attachment Flashcards
reciprocity def
description of how two people interact
caregiver-infant interaction is reciprocal (both respond to each other’s signals and each elicits a response from the other)
(matching behaviour)
interactional synchrony def
caregiver and baby reflect both actions and emotions of the other
in a co-ordinated (synchronised) way
attachment studies strengths and limitations
S:
- filmed lab studies: variables that may distract babies are controlled, researchers can watch back to analyse behaviour and not miss key moments, multiple researchers can record data
- babies don’t know they are being observed so won’t change behaviour
L:
- hard to interpret babies behaviour (they lack coordination)
- hard to determine the babies perspective (so can’t be certain the behaviours seen in caregiver-infant interactions have a special meaning)
synchrony study
Meltzoff and Moore 1977
observed synchrony (mirrored the adults facial expressions or gestures more than chance would predict) in babies as young as 2 weeks old
- opening mouth, poking tongue out, frowning and waving a finger
- independent observer asked to see if infant copies primary caregiver
double blind - observer didn’t know aims, so less biased
synchrony study
Isabella et al 1989
observed 30 mothers and babies together and assessed the degree of synchrony and quality of mother-baby attachment
- high levels of synchrony were associated with better quality mother-baby attachment
conc: interactional synchrony is important for development of caregiver-infant attachment
attachment def
two way emotional bond
3 behaviours indicating attachment
seeking proximity
separation distress
secure-base behaviour
Schaffer 4 stages of attachment
- asocial stage (six weeks) behaviour to humans + inanimate objects are similar
- indiscriminate attachment (6 weeks - 6 months) obvious/observable social behaviour, clear preference to humans than objects, recognise and prefer company of familiar people
- specific attachment (7-12 months) attachment to a particular person aka primary attachment figure (mother 65% of time), stranger anxiety and separation anxiety
- multiple attachments (1 year) extending attachment behaviour to multiple people who they regularly spend time with (secondary attachment) but primary attachment remains strongest
Schaffer and Emerson 1964
glasgow babies study
aim: to find out at what age attachments begin
- 60 babies (5-23 weeks old) from working class homes
- studied for first 18 months of their lives (long period of time = longitudinal method)
- studied in their own homes, researchers visited every month for a year, then again at 18 months
- mother kept diary to measure separation anxiety in a range of everyday activities.
- researchers interviewed mothers about sep/stranger anxiety, they had to describe intensity of ‘protest’ on a four point scale and who it was directed at
glasgow baby study evaluation
- longitudinal method: increases validity, reduces participant variables
- in their homes: high ecological validity, they are in their real environment
- diary: detailed qualitative data
- sample size: large, so more generalisable, representative of target population
- not representative: all from one area, all from one type of home (not generalisable)
- diary: subjective, social desirability may affect, mother may forget, a lot of data to analyse
- dated, lacks temporal validity as family dynamics have changed a lot since 1960s
role of father study
Grossman et al 2002
longitudinal study, quality of relationship between parents and children changed from infancy to teenage years
found that early attachment to the mother was a better predictor of future attachment types and success (links to Bowlby’s theory of monotropy)
fathers role less important
however if father did active play with child, their adolescent relationship was better
eval: puts all the social pressure on mother and less on father, child behaviour blamed on mother?
role of father study
Geiger 1996
found fathers had different roles to mother
mum = caring, nurturing
dad= fun, playing
role of father has less impact on child’s attachments later in life
role of father study
Schaffer and Emerson
showed primary attachment is more likely to be made with the mother than the father.
- father was sole attachment only in 3% of cases
- in 27% of cases, father was joint first attachment, with mother
later on (18 months) 75% formed attachments with the father, so the role of the father has increasing importance
role of the father study
MacCallum and Golombok 2004
and
Goodsell and Meldrum 2009
found: children growing up in single or same sex parent families don’t develop any differently to two-parent hetero families
- is social change needed…paternity leave, male custody equality, more acceptance of single fathers
found: having a secure attachment with both parents is linked (children need both)
evaluating the role of the father
- research states different facts about fatherhood as they are all looking for different things (lack of consistency)
- socially sensitive issue - children without fathers are no different from those with, suggesting the fathers role is secondary
role of father
Field 1978
filmed 4 month old babies in face to face interaction with PCG mothers, SCG fathers and PCG fathers
PCG fathers interacted more in smiling, imitative grimaces, which is comparable to PCG mothers.
- seen to be more nurturing than traditional father roles
- shows there is flexibility in role of the father, men can respond to different needs of their children
animal studies - Konrad Lorenz 1935
aim, method, findings, conc
AIM: to examine imprinting in non human animals (offspring follows and forms attachment bond to first large moving thing they see)
METHOD: randomly divided greylag goose eggs into 2 batches. control group was hatched naturally by the mother. other group was hatched in an incubator, where Lorenz was the first large moving object they saw.
- Lorenz imitated a mother ducks quacking sound, so the young birds regarded him as the mother and followed him accordingly.
- he then marked the goslings depending on their condition and placed them under an upside down box. the box was removed and they recorded whether the geese followed the mother and Lorenz.
FINDINGS: naturally hatched goslings followed mother, incubator ones followed Lorenz and showed no attachment to the biological mother.
- he noted imprinting only occurred within a critical time of 4-25h after hatching
CONC: results suggest imprinting is a form of bird attachment that is innate and biologically driven.
support/evaluation for Lorenz study
+ Guiton 1966
used yellow rubber gloves to feed chicks during the critical period, the chicks imprinted on the glove. suggests young animals imprint on any moving thing during the critical period of development. later found trying to mate with the gloves (suggests irreversible long lasting effect of imprinting affecting social and sexual behaviour)
+ Hess 1958
showed strongest responses of imprinting are 12-17 hours after birth, and after 32 hours responses were unlikely to occur at all. believed once imprinting had occurred it is irreversible, nor can a gosling imprint on anything else.
- Hoffman 1976
suggested it’s not irreversible as after spending time with their own species they were able to engage in normal sexual behaviour suggesting imprinting is moderately reversible - low ecological validity, study done on birds isn’t generalisable to humans (human babies don’t imprint)
animal studies - Harry Harlow 1959
AIM: to examine extent to which contact comfort and food influences attachment in 16 baby rhesus monkeys
METHOD: he constructed 2 surrogate mothers: one harsh ‘wire mother’, second soft ‘towelling mother’.
- the amount of time the babies spent with each mother was recorded, with how much time was spent feeding at one.
- to test for response to stress, a loud noise startled the monkeys and their responses recorded.
RESULTS: monkeys preferred soft towelling mother even if there was no milk dispensed. when startled, they would cling to soft mother.
CONC: baby rhesus monkeys have an innate drive to seek contact comfort from their parent. suggests attachment is formed through an emotional need for security rather than food. the comfort provided is associated with higher willingness to explore surroundings and less stress.
support/evaluation for Harlow’s study
+ significant practical value in terms of design of zoos, and animal care in shelters (the research demonstrated importance of attachment figures and intellectual stimulation alongside contact comfort)
+ application to humans (many similar innate biological reactions in humans and monkeys), that we need primary caregiver to have contact comfort as well as just food, for healthy development to prevent problems with our own parenting skills
- ethical issues (long term psychological harm on the monkeys eg less skilled at mating, aggressive towards their children, socially reclusive) cost benefit analysis, were the findings worth the damage?
(critical period 90 days)
learning theory of attachment
(under the behaviourist approach)
says children are born with a blank slate and everything is learnt through experiences, so a baby has to learn to form an attachment with the mother.
- Dollard and Miller 1950
how humans are learning attachment
classical and operant conditioning
‘cupboard love’ attachment is due to the person providing food (suggesting its not unconditional)
drive reduction in babies
hunger is a primary drive (physiological need) , that is reduced when mother brings baby food
classical conditioning in babies
unconditioned stimulus = food
unconditioned response = pleasure
neutral stimulus = mother
mother + food means mother becomes conditioned stimulus and pleasure is a conditioned response
operant conditioning in babies
child cries, which triggers a response like mother comforting or feeding it
this reinforces the action as child gets reward for crying which encourages child to cry more to receive attention
- food is primary reinforcer
- mother is secondary reinforcer
evidence against the learning theory
- Schaffer and Emerson 1964
Schaffer and Emerson 1964 - quality of interaction with PCG was more important than food
- study of 60 babies, they found 39% attachments were formed with person who’s not fed them
- instead to those who were responsive and sensitive towards them
shows food is not the main reason for attachment formation
+ could counter with the fact animals are not humans and potentially not generalisable
evidence against the learning theory
- Harlow’s monkeys 1958
found contact comfort and emotional security was more important than food
monkeys spent more time with cloth mother than wire/food mother
when frightened they clung to cloth mother
- rejects attachment is learned and that instead it is innate
evidence against the learning theory
Lorenz
imprinting is innate not learnt and not based on food
counter - geese are animals, not generalisable to humans
Bowlby’s monotropic theory - evolutionary explanation
behaviours that help us survive become part of our biology
- require contact, food, safety from CG
pneumonic to remember: SCMI
Bowlby - social releasers
traits babies are born with that help them form attachments and interact with adults
eg cute, cute noises, smell nice
Bowlby - monotropy
babies form one main attachment that is more important than all others
- one PCG not multiple
Bowlby - critical period
monotropic attachment must form within first 2.5 years of life
- sensitive period of 5 years
no formation = child will suffer privation
Bowlby - internal working model
first attachment forms template for all future relationships
- if monotropic attachment is secure, friendships and relationships are likely to be too
evaluating Bowlby social releasers - Brazelton et al 1975
found babies trigger interactions with adults through social releasers
- PCGs instructed to ignore babies releasers
- babies became increasingly distressed, some curled up and laid motionless
shows role of social releasers in emotional development and importance in attachment development
evaluating Bowlby - Bailey et al 2007
attachment in 99 mothers and their 1 year old babies.
- measured mothers attachment to their PCG (their mother) and quality of attachment in the babies
found mothers with poor attachment to PCG were more likely to have poorly attached babies
supports idea that mothers’ ability to form attachments to their babies is influenced by their internal working models
evaluating Bowlby monotropy concept - validity
concept of monotropy lacks validity
Schaffer and Emerson 1964 - although most babies did form 1 attachment, a significant minority formed multiple attachments at the same time, that may not be as strong, but the same quality
- Bowlby may be incorrect that there’s a unique quality and importance to the child’s primary attachment
ainsworths strange situation procedure
1 - caregiver enters room, puts child on floor and sits on chair. no interaction unless child seeks attention.
2 - stranger enters, talks to CG, approaches child with a toy
3 - CG exits. if child plays = stranger just observes. if child is passive = stranger tries to interest them in the toy. if child is distressed = stranger tries to comfort
4 - CG returns and stranger leaves
5 - once infant plays again, CG may leave briefly.
6 - stranger re-enters + repeats step 3
7 - stranger leaves and CG returns.
what 4 behaviours does the strange situation observe
separation anxiety
stranger anxiety
willingness to explore
reunion behaviour with CG
types of attachment: secure
60-75%
explore happily and regularly return to CG
moderate sep/stranger anxiety
comfort when reunited with CG
types of attachment: insecure avoidant
20-25%
weak attachment to CG
low sep/stranger anxiety
little response/avoidance to reunion with CG
types of attachment: insecure resistant
3%
strong attachment to CG so exploration is difficult
high sep/stranger anxiety
resistance to being comforted on reunion with CG
aim of ainsworths strange situation
to observe key attachment behaviours as a way to assess quality of baby’s attachment to a caregiver
99 babies and mothers , controlled observation methodology
explanation for differences in attachment types
dependent on the mothers behaviour during a critical period of development
supports Bowlbys monotropic theory
evaluating Ainsworths Strange Situation
- ethical issues, 20% babies cried, psychological harm, conduct a cost-benefit analysis
- lacks population validity, mainly done on Western culture families (america), suffers from cultural bias, less able to generalise (individualist-collectivist)
- lacks mundane realism, highly controlled lab study (controlled variables) is not reflective of real life situations
+ high control of variables so more replicable, findings are highly reliable, increases confidence in attachment types found in this experiment
cultural variation in attachment: Van Ijzendoorn and Kronenberg 1988
meta analysis of 32 studies using 8 countries, investigating cross cultural variations of attachment
evaluating Van Ijzendoorn
- lacks ecological validity - many countries have different cultural variations within it eg rural areas had more insecure-resistant. so this study aren’t really studying cultural variation but country variation
- culture bound - judged by western culture standards, other cultures have other attachment ideals and what is secure may differ. the strange situation does not account for cultural differences, so children may have been inaccurately grouped
+ findings are considered replicable because of the large sample size (1990 children). this increases validity, reduces chance that findings were by chance or a one off
Bowlbys maternal deprivation hypothesis - three C’s
CRITICAL PERIOD - 2.5 years (sensitive period 5 years)
CONTINUOUS attachment - “warm, intimate and continuous relationship with a mother for healthy psychological/emotional development”
CONSEQUENCES - if attachment with mother doesn’t form
- inability to form future attachment
- affectionless psychopathy (can’t feel remorse)
- cognitive, behavioural and social development issues
MDH - affectionless psychopathy
occurs: lack of continuity in critical period
lack of remorse, guilt, empathy for others
MDH - social development issues
occurs: lack of opportunity to form social skills and relationships
struggle to build friendships or relationships
MDH - cognitive development issues
occurs: lack of continuous stimulation, damage to the brain
low IQ, struggles with tasks
MDH - behavioural issues
occurs: coping strategy, disregard for consequences
delinquency
Bowlbys 44 thieves study
aim: to investigate impact of maternal deprivation on the likelihood of delinquency in adolescents
procedure: 44 thieves and 44 controls. from a delinquency centre so opportunity sampling. interviews and questionnaires on early life experiences. family members also interviewed
findings: 17/44 thieves had experienced prolonged separation in first 5 years of life. 15/17 of those were affectionless psychopaths. 2/44 non thieves experienced prolonged separation, no affectionless psychopaths
conc: supports Bowlbys MDH, as demonstrates a link between early maternal deprivation and later delinquency
maternal deprivation hypothesis evaluation
+ supported by 44 thieves
- but generalisability is a problem
- researcher bias (his own research supports his hypothesis) lessens validity of results?
+ positive implications for society eg introduction of key workers in social care
- Rutter said material deprivation is the cause, not maternal (only correlation not causation)
romanian orphan studies - Rutter et al 2011
investigating extent to which good care makes up for poor early experiences in institutions.
165 romanian orphans as part of the English and Romanian Adoptee study. (control group 52 adopted UK kids)
the orphans had been adopted by families in UK.
- physical, cognitive, emotional development assessed at 4, 6, 11, 15, 22-25 years old.
findings: on arrival to UK, half showed signs of delayed intellectual development and malnourishment.
mean IQ of children adopted before 6 months old was 102, between six months and 2 years 86, after 2 years 77.
children adopted after 6 months showed disinhibited attachment (attention seeking, clinginess, similar social behaviour to familiar and unfamiliar people)
romanian orphan studies - Zeanah et al 2005
Bucharest early intervention (BEI)
95 institutionalised Romanian children aged 12-31 months compared to control group of 50 children never lived in an institution
attachment type measured using strange situation + disinhibited attachment factors
findings: 74% secure control group, 19% secure romanians
<20% disinhibited control group, 44% disinhibited romanians
romanian orphan studies - Chugani et al 2001
administered PET scans to 10 romanian children compared to 17 normal adults and 7 normal children.
romanians showed significantly decreased activity in the hippocampus (memory) and amygdala (emotion regulation)
concluded may be result of stress of early deprivation
evaluating romanian orphan studies
+- most are longitudinal (greater validity), but subject to people dropping out ‘attrition effect’
+ positive implications for changes (move away from orphanages and into foster care)
+ highlights impact of physical issues on psychological issues
- other issues may affect child development not just deprivation or privation
- the children were not alone so why do they have social development issues
+ lots of research support
influence of early attachment on childhood and adult relationships
Bowlby said: there’s a CONTINUITY between experiences as a baby and relationships later on
- first attachments form an internal working model (mental template)
- these affect romantic/friendships and how you parent your children (Bailey et al 2007)
IWM affects your expectations of others eg insecure resistant may have trust issues
- attachment disorders through abuse or neglect => grow up to reject intimacy, may lead to over friendliness or lack of
evaluation for influence of early attachment
+ Bailey et al 2007: majority of women (out of 99) had same attachment type as their babies and mothers. supports idea of continuity => internal working model
+ Hazan and Shaver: 620 Ps - early attachment affects our ability to form future ones (love quiz), securely attached as children had happier/long lasting relationships, supports idea childhood experiences have significant impact
> correlation not causation
+ Minnesota study 2005: followed Ps from infancy (2-3) to adolescence (15). found securely attached children rated highly for social skills and likely to be more popular. shows early attachment is significant in later emotional development and social behaviour
+ Smith & Myron-Wilson 1998: found children with insecure attachments in early childhood were more likely to bully peers
- reductionist and deterministic: suggests people who had poor quality attachments will be bad parents and unable to form ‘normal’ relationships. not all insecurely attached infants have bad adult relationships
