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
A01 for cultural variation
[culture = a set of ideas + behaviours + attitudes + social norms + traditions]
- van ijzendoorn + kroonenberg (1998)
- aim: see if attachment types = similar thru diff cultures
procedure:
- used meta analysis from 32 diff studies in 8 diff countries –> wanted to see if inter (between cultures) + intra (within the same culture) cultural differences existed
findings:
- secure attachment = greatest within all countries (70%)
- lowest percentage of SA = in china & highest = in GB
- western countries {that support independence} = more levels of insecure avoidant attachment whilst eastern countries {more culturally close - like Japan} = more levels of insecure resistant attachment
– exception = china - as they have an equal amount of IA + IR infants - avg findings = consistent w Ainsworth’s original research {6/8 countries}
– 65% = SA, 21% = IA + 14% = IRintra-cultural variation = 15x greater > cross-cultural (inter) variation - differences can be due to mass media (social media -> impacts rearing style)
A03 for cultural variation
(A) mojority of results support Ainsowth’s original SSC
- the most commmon type = secure
(CP) it contradicts Bowlby’s theory of attachment
– if attachment = innate, cultural variation shouldn’t summer; this is not reflected in the results {theres a diff between individualistic + collectivist cultures}
(D) - biased samples from meta analysis –> not accurate rep of all cultures
- - only 36 infants = used in china’s study - this = v small sample size for such a populated country
- - most of the studies that were analysed = western cultures
(D) - culturally biased
- The Strange Situation = created + tested in USA –> may be culturally biased (ethnocentric)
- - will reflect the norms + values of American culture –> This is a problem as it assumes that attachment behaviour = same meaning in all cultures –> when in fact cultural perception and understanding of behaviour differ greatly
- - For example, the belief that attachment is related to anxiety on separation. This may not be the case in other cultures, e.g. Japan.
(D) - significant variation of attachment within cultures
- when looking @ multiple studies in each country - every study = diff levels of each attachment classification
- intra-cultural variation suggests that –> it would be an oversimplification to assume all kids = brought up in same way in a particular country
A01 for bowlby’s theory of maternal deprivation
- bowlby’s maternal deprivation –> continual disruption of the attachment between infant + PCG could result in long term cognitive + social + emotional difficulties
- during the critical period - if a child was separated from their PCG for a long period of time then internal damage was inevitable
- effects of maternal deprivation: MENTAL RETARDATION –> aggression + delinquency + dwarfism + intellectual retardation + depression + dependency + affectionless psychopathy (inability to show affection // concern for others // sense of responsibility) + social maladjustment
- 44 juvenile thieves (CS)
- aim –> investigate the long-term effects of maternal deprivation
- procedure:
- selected a (opportunity) sample of 88 from the London Guidance Clinic and separated them into 2 groups (matched by age + IQ)
- group 1 // thief group = 31 boys + 13 girl - placed in the clinic due to stealing
- group 2 // control group = 34 boys + 10 girl = placed in clinic due to emotional probs
- the children & parents = interviewed + tested by a psychiatrist (Bowlby) + psychologist + social worker, focusing on their early life experiences
- finding:
- 14 kids from theft group = affectionless psychopaths –> 12 of the kids experienced prolonged separation (more than 6 months) from their mothers (often PCGs) during their first 2yrs - whereas the 5/30 that weren’t classified as ‘AP’ experienced separations
- only 2 kids from the control group = experienced prolonged separations but none were ‘AP’
A03 for maternal deprivation
(A) - has supporting research –> Harlow’s research w infant monkeys
- describe wired monkey exp*
- monkeys reared in isolation from their mothers suffered from emotion + social problems & the monkeys never formed attachments (privation) –> grew up to be aggressive w probs of interaction
(A) - many real life applications
- in orphanages –> have to take account of emotional needs & fostered kids are to be kept in 1 stable house (instead of being moved around)
(D) - Bowlby assumed that physical separation (on its own) can lead to deprivation - Rutter (from the Romanian orphanages) argues that it’s due to the disruption of the attachment bond
– supported by Radke-Yarrow (1985) –> found 52% of kids whose mothers suffered from depression = insecurely attached –> the figure raised to 80% in the context of poverty
– this illustrates how Bowlby didn’t consider the influence of social factors (like the quality of substitute care) –> deprivation = avoided if there’s good emotional care after separation - effects = not permanent
define deprivation + privation + institutionalisation
1) a bond developed thru prolonged // traumatic separations (its disrupted then lost) –> {had it then lost it}
2) where a child fails to form an attachment w a PCG –>{never had it}
3) when living away from family –> like children’s homes / hospitals …
A01 for Romanian orphanage studies
- (1998) rutter studied 165 romanian orphans aged 1-2 weeks w minimal adult contact - using a longitudinal study + a natural experiment - the infants = assessed @ 4yrs, 6yrs, 11yrs then re-assessed 15 yrs later
- there were 4 groups:
- G1 - 58 = adopted @ < 6 months
- G2 - 59 = adopted @ 6-24 months
- G3 - 48 = adopted @ 2-4 years
- G4 - 52 = British adoptees (control grp)
- observations:
- the romanian children = severely malnourished & had lower IQs compared to other kids of the same age
- @ 6 yrs –> kids adopted after 6m = disinhibited attachment –> (attention seeking behavior towards all adults, lack of fear of strangers, inappropriate physical contact, lack of checking back to the parent in stressful situations) & had probs w peers
- @ 11 yrs –> 54% of R kids who showed DA still shows sign of it in their behaviour
- kids adopted after 6m = significantly delayed intellectual development –> have low IQ tests + difficulty concentrating
- autism tendencies = identified
- probs understanding meaning of social cues / contexts
- intellectual probs continued @ 25 yr follow up
- suggests adoption within first 6 months = important –> impacts deprivation + privation in institutions
- some may recover as they develop –> CP = more of a SP
what are the effects of institutionalisation
- physical underdevelopment (dwarfism)
- intellectual under functioning –> can lead to mental retardation
- disinhibited attachment –> form of insecure attachment - children don’t favour a particular person - treats almost everyone w overfriendliness + attention seeking behaviour
- poor parenting –> Quinton (1984) women who had been reared in institutions found difficulty as parents & their children = more likely to spend time in care
A03 for romanian orphanages
(A) - real life applications that improve conditions for children living outside their supposed family home
- kid’s homes now avoid having large numbers of caregivers for each children (less workers = more chance to have PCG + stability)
- shows how the exp impacts real life situations and improves them - bettering their future + mental health
- kids in institutional care = chance to develop normal attachment –> DA = avoided
(A) - lack of confounding variables
- many kids (during WW2) experienced trauma –> difficult to distinguish effects of neglect + abuse + bereavement from those from insti care
- kids from RO = handed over to loving parents
- hence - results = less likely to be confounded from by other early bad experiences –> has high int val
(D) - other factors at play (other than emotional deprivation) the physical conditions of the Romanian orphans = appalling
- the lack of cognitive stimulation = also affect their development –> Most institutionalised children experience multiple risks thus maternal deprivation should not be over exaggerated
(D) - current lack of data abt their adult development
- latest data available = early/mid 20s –> not data to answer qs regarding long-term effects (e.g - lifetime prevalence of mental health probs & forming types of adult relationships)
- would take a while to gather data (longitudinal study)
- not easily replicated –> (reinforces struggle to gain more data)
- lack of data = hard to gain understanding of the extent this has effected kids
A01 for childhood attachments on adult relationships
- bowlby = relationship w PCG provides an IWM define this
- ainsworth found how kids develop certain attachment types (due to how their mother interacts w them - if emotional needs = met) using the attachment types from the SSC
- list 3 attachment types and describe the normal behaviour for them
- hazen + shaver used this research to look into the continuity hypothesis of these attachments into adult life –> CH = there is consistency between early emotional experiences + later (adult) relationships (based on the IWM from bowlby’s monotropic theory) –> using their ‘love quiz’
- 56% of the volunteer sample = securely attached –> happy + trusting in their relationships
- 25% = insecure avoidant –> doubtful of the existence of love
- 19% = insecure resistant –> feel emotional extremes in relationships
(shows IWM)
what do the early attachment types show in adult relationships
securely attached:
- good + healthy adult relationship
- trusting + easy to interact w
IA:
- emotionally distanced
- parent themselves (didn’t receive this as a child)
- emotionally shuts down - detaches
- deny importance of loving relationships but crave them
IR:
- clingy (seeks safety + security)
- demanding + possessive
- views partner’s independencies = reinforcement of insecurities
A03 for adult relationships
(D) - accused of being reductionist –> assumes people = insecurely attached as children will be IA as adults & have poor quality relationships
- not always the case tho –> research shows plenty ppl having happy relationships despite IA –> theory may be an oversimplification
- H+S study only relate to the quality of a relationship w one person –> choice of description of their attachment style may only relate to their current relationship
(D) - alt explanations for continuity in relationships = the temperament hypothesis (Kagan)
- infants have innate personalities (like being easy going or difficult) which influences quality of attachments w ppl (caregivers and later relationships)
