deprivation theory =
continued disruption of attachment between infant & caregiver can lead to long term cognitive social & emotional difficulties for the kid
What did Bowlby think maternal deprivation lead to? [5]:
- delinquency
- reduced intelligence
- increased aggression
- depression
- affectionless psychopathy
Bowlby’s monotropic theory ao3- social implications [3]:
- Bowlby believed mother to be primary caregiver & this care should be given continuously
- Puts too much pressure on mother if child struggles in later life
- This is an issue as it could lead to unfair consequences for mums
Bowlby’s monotropic theory ao3- determinism [4]:
- Theory is that bbys have innate drive to attach & so do parents
- Takes away ppl’s choice to parent
- How is adoption possible if innate drive?
- reduces a loving bond between carer and child to sumn programmed almost artificial
What are the conditions of Ainsworth’s strange situation? [4]:
- Stranger anxiety
- Separation anxiety
- Reunion
- Safe haven/ explore behaviours
Strange situation- procedure [4]:
- Ainsworth (1970)
- American bbys 12-18 months old
- Observation had 8 episodes around 3 mins long
- Controlled lab observation
How does the strange situation go? [4]:
- Baby left by mother
- Baby left with stranger
- Bby attempted to be comforted by stranger
- bby reunited with mum
What were the 3 attachment types ainsowrth found?
- Type A: avoidant attachment
- Type B: secure attachment
- Type C: resistant attachment
Type A =
Avoidant attachment
Type B =
Secure attachment
Type C=
Resistant attachment
Ainsworth Type A [4]:
- Avoidant attachment
- 22% of bbys
- Largely ignored mum when she left & returned
- Treated the stanger in a similar way
Ainsworth Type B [5]:
- Secure attachment
- 66% of bbys
- Used mum as safe base for exploration
- Upset when mum left
- Not easily comforted by stranger but by mum when she returned
Ainsworth Type C [5]:
- Insecure resistant attachment
- 12% of bbys
- Intensely distressed when mum left
- Very worried abt stranger/ high stranger anxiety
- Conflicting desires upon reunion e.g resist being picked up but would try other methods to maintain proximity
Strange situation ao3- ecological validity [4]:
- Lab experiment have very low ecological validity
- In real life we do not control any variables
- Bby could be reacting to foreign environment
- We don’t know how bbys react to separation irl
Strange situation ao3- Culture bias [4]:
- Study carried out on only american middle-class bbys
- sample was also small
- so not representative of all bbys so can’t be applied to all children
- Means findings aren’t v generalisable
Strange situation ao3- Reliability [4]:
+ Observations like ainsworth’s have a high reliability
+ Measurements confirmed as reliable by calculating interobserver reliability which is determined by outside judges
+ they found 0.94 agreement between raters
+ Makes observations acceptable cus they reliable
Strange situation ao3- Maternal sensitivity [4]:
- Ainsworth suggests secure attachments are related to maternal sensitivity
- Raval et al (2001)
- found low correlations between maternal sensitive and strength of attachment
- suggests that sumn other than sensitivity is the central mechanism to establishing attachment
Who conducted a cross-cultural meta-analysis on attachment types?
Van Ijzendoorn & Kroonenberg (1988)
Cultural variations in attachment- procedure [3]:
- Van Ijzendoorn &Kroonenberg (1988)
- Meta-analysis of findings of 32 strange situation studies
- 8 countries e.g Germany, Japan, UK, Israel
Cultural Variations in attachment- findings [5]:
- All countries had more secure attachment than other a
- Insecure avoidant second most common except Israel and japan which were collectivist at the time
- UK Type A= 22% B= 75% C= 3%
- Israel A= 7% B= 64% C= 29%
- Germany A= 35% B= 57% C= 8%
Van Ijzendoorn & Kroonenberg Uk [3]:
- Type A= 22%
- Type B= 75%
- Tye C= 3%
Van Ijzendoorn & Kroonenberg Israel [3]:
- Type A= 7%
- Type B= 64%
- Type C= 3%
Van Ijzendoorn & Kroonenberg Germany [3]:
- Type A= 35%
- Type B= 57%
- Type C= 8%
What did Van Ijzendoorn & Kroonenberg claim was the cause of differences in second most common attachment type? [2]:
- Collectivist cultures had more Type C than Type A
- Individualist cultures had more Type A than C
- e.g Japan & Germany
Cultural similarities in attachment [4]:
- Tronick et al (1992)
- Studied African tribe called the Efe
- The kids were looked after & breastfed by other women but slept w/ their own mum at night
- Despite this infants at 6mo still showed one primary attachment
Cultural differences in attachment- Germany [3]:
- Grossmann & Grossmann (1991)
- Found higher lvls of insecure attachment than in other cultures
- German culture involves interpersonal space between bby & parent, so bbys don’t engage in proximity-seeking
behaviours
Cultural differences in attachment-Japan [6]:
- Takashi (1990)
- Used strange situation on 60- middleclass Japanese kid
- They showed no evidence of avoidant attachment
- 32% insecure- resistant attachment
- Extremely distressed when mum left- 90% of kids had to drop out of study it was a shitshow
- Cus in jpn kids rarely separated from mum which explns why they were so distressed
Cultural differences in attachment ao3- culture bias [4];
- Strange situation tht behaviour has the same meaning in all cultures
- but acc cultural understanding and pov of behaviour diff
- Strange situation created & tested in US so may be culturally biased as it uses US social norms
- e.g belief that attachment related to anxiety
Cognitive interview ao3- sample still biased [3]:
- Research in diff countries still on middle-class bbys
- Middle class just a small part of population
- So results not v representative & cannot be generalised
Cognitive interview ao3- Global culture [4]:
- Bowlby= universal similarities in attachment r cus attachment is innate
- Van Ijzendoorn & kroonenberg’s meta analysis
- Concluded that sum cultural similarities due to mass media spreading ideas abt parenting
- Mean cultural similarities = media not innate drive
Cognitive interview ao3- intra-cultural variation [4]:
- Van & K found there was larger diff intra-culturally
- One study of tokyo found no.s similar to western
- Wheras rural sample has more Insecure- resistant
- Shows sub-cultures also plays a part not just culture
Bowlby maternal deprivation study- 44 thieves [4]:
- Analysed case history of 88 kids in the guidance clinic he worked at
- 44 were thieves & the other half were the control group
- Bowlby suggested half of em were emotionless psychopaths
- They could steal from others cus it didn’t matter to them
What is meant by the term ‘emotionless psychopath’?
Ppl who lack normal signs of affection, shame or sense of responsibility
44 thieves findings [4]:
- Bowlby found the diagnosed thieves had experienced frequent separation from their mum
- 12/14 (86%) affectionless thieves experienced separation from mum
- None of control pts experienced early separation from mum
- whereas 39% of thieves did experience it
Maternal deprivation ao3- Real-world application [3]:
+ Theory had a massive +ve impact on how children were looked after in hospitals
+ B4 kids were separated from parents when in hospital- visiting was discouraged/ forbidden
+ Bowlby’s work led to major change in how kids handled
Maternal deprivation ao3- psychopathy [3]:
- It concludes that affectionless psychopathy is caused by maternal deprivation
- It’s only correlation data bro not even proven
- Has implications on mothers who can’t be emotionally present
Maternal deprivation ao3- Researcher bias [4]:
- Bowlby conducted the psych assessments himself & diagnosed the thieves
- He knew whether or not they were in the theft group
- So his findings may be biased cus its his expectations
- which undermines their validity
Maternal deprivation ao3- support for Long term effects [4]:
+ Bifulco et al (1992)
+ study on women who experienced separation from their mothers
+ 25% later experienced anxiety & depression compared with only 15% w/ no separation
+ Supports critical period and deprivation
Romanian orphanage- procedure [4]:
- Rutter (1990)
- 165 kids who spent time in Romanian institution
- 111 were adopted before age of 2
- %4 adopted by age of 4
What type of study is the Romanian orphanage?
Longitudinal
Romanian orphanage- Findings [4]:
- They were smaller & weighed less than brit counterpart
- CLassed as mentally retarded
- By age 4 sum kids caught up- true for most adopted before 6 months
- Many kids after 6 months showed disinhibited attachments & struggled w/ peer relations
Name the effects of institutionalisation [5]:
- Lower IQ
- Struggle to form attachments in later life
- Quasi autism
- Physical underdevelopment
- Poor parenting
Le mare & Audet (2006) [4]:
- Longitudinal study of 36 romanian orphans adopted into Canadian families
- Orphans were physically smaller than control group
- This diff disappeared by 10 1/2 years
- suggests recovery is possible
Romanian orphanages ao3- Representative [3]:
- Once children were adopted they may not wanna be a part of the study
- This means we don’t acc know the extent of affect of individual differences
- Sample not fully representative of all orphans
Romanian orphanages ao3- Other factors [4]:
- There may be other factors that caused the lack of development not just emotional deprivation
- The physical conditions at the orphanages were appalling
- Could have also been lack of cognitive stimulation
- so it may not be maternal deprivation
Romanian orphanages ao3- Longitudinal [3]:
+ They followed the lives of these kids for many years
+ This allows for us to get acc findings of long term effects & not just predicted/ implied ones
+ Increases validity of results
Romanian orphanages ao3- Slower development [3]:
- May not be an effect they just develop slower
- Findings in utter was at age 12 a lower number of kids had disinhibited attachment
- So rather than institutionalisation could be caused by different development speed
Hazan & Shaver- procedure [5]:
- Hazan & Shaver 1987
- Put a love quiz in ‘the rocky mountain news’ local paper
- Asked Qs abt current attachment history & childhood attachment types
- Also Qs abt attitudes towards love (IWM)
- Analysed 620 responses
How many responses were analysed by Hazan & Shaver? [3]:
- 620
- 205 men
- 415 women
Hazan & Shaver- findings [6]:
- 56% classified as secure attachment
- 25% avoidant
- 19% avoidant
- +ve correlation between attachment type & love experiences
- Secure had longer relationships (10 yrs vs 5 &6)
- Secure had a +ve IWM
What are the behaviours influenced by IWM? [4]:
- Childhood friendships
- Poor parenting
- Romantic Relationships
- Mental health
How does the IWM influence childhood friendships? [4]:
- Sroufe et al 2005
- Minnesota parent-child study followed ppts from infancy to adolescence
- Ppl who were securely attached in infancy were rated highest for social competence
- They were also more popular & empathetic
How does the IWM influence poor parenting? [4]:
- Harlow’s monkey research
- showed link between poor attachment & later difficulties w/ parenting
- Quinton et al shows the same for humans
- Lack of IWM means ppl lack reference points to form attachments w/ their own kids
How does the IWM influence romantic relationships? [3]:
- Hazan & Shaver
- Between early attachment type & relationships
- Ppl who were securely attached had longer-lasting relationships
How does the IWM influence mental health? [4]:
- Lack of attachment during critical period = no IWM
- Kids w/ attachment disorder have no preferred attachment figure
- inability to interact w/ others b4 age 5, experience severe neglect & frequent change of caregivers
- Attachment disorder can be classified/in the DSM
Influence of early attachment ao3- correlational [3]:
- Research linking IWM & early attachment is correlation not experimental
- so can’t claim relationship between early attachments & later love styles
- Both love styles & attachments styles could be caused by some else
Influence of early attachment ao3- determinist [4]:
- Overly determinist
- e.g Hazan & Shafer suggest v early experiences have a fixed effect on later adult relationships
- Basically insecurely attached kids are fucked
- Inappropriate to outright say past determines u
Influence of early attachment ao3- alt explanations [4]:
- Feeney (1999)
- adult attachment patterns may be cus of the relationship not the adult
- Adult relations guided by tendency to seek others who confirm ur expectations
- Thus it is the adult secure relationship causing the attachment type not vice versa
Influence of early attachment ao3- reductionist [4]:
- Theory assumes kids who had insecure attachment types would automatically have poor relationships
- This not always the case
- Research has shown that ppl are capable of having happy relationships despite having insecure attachment
- Therefore over simplistic
