Attachment Flashcards
State the animal studies for attachment
Lorenz’s goslings
Harlow monkeys
Method for Lorenz’s goslings
- Split a group of 12 goslings into 2 groups of 6
- 6 were born naturally with their mother, other group of 6 were born in an incubator with Lorenz, making sure he was the first large moving object the goslings saw therefore Lorenz would be their imprint and the mother would be the other 6’s imprint
- Lorenz marked them so he knew who were born naturally and who were born in incubator
- He then put all 12 goslings in incubator, the mother outside on one side and Lorenz on the other
Results for Lorenz’s goslings
- Immediately after birth, the naturally born followed the mother, and the incubator hatched goslings followed Lorenz
- When all 12 goslings were put together, the 6 went to the mother and other 6 went to Lorenz
- Lorenz notes, imprinting would only occur within a period of few hours (Critical period)
Conclusion for Lorenz goslings
Shows attachment is formed through security through imprinting, for goslings
Evaluation for Lorenz goslings
- The fact imprinting is irreversible suggests it’s biological
- Attachment behaviour of geese is not necessarily the same as humans
- The fact imprinting has a set time period, influenced Bowlby’s idea of a critical period in human babies
- Ethical issues, as they’re animals therefore can’t give informed consent
Method for Harlows monkeys
- 16 monkeys split into 2 groups of 8
- Both groups had a surrogate mother, one wired other group had a cloth mother to feed off of
- Amount of time spent with each mother recorded
- Monkeys frightened with a loud noise to test for mother preference when stressed
- Larger cage to test monkeys exploration
Results for Harlows monkeys
- ALL Monkeys preferred contact with cloth mother, monkeys with the wired mother only went to it for food
- When frightened, all monkeys clung to cloth mother for safety
- In larger cage, monkeys with cloth mother explored more
Conclusion for Harlows monkeys
Monkeys form an attachment through contact-comfort, not from food
Evaluation of Harlows monkeys
- Study involves animals, therefore cannot generalise
- Involving animals, therefore cannot ask for informed consent, therefore ethical issues are present
- More ethical issues, as baby monkeys are separated causing stress to them
2 explanations of attachment
1) The learning theory
2) Bowlbys monotropic theory
What is the learning theory
The belief that attachments develop though conditioning processes
What are the two types of learning theory that apply to development of attachments
Classical conditioning
Operant conditioning
What is the learning theory also known as
Cupboard love theory
- as cupboard contains food
What is classical conditioning
Occurs when a response produced naturally by a stimulus becomes associated with another stimulus
Explain how classical conditioning is used to form attachments
- Attachments are learned by the stimulus of food(UCS), producing pleasure(UCR), being paired with a caregiver(NS).
- After lots of presentations of caregiver and food being paired, infant learns to associate pleasure(CR) solely with caregiver(CS) without any need for food
Explain how classical conditioning is used to form attachments
Simple version
Before learning= food(UCS) > pleasure(UCR)
During learning= food(UCS) + caregiver(NS)—> pleasure(UCR)
After learning= caregiver(CS) > pleasure(CR)
What’s operant conditioning based on in forming an attachment
Based on Thorndikes ‘Law of effect’, where any action that has a pleasurable action will be repeated
What are pleasurable outcomes known as
Reinforcements
What are reinforcements
They strengthen the behaviour, making it more likely to occur again
What positive reinforcement
Involves receiving something pleasurable for performing a desired behaviour
E.g pocket money for doing chores
What’s negative reinforcement
Involves not receiving something non-pleasurable for performing a desired behaviour
E.g. Not being grounded for tidying room
What happens when behaviour is positively reinforced
It’s repeated
What happens when behaviour results in punishment
It’s unlikely to be repeated
Explain how operant conditioning is used to form an attachment
- Hungry infant feels uncomfortable and is driven to reduce discomfort.
- When fed it feels pleasure(reward)
- Food is a primary reinforcer as it directly satisfies hunger
- Caregiver is a secondary reinforcer as he/she is associated with primary reinforcer (food)
- So attachment occurs because the child seeks the person who can supply the reward (food)
Explain how operant conditioning is used to form an attachment
Baby hungry —>Crying—>Food from caregiver
What does Bowlbys monotropic theory suggest
Children come into the world biologically pre-programmed to form attachments, as this will help them survive
What’s the determinant for attachment according to Bowlby
Care and responsiveness, not food
What are the 5 key features for Bowlbys monotropic theory
1) Innate
2) Social releasers
3) Monotropy
4) Internal working model
5) Critical period
What does
1) Innate, mean
Babies are pre-programmed biologically with behaviours to attach
What does
2) Social releasers, mean
Infant produces innate Social releaser behaviours such as crying and smiling to stimulate caregiving from parents.
Determinant of attachment is not food but care and responsiveness
What does
3) Monotropy, mean
Attachment to one caregiver who is most important
What does
4) Internal working model, mean
Child’s relationship with a primary caregiver (Monotropy) provides an internal working model which is a template for future relationships
What is the
5) Critical period
Critical period for a human baby to develop an attachment is up to 2.5 years old
Evaluation of Bowlbys monotropic theory
1) Harlows monkeys supports Bowlbys theory stating monkeys prioritise comfort over food, similar to babies
2) Unethical to separate infants from their caregiver, so animal studies are useful for insight in forming attachments
3) 39% of babies form an attachment with the father as well. Challenging the monotropy stage of Bowlbys theory
What was Ainsworth assessing in the strange situation
Assesses the security of attachment between infant and mother
Who were the participants in the strange situation
Infant and mother
The stranger isn’t one as she is a confederate, and we are assessing actions of mother and infant
Child experiences 8 situations whilst playing
1) parent and infant introduced to room
2) parent and infant alone
3) stranger enters, parent leaves
4) first separation episode
5) first reunion episode. Parent comforts, then leaves again
6) second separation episode, infants alone
7) stranger enters
8) second reunion, stranger leaves, parent enters
The 4 aspects of child behaviour observed
1) amount of exploration
2) separation anxiety
3) stranger anxiety
4) child’s reunion behaviour with its caregiver
What were the three groups the children were categorised into from ainsworths strange situation
Secure (70%) Insecure avoidant (15%) Insecure resistant (15%)
What was:
Separation anxiety, stranger anxiety, reunion behaviour, parenting style
For a secure attached child
- Separation anxiety= High
- Stranger anxiety= High
- Reunion behaviour= Pleased to see caregiver, easily comforted
- Parenting style= Can respond to infants needs
What was:
Separation anxiety, stranger anxiety, reunion behaviour, parenting style
For an insecure avoidant attached child
- Separation anxiety= Low
- Stranger anxiety= Low
- Reunion behaviour= Indifferent, doesn’t matter if caregiver is there or not
- Parenting style= Uncaring
What was:
Separation anxiety, stranger anxiety, reunion behaviour, parenting style
For an insecure resistant attached child
- Separation anxiety= Extremely High
- Stranger anxiety= Extremely High
- Reunion behaviour= Reject mother on return, then becomes clingy
- Parenting style= Overly attentive
If attachment types were same as all cultures, what type of attachment should dominate in all cultures
Secure attachment
With equal amount of insecure avoidant and insecure resistant
Why might attachment types vary across cultures
Because child-rearing styles vary across different cultures
Why else might attachment types vary across cultures
There are cross-cultural differences as to how different attachment types are regarded.
E.g. Reebye et al, found in Britain we view insecure-avoidant attachment negatively, as it’s associated with weak attachments to people, however in Germany its valued as its associated with being independent
What attachment type doe Germany have more of than Britain
Insecure-avoidant
Van Ijzendoorm-meta analysis of the strange situation
What was aim of study
- Assess extent of inter-(between) and intra-(within) cultural differences in attachment types
What was method of Van Ijzendoorm study
What were the results
Method= Meta-analysis of 32 studies from 8 countries
Results= - From all cultures, except Germany, most common attachment type was secure
- Insecure avoidant were found more in western countries
Conclusion of Van Ijzendoorm study
- There’s a difference in pattern of cross-cultural attachment types across cultures
- Overall, patterns of attachment types were similar to what Ainsworth found
Evaluation of Ainsworth strange situation
S- Standardised procedures, therefore reliable and easily replicated
L- Sampling bias, middle class, white, American mothers were used, therefore hard to generalise
L- Ethical issues, baby placed under distress as left by itself, breaching ethical guidelines. However, placed under no more stress than real life
L- Demand characteristics, limit opportunity to generalise results
What is Bowlbys theory of maternal deprivation hypothesis
Explanation of consequences of disrupting attachment bonds that sees serious, permanent damage to children’s development as inevitable
What’s separation
Short term disruption of an attachment bond
E.g. day care, left with a babysitter
What’s deprivation
Long-term disruption of an attachment bond
E.g. parents divorcing, prison, or death
What’s privation
Never having formed an attachment bond
Bowlby described distress caused by short term separation as, 3 terms, what are they and describe them
- Protest= Immediate reaction to separation- crying, kicking
- Despair= Little response to offers of comfort; child comforts itself, like thumb sucking
- Detachment= Child responds to people again, but treats everyone warily. Signs of anger and rejection when caregiver returns is common
What’s a research to do with short term separation (Douglas 1975)
Separations of less than a week for below 4 year olds, correlated with behavioural difficulties, supporting MDH
One evaluation point of short term separation
- More securely attached children will suffer less from distress when separated
Research for long-term deprivation (Furstenberg and Kiernan) (2001)
Found children experiencing divorce score lower than children with married parents on academic performance, supporting MDH
One evaluation point for long-term deprivation
- long-term deprivation has a greater negative effect on children’s development than short-term separation
Research on privation (Freud and Dann 1951)
- 6 children placed in a nazi concentration camp, orphaned at a few months of age. Gradually became attached to there carers, not supporting Bowlby’s MDH
One evaluation point for privation
- Bowlbys viewpoint that negative effects of MDH are irreversible seem overstated. Children who’s privation experiences were followed by positive experiences made good recoveries
What is institutionalisation
Institutionalised children behaviours
Childcare provided by orphanages and children’s homes
- Attention seeking, retarded cognitive abilities and underweight
What is disinhibited attachment
What is this the result of
Disinhibtent attachment is where the child will attach to any adult. Characterised by clingy, attention-seeking behaviour
- Disinhibitent attachment is caused by institutionalisation
Rutters Romanian orphan studies
What’s the method
Including the 3 conditions
- method= - Assess whether loving care would overturn effects of privation
- IV was age of adoption
- Longitudinal Study, incorporating quasi experiment.
- Condition 1= Adopted before 6 months
- Condition 2= Adopted between 6 months and 2 years
- Condition 3= Adopted after 2 years
- DV was children’s level of cognitive functioning
- 111 Romanian orphans measured, 52 British orphans measured as a control group, to see whether negative effects were due to separation from carers or the institutional conditions in Romanian orphanages
Results of Romanian orphan studies
- 50% of Romanian orphans we retarded in cognitive functioning and underweight at initial assessment. Control group didn’t show these deficits
- Age 4, Romanian orphans showed improvements in physical and cognitive development. Orphans adopted before 6 months doing as well as British
Conclusions of Romanian orphan studies
- Negative effects of institutionalisation can be overcome by loving care
- Separation from carers alone will not cause developmental effects (evident from British orphans)
2 Evaluation point for Romanian orphan studies
- Small samples of children, difficult to generalise
- Only assessed up to 4 years old, don’t know long-term effects of institutionalisation
- Rutter states critical period for humans is 6 months, challenging Bowlby who states it’s 2.5 years
What’s internal working model
Infants primary attachment forms a template for future relationships
Evidence suggests that children who form attachments to each other early in life will not…..
Go on to form sexual relationships with each other
Youngblade and Belksy (1992) research on childhood relationships
3-5 year olds securely attached children are more likely to be curious, self-confident, and get along with other children
One evaluation point for childhood relationships (internal working model)
- Deterministic, young relationships determine adult relationships
What does good child attachment lead to in adult hood
Good, quality adult relationships
Is it possible to develop secure adult relationships, for those who fail to achieve secure attachments in childhood
Yes it is possible
What parenting style would their children have
The children will adopt the parenting style of their parents
