attachment Flashcards
define attachment
- emotional bond between 2 ppl
- each individual sees each other as vital for their emotional security
2 examples of caregiver-infant interactions
- reciprocity
- both infant and mother responding to each other’s signals and each elicits a response from the other. Smiling is an example of reciprocity – when a smile occurs in the infant it triggers a smile in the caregiver, and vice versa.
- done thru infant mocking / imitating parent (pulling faces // cooing)
- interacts in turns
- interactional synchrony
- infant mirrors actions (emotions + behaviours) of adult model at the same time –> can be compared to a dance
- form of rhythmic interaction between infant and caregiver involving mutual focus, reciprocity and mirroring of emotion or behaviour –> Infants coordinate their actions with caregivers in a kind of conversation
A01 for development if attachment
- in 1964, S+E conducted a study to investigate the early formations of attachment
- they studied 60 infants from working-class families in Glasgow, by checking in on them every 4 weeks for a year
- it based on observations from the parents & their behaviour
- the amount / significance of attachment was measured by stranger and separation anxiety {define this}
- S+E’s research led to the development of the 4 stages of attachment:
- stage one → indiscriminate attachment
↳ from birth till 2 months old
↳ infants have similar reactions towards everything
- stage two → beginnings of attachment ↳ occurs at approx 4 months ↳ more social & prefer human company ↳ have familiar adults ↳ no signs of S+S anxiety
- stage three → discriminate attachment
↳ occurs at approx 7 months
↳ displays signs of S+S anxiety to 1 person (the PCG - in most cases it’s the bio mother - 65% of the time) - stage four → multiple attachments
↳ formed w other adults who they regularly spend time with
↳ 29% of children formed this attachment within 1 month of attaching to their PCG
A03 for development of attachment
(A) - within the study, there’s high levels of external validity - as the results were based on observations from the parents (meaning it wasn’t a lab exp so there’s no researcher bias) → the setting of the study was in a comfortable and familiar place, which will induce natural behaviour from the infants (they won’t be off-put)
(CP) - however, observations could be bias - considering it was from the parents, they may not note down all negative behaviour to make their child / parenting better, or the parents may not be as sensitive to the infants protest so they can’t report it
- hence why, the results cannot be generalised or applied elsewhere - which, in turn weakens the reliability of the results
(D) - the sample was biased → it was only taken from working-class families from Glasgow, suggesting that it may not be applicable to other social groups
- it also means that the sample lack ecological validity no guarantee that families outside of Glasgow will receive similar responses
- the study lacks historical validity - meaning it can be seen as outdates as:
↳ in current time there are many more same-sex couples who raise children, and more women working - meaning more stay-at-home dads → if the study were to be repeated in current times the results could significantly differ
what did harlow do in animals studies of attachment (1959)
- wanted to study the mechanisms which new-born monkeys bond w their mothers
- studied attachment thru rhesus monkeys –> 2 wired monkeys w one wire head and the other wrapped in cloth with 8 infant monkeys
- 4 infants monkeys = milk for cloth-covered head & the other 4 = wired head w milk
- results –> both groups of infant monkeys spent the majority of their time w the cloth-covered monkey (for 22 hrs) as it provided contact comfort
- implying that contact comfort is considered to be more significant than necessities (like food / milk)
evaluate harlow’s study
(A) - justified as providing valuable insight into the development of attachment + social behaviour –> at the time, dominant belief = attachment was related to physical needs rather than emotional (as seen by dollard + miller in the learning theory)
(D) - seen as unnecessarily cruel / unethical
- it was clear that the animals = suffered from emotional harm in the exp (from being isolated)
- this was evident when the infants were placed w a normal monkey (that was reared by a mother), they sat huddled in a corner in a state of persistent fear + depression
(D) - the study lacks internal validity due to the drastic difference of the wired heads –> it could imply that the infant monkey preferred one appearance more than the other - not due to contact comfort of physical needs
(D) - also, due to the fact that the study was only conducted on animals which questions if the results can be generalised and applicable to human behaviour - as displayed human behaviour greatly differs from animals’ due to conscious decisions
what did Lorenz do for animal studies in attachment
(greylag gosling study) - 1935
- divided a clutch of gosling eggs into 2 –> 1/2 = placed in incubator & other 1/2 = left w natural mother
- when the incubated eggs hatched they immediately attached to Lorenz - he was the first moving object they saw
- this is considered to be imprinting –> they followed him around and were constantly with him
- he then marked the ducklings (according to which were incubated and which weren’t) and put them all together w himself + the natural mother present
- the goslings quickly divided themselves up –> 1/2 went to the mother & the other 1/2 went to Lorenz – the incubated ducklings showed no recognition of the natural mother
- this shows that the ducklings attached to Lorenz during their critical period (has a duration of 12 - 17 hrs after hatching) –> this is imprinting - suggest that attachment = innate + programmed genetically
evaluate Lorenz’s study
(A) - research support from Guiton (1966)
- he showed yellow rubber gloves to baby chicks whilst feeding them - caused them to imprint onto the yellow gloves - later they were found trying to mate w the glove
- clearly shows how they imprint onto the first moving thing they see
- supports Lorenz’s findings –> long-lasting effects - it’s an irreversible change that impacts social + sexual behaviour
(CP) - due to how it’s permanent - it can be considered as unethical as leads to irreversible situations on the nervous system - may damage their later life
(CP2CP) - Hoffman (1976) suggested that = not irreversible –> after the ducklings (from Guiton’s study) spent time w their own species - they were able to engage in norm sexual behaviour –> imprinting = moderately reversible
(D) - can be considered to be reductionist
- humans and animals (in this case, greylag geese) = physiological different
- the way a human infant develops an attachment with their primary caregiver could be very different to the way a greylag geese forms an attachment with their primary caregiver –> the findings cannot be generalised.
A01 for the learning theory
- Dollard + Miller (1950) states how attachment = acquired thru operant + classical conditioning (nurture behaviour = learnt - opposes Bowlby)
- Classical (associations) - pavlov
- food (US) = drool (UCR)
- food (US) + footsteps (NS) = drool (UCR)
- footsteps (CS) = drool (CS)
- learning to correlate events together
- operant (consequences)
- infants gain pleasure from being fed (reward) –> positive reinforcement
- taking away the unpleasantness of hunger (a primary drive) –> negative reinforcement
- {reduction theory} D+M came up w the term ‘cupboard love’ –> emphasises the importance of the care-giver as a provider of food –> children learn to love whoever feeds them - considered as drive reduction
- hunger = primary drive –> innate biological motivator (wants to eat to get rid of hunger)
- attachment = secondary drive
- PD = essential for survival & SD = what they associate w (like emotional closeness)
A03 for learning theory
(A) - supporting research from conditioning (pavlov’s dog exp & skinner’s rat box)
(CP) - feldman + elderman (2007)
– in their research for caregiver-infant interaction - they found how babies play a v active role in interaction
– conditioning = not an adequate explanation of attachment
(D) - opposing research from animal studies
- harlow study –> monkeys = attached to cloth-covered (comfort) rather than wired (food) –> contradicts learning theory & reliability = questioned
(CP) no guarantee that results from animal studies reflect human - cannot generalise
(D) - can be considered as reductionist
- oversimplifies complex human emotion and attachments to behaviour due to stimulus-response - they believe attachment involves innate predispositions - suggesting how it lacks validity
A01 for SSC (strange situation classification) {procedure} (1978)
- aim = to assess how securely and infant = attached to its caregiver using a controlled lab exp & to see how an infant behaves under conditions of mild stress + novelty
- there were 4 aspects of attachment that were studied:
- stranger anxiety
- separation anxiety
- reunion behaviour
- willingness to explore // secure base behaviour
- procedure:
- infants (12-18months) and their mothers from 206 middle-class american families
- the child experienced 8 ‘episodes’ (3mins each)
- introduced to new + attractive room
- mother lets child explore + investigate (secure base)
- stranger enters + talks w mother (stranger anx)
- mother leaves (sep + stranger anx)
- parent returns + stranger leaves (reunion behaviour) –> parent will try to comfort child if needed
- mother leaves child alone (sep anx)
- stranger enters + tries to comfort
- finally, parent returns + comforts (RB)
A01 for SCC {findings}
- identified specific attachment types from infants’ behaviour / reactions
- securely attached (70%) –> happens when mothers meet the emotional needs of the infant
– uses mother as safe base to explore
– avoidant of stranger when alone - but friendly when mother = present
– distressed when mother leaves
– positive RB (happy when mother returns) & seeks contact + comfort - insecure avoidant attachment (15%) –> happens when mother ignores emotional needs of the infant
– ok with the stranger’s presence & plays normally
– unaffected by mother’s absence (no distress)
– shows little interest when reunited w mother
– treats mother + stranger similarly - insecure resistant (15%) –> happens when mother = inconsistent w meeting emotional needs of the infant
– infant = more clingy in new situations & not willing to explore –> don’t trust mother
– avoids stranger - fearful of them
– extremely distressed during mother’s absence –> cannot be comforted by stranger & won’t interact w them (treats the mothers + stranger v differently)
– pleased at mother’s return & goes for comfort but has difficultly accepting it and may show signs of aggression & push her away
evaluate (A03) for SCC
(A) - it has high internal validity / reliability / consistency
- it’s very easy to replicate due to how the exp follows a standardised procedure
- also the observations = high val
- a team of observers = used –> less chance of subjective bias
- when the panel of observers recorded their findings - the agreement rating = 0.94 –> observations = accepted as reliable
(D) - lacks populations validity
- original study used American infants
- the study tells us about how this particular group behaves and cannot be generalised to the wider population and other cultures
(D) - has low ecological validity // seen as unrealistic –> results may not be applicable outside of the lab
- The environment of the study was controlled and the eight scripted stages of the procedure (e.g. mum and stranger entering and leaving the room at set times) –> unlikely to happen in real life
- mothers = likely to show demand characteristic –> more sensitive
- weakens the validity of the study
(D) not inclusive
– Main + Soloman (1986) discovered a 4th type as many children didn’t fit into the 3 –> disorganised attachment (mix of resistant + avoidant tendencies)
A01 for Bowlby’s monotropic theory
(focuses of nature - not nurture –> opposes learning theory)
- infants attach to 1 main figure as it’s essential for their survival –> infants are biologically programmed with innate behaviours that ensure that attachment occurs
- suggest that there’s 1 relationship that is more important than the rest –> PCG = usually mother
- theory suggest that there’s a critical period for developing this attachment which is 3-6months –> if an attachment = not made then it will not happen ever and the infant will suffer from psychological disorders
- bowlby’s continuation hypothesis:
social releasers –> monotropy –> internal working model - IWM:
- what you internalise from your parents / childhood and will continue to be a template for your future role as a caregiver (friends / relationships / parent)
- social releasers:
- when an infant signal that they’re ready to interact {possibly through interactional synchrony} - this can be shown thru smiling or cooing or other general noises –> these are innate mechanisms
A03 for monotropy
(A) - there is supporting research from Lorenz
- the attachment process of imprinting = innate w a CR
- the geese attached to only 1 person during this time –> illustrating monotropic behaviour
(D) - there is some controversy
- Burnman (1994) suggest that the theory places a burden of responsibility on mothers –> making them take the blame for everything that goes wrong in a child’s life –> also pushes mothers into a particular lifestyle choice –> like not returning to work when their child is born - despite this not being bowlby’s intention
(D) - opposing evidence from rutter
- bowlby states how it isn’t possible for attachments to be made after the 6 months period - but in rutter’s romanian orphanage case study showed how attachments can be made after the CR - suggesting why it is more commonly named the sensitive period instead
