Attachment Flashcards
What is developmental psychology
- branch of psychology concerned with progressive behaviour changes that occur in individuals across their lifespan
What is attachment
- emotional bond between two people
- two way process that endures over time
What are ways caregivers and infants interact
- reciprocity
- interactional synchrony
What is reciprocity
- two way mutual process where each party responds to other’s signals to sustain interaction
- behaviour of each party elicits response from the other
Reciprocity in more depth
- studies demonstrated infants coordinate actions with caregiver’s actions in conversation (Jaffe et al. 1973)
- regularity of an infant’s signals allows caregiver to anticipate infant’s behaviour and respond appropriately
- sensitivity to infant behaviour lays foundation for later attachment between caregiver and infant
What is interactional synchrony
- adults and babies respond in time to sustain communication
- caregiver and infant interact in such a way that actions and emotions mirror each other
- research carried out by Meltzoff and Moore (1977)
What did Meltzoff and Moore find about interactional synchrony
- infants as young as 2 weeks old imitated specific facial and hand gestures they saw adults do
- adult model displayed one of three facial expressions or hand movements
- dummy was placed in baby’s mouth during display to prevent response
- after displays, dummy was removed and infant’s expression was filmed
- found there was an association between infant’s behaviour and adult model
What are positive evaluation points of caregiver and infant interactions
- Meltzoff and Moore (1983)
- Murray and Trevarthen (1985)
- Abravanal and DeYong (1991)
What are negative evaluation points of caregiver and infant interactions
- inferences
- expressions
How is Meltzoff and Moore (1983) a positive evaluation point for caregiver and infant interactions
- interactional synchrony has been demonstrated in several studies
- Meltzoff and Moore found infants as young as three days old displaying this behaviour
- suggests that the imitation behaviours are not learned and instead are innate
How is Murray and Trevarthen (1985) a positive evaluation point for caregiver and infant interactions
- got mothers to interact with their babies over a video monitor
- next part of the study, the babies were played a tape of their mothers so she was not responding to them
- babies tried to attract their mother’s attention, but when this failed, they gave up responding
- shows babies want their mothers to reciprocate
How is Abravanal and DeYong (1991) a positive evaluation point for caregiver and infant interactions
- observed infant behaviour when interacting with a puppet that looked like a human mouth opening and closing
- infant’s made little response to this
- shows they are not just imitating what they see; Interactional synchrony is a specific social response
How are inferences a negative evaluation point for caregiver and infant interactions
- babies cannot communicate
- psychologists rely on inferences
- cannot be sure infants are actually trying to communicate
How are expressions a negative evaluation point for caregiver and infant interactions
- expressions tested are ones infants frequently make
- they may not have been deliberately imitating what they saw
How are there difficulties investigating caregiver and infant interactions
- babies’ attachment behaviours stronger in lab, studies should thus take place in natural setting to increase validity
- studies are observational and can have observer bias, counter through interrater reliability
- practical issues => infants often fall asleep or need feeding so observation periods are short
- extra care needed for ethics
Who researched into the stages of attachment
- Schaffer and Emerson (1964)
- investigated development of attachment using longitudinal study
- followed 60 infants and mothers for two years
What are the different stages of attachment
- pre-attachment
- indiscriminate attachment
- discriminate attachment
- multiple attachment
What is the pre-attachment stage
- 0 to 3 months
- from 6 weeks of age, infants become attracted to other humans, preferring them to objects and events
- preference is demonstrated by their smiling at people’s faces
What is the indiscriminate attachment stage
- 3 to 7 months
- infants begin to discriminate between familiar and unfamiliar people
- smiling more at familiar people
- still allow strangers to handle them
What is the discriminate attachment stage
- 7 months onwards
- infants develop specific attachment to primary attachment figure, staying close
- show separation protest and display stranger anxiety
- Schaffer and Emerson found infant’s primary attachment figure was not always person they spent most time with
- concluded it is quality of relationship that matters
What is the multiple attachments stage
- 7 months onwards
- very soon after developing first attachment, infants develop strong emotional ties with other major caregivers
- known as secondary attachments
- fear of strangers weakens but their attachment to their primary attachment figure remains the strongest
What are evaluation points for stages of attachment (all negative)
- reliability
- sample
- temporal validity
- individual differences
How is reliability an evaluation point for stages of attachment
- data collected by Shaffer and Emerson may be unreliable as it was based on mothers’ reports of infants
- some mothers may have been less sensitive to infant’s protects
- therefore been less likely to report them
How is sample an evaluation point for stages of attachment
- sample biased as it only included infants from working class population so findings may not be applicable to other social groups
- sample only includes infants from individualist cultures so findings are not applicable to infants in collectivist cultures
How is temporal validity an evaluation point for stages of attachment
- study lacks temporal validity
- conducted in 1960
- parents care of children has considerably changed since
- many women go out to work and more men stay at home
How are individual differences an evaluation point for stages of attachment
- stage theories are inflexible and do not account for individual differences
- some infants might form multiple attachment first, rather than starting with a single attachment
What is the role of the father in attachment
- inconsistency in research into role of father and whether he plays a distinct role
- some show fathers provide play and stimulation to complement role of mother and both are crucial to child’s wellbeing
- however other research shows no such distinction
- research investigating effects of growing up in a single female or same sex parent family shows no effect on development and suggests role of father is not important
What did Schaffer and Emerson find about the role of the father
- fathers less likely to be primary attachment figure
- may be because less time spent with infant
- men may not be as psychologically equipped to form intense attachment because they lack emotional sensitivity => biological factors => women have oxytocin underlying caring behaviour
- could be due to societal norms
- found 75% of infants studied formed attachment with father at 18 months
What did Field (1978) suggest about the role of the father
- fathers can be primary attachment figures
- role of father in single parent family is more likely to adopt the traditional maternal role, to be the primary caregiver and a nursing attachment figure
What are positive evaluation points for the role of father (2)
- children without fathers often do worse at school and show high levels of risk taking and aggression
=> suggests fathers can help prevent negative developmental outcomes - fathers are important for mothers as well as children
=> fathers who help with childcare allow mothers to have time for themselves, reducing stress, increasing self esteem and enabling mothers to interact positively with their children
What are negative evaluation points for the role of the father (2)
- inconsistency in findings
=> researchers are interested in finding out about different questions
=> some want to see role of father as secondary and some as primary attachment figure
=> difficult to answer what the role actually is - MacCallum and Golombok (2004)
=> found children growing up with only mothers or same sex couples do not develop different to children reared in two parent heterosexual families
=> findings suggest role of father is not important
What was the Strange Situation
- methodology used by Ainsworth et al. (1970)
- investigated differences in attachments between infants and caregivers
- controlled oberservation
- took place in a room that had been furnished with toys
What were the mini episodes observed in the Strange Situation
- mother and baby
- stranger enters
- mother leaves
- mother returns
What did investigators record in the Strange Situation
- proximity seeking
- stranger anxiety
- separation protest
- reunion joy
What were the types of attachment found in the Strange Situation
- insecure avoidant
- secure attachment
- insecure resistant
What is insecure avoidant
- classified in 20% of babies
- babies largely ignore caregiver and explore room
- show no separation protest when caregiver is absent
- continue to ignore caregiver when they return (no reunion joy)
- distressed when complexly alone but comforted by stranger easily showing no stranger anxiety
What is secure attachment
- classified in 70% of babies
- play happily when caregiver is there
- use caregiver as a safe base while they explore
- distressed when caregiver leaves => separation protest
- seeks immediate contact when caregiver returns => reunion joy
- wary of strangers showing stranger anxiety but accepts some comfort
What is insecure resistant
- classified in 10% of babies
- will not explore room as they are clingy
- show extreme separation protest but show no reunion joy
- show extreme stranger anxiety
What is a positive evaluation point for strange situation
- replicated
- has been replicated many times
- easy to replicate
- high control and standardised procedures
- been carried out in many different cultures showing no culture bias
What are negative evaluation points for strange situation
- culture bias
- proximity seeking
- gender bias
- ecological validity
How is culture bias a negative evaluation point for strange situation
- methodology developed in US
- attachment behaviour seen as healthy in US may not be in all cultures
- in Germany, very few mothers worked but children encouraged to be independent and self reliant
- German parents view some behaviour exhibited by securely attached (separation anxiety) as being spoilt
- explains why they showed less separation anxiety and been classed as avoidant
How is proximity seeking a negative evaluation point for strange situation
- validity of some measures has been questioned
- e.g. it could be argued that proximity seeking could be a measure of insecurity rather than security
How is gender bias a negative evaluation point for strange situation
- only been carried out using mothers as caregivers
- children may be insecurely attached to mothers but securely attached to fathers
- therefore not a measuring of a child’s overall attachment style but instead attachment to one individual
- Main and Weston (1981) found children behave differently depending on which parent they are with
How is ecological validity a negative evaluation point for strange situation
- artificial
- may not reflect infant’s real world behaviour
- studies have found that babies’ attachment behaviours are much stronger in lab setting than home environment
Who investigated cross cultural variations in attachment
- Van Ijzendoorn and Kroonenberg (1988)
- Ainsworth (1967)
- Simonella (2014)
What were the studies investigated by Van Ijzendoorn and Kroonenberg (1988) for cross cultural variations in attachment
- all studies included strange situation to measure attachment
- studies looked at relationship between mothers and babies
- babies under 24 months
- studies were conducted in eight countries
- individualistic cultures => USA, UK, Germany
- collectivist cultures => Japan, China, Israel
What were the findings of the meta analysis carried out by Van Ijzendoorn and Kroonenberg (1988)
- secure attachment most common in all eight countries
- second most common attachment was insecure avoidant, except in Israel and Japan where avoidant was rare but resistant was common
- lowest percentage of secure attachment was in China
- highest percentage of secure attachment was in UK
- highest percentage of insecure avoidant was West Germany
- overall variations within cultures were 1.5 times greater than the variation between cultures
What do the findings of the cross cultural variations in attachment meta analysis suggest
- caregiver and infant interactions have universal characteristics, so may be partly instinctive
- however variations between cultures show cultural differences in child rearing practices play a role
- variations within cultures indicate sub cultural differences, such as social class
- these factors are possibly more important than culture
What was the study carried out by Ainsworth (1967) into cross cultural variations of attachment
- conducted a two year naturalistic observation of mother infant interaction in Uganda
- participants were 26 mothers and infants living in 6 villages
- observed some mothers were more sensitive to infants needs and these mothers tended to have securely attachment infants
- secure attachment led the infant to have increasing competence and independence
What was the study carried out by Simonella (2014) into cross cultural variations of aggression
- study in Italy
- sample of 76 12 month olds using strange situation
- 50% were securely attachment, 36% avoidant
- lower rate of secure than other studies
- researchers argue there is an increase in women in work who use professional childcare
- findings suggest cultural changes can make a dramatic difference to patterns of secure and insecure attachment
What is a positive evaluation point of the meta analysis into cross cultural variations in attachment
- study is a meta analysis
- includes large sample
- increases validity of findings
- findings can be generalised
What are examples of negative evaluation points of the meta analysis in cross cultural variations in attachment
- culture bias
- Israel
- subcultures
- gender bias
How is culture bias a negative evaluation point for the meta analysis into the cross cultural variations in attachment
- strange situation methodology developed in US
- may not be valid in other countries
- e.g. Ainsworth assumed willingness to explore means a child is securely attachment
- not the case in other cultures
- thus methodology culturally biased
How is Israel a negative evaluation point for the meta analysis into the cross cultural variations in attachment
- infants from Israel lived on a Kibbutz (closed community)
- did not come into contact with strangers
- could be the reason for showing severe distress when confronted with strangers and so were classed as resistant
How is subcultures a negative evaluation point for the meta analysis into the cross cultural variations in attachment
- study was not comparing cultures but countries
- e.g. USA and Japan both have different subcultures with different child rearing practices