Attachment Flashcards
Caregiver-infant interactions AO1
Reciprocity and interactional synchrony - Babies play an active role and have alert phases that signal their readiness for interaction
Interactional synchrony = mirroring, emotions and actions mirror each other simultaneously
Moore et al found an association between expression from the adult and the action of child
Higher synchrony= better quality mother-infant attachment
Reciprocity - one person responds to the other, close attention to each others expressions
Caregiver-infant interactions AO3
+uses well-controlled procedures - usually filmed, fine details of behaviour analysed - problem w observational research is they know theyre being observed but not the case w babies - good validity
-observations dont tell us purpose of synchrony and reciprocity tho - feldman says synchrony and reciprocity can be reliably observed but simply describe behaviours taking place not its purpose but evidence has found that reciprocity and synchrony are helpful in mother-infant attachment
-hard to know whats happening when observing - studies show same patterns of behaviour but just expressions being merely observed but cant acc tell whats happening from childs perspective (is it deliberate) so cant be certain that they acc have a special meaning
-research into mother-infant interactions is socially sensitive - suggests some children may be disadvantaged due to certain ways of childrearing e.g. mothers returning to work straight away limits interactional synchrony so has socially sensitive implications
The role of the father AO1
-Primary attachment can be sometimes with mother and father - schaffer and emerson found majority of babies attached to mother but within few weeks they form secondary attachments
-75% eventually form secondary attachments with father
-Research shows quality of attachment with mother more important in attachment type of teenagers - fathers less important in long term emotional development
-Fathers play more important in attachment and less nurturing
-Fathers can be primary caregivers - research suggests they adopt more behaviours typical of mother than secondary caregiver fathers - key to attachment is level of responsiveness not gender ie father can be nurturing
The role of the father AO3
+economic implications - mothers pressured to stay at home as they are important for emotional development but this might not be possible due to financial reasons so this research might be of comfort to mothers who feel they have to make hard choices about not returning to work
-research fails to provide clear answer about fathers and primary attachments - answer could be related to traditional gender roles in which women are expected to be more nurturing so fathers dont feel they should act in nurturing way or could be that women have biological dispositions to be primary attachment figures ie oestrogen
-social biases prevent objective observation - stereotypes on how fathers should be ie playful cause observer bias as they see what they expect and so role of father hard to conclude due to social biases
-researchers are interested in diff questions - some concerned with fathers as secondary attachment figures where they have distinct role and others primary where father can take on nurturing role - psychologists cant simply answer what is the role of father - conflict!
Schaffer stages of attachment AO1
Asocial stage (first few weeks) - baby learns to separate ppl from objections but dont have preferences for who cares for it
Indiscriminate attachment (2-7 months) - start to recognise different ppl and smile more at familiar people - still no preferences for who cares for it
Discriminate attachment (7 months) - strong attachment w individual - stranger and separation anxiety!
Multiple attachment (1 year) - secondary attachments form some may be stronger and have diff functions
Schaffer and Emerson study - 60 babies from glasgow visited every month for a year - 50% showed separation anxiety - usually to mother so attachment tended to be level of responsiveness over who the person spent most time with
Schaffer stages of attachment AO3
+ schaffer and emersons study have external validity - most observations made by parents so behaviour of babies unlikely to be affected by presence of observers - behaved naturally
+longitudinal study - same children observed regularly - alternative could have been diff children at diff age but longitudinal have better internal validity than cross sectional as they dont have confounding variable of individual differences between pps
-problem in studying asocial stage - young babies are fairly immobile - difficult to observe - baby could be social but due to flawed methods they appear asocial
-problem with way multiple attachments assessed - just cos baby gets distressed when someone leaves the room doesnt mean they are the true attachment figure e.g. bowlby pointed out children can be distressed when playmate leaves so schaffer and emersons stages dont distinguish behaviour shown towards secondary attachment figures and playmates
Animal Studies of Attachment AO1
Lorenz Imprinting - divided 12 goose eggs half hatched with mother and other half in incubator where they saw lorenz first and observed birds and later courtship behaviour - incubator group followed lorenz, control group followed mother - critical period where imprinting has to take place otherwise they dont attach themselves to mother figure
Harlow need for contact comfort - Reared 16 monkeys with two wire model mothers. In one condition milk dispensed by plain wire mother and in other dispensed by cloth covered mother, baby monkeys cuddled clothed mother instead of wire and sought comfort from them when frightened- contact comfort more important. As adult monkeys those who were deprived of real mother suffered with aggression
Animal Studies of Attachment AO3
-imprinting questioned - guiton found chickens imprinted on washing up gloves tried to mate with them when adults but with experience learned to mate with own kind - effects not as long lasting as lorenz believed!
-generalisability - mammalian attachment system differs to birds e.g. mamalian show more emotional attachment - cant generalise
+practical applications with harlows research - social workers to understand factors in child abuse and importance of attachment figures for baby monkeys in zoos, gives value to his research
+imprinting - guitton found chickens imprinted on washing up gloves tried to mate with them - young animals have innate mechanism to imprint with moving object in critical period
Explanations of attachment: Learning theory AO1
Food - children love whoever feeds them (cupboard love)
Classical conditioning - UCS leads to UCR ie food to pleasure
Mother starts as Neutral Stimulus NS producing no response
UCS + NS caregiver produce UCR pleasure
Once conditioning takes places CS caregiver produces CR pleasure
Operant conditioning - crying leads to response which is reinforced to produce pleasurable consequence
Negative reinforcement - removing discomfort, positive and negative strengthens attachment
Drive reduction - hunger is primary drive an innate biological motivator which when removed it gets generalised to caregiver as they feed
Explanations of attachment: Learning theory AO3
-animal studies provide evidence against food as basis of attachment - with lorenzs imprinted geese maintained attachment regardless of who fed them, harlows monkeys preferred contact comfort than who gave food - attachment doesnt develop due to feeding - learning theorists believe humans and non humans equal so food shouldnt be basis of attachment for humans either
-human research shows food isnt important either - schaffer and emerson showed primary attachment wasnt to who they were fed by so no conditioning or primary drive involved - other factors more important
-learning theory ignores other factors - eg quality of attachment associated with levels of reciprocity and synchrony - best attachments with sensitive carers who show high levels of responsiveness so hard to just say attachment develops primarily thru feeding
Explanations of attachment: Bowlby’s theory AO1
Bowlby stated attachment and imprinting is innate and evolved to keep young animals close to caregivers away from hazards
Monotropic - emphasis on primary attachment figure
More time spent with primary attachment figure the better - law of continuity - the more constant the attachment the better the quality, law of accumulated separation - safest dose is zero dose as effects of separation add up!
Bowlby said babys born with social releasers - cute behaviours that encourage attention and activate adult attachment system so they feel more love
Critical period - If attachment has not formed by two years then child finds it much harder to form attachment later on
Child forms internal working model - template for what relationships should be like
Explanations of attachment: Bowlby’s theory AO3
+evidence to support existence of social releasers - brazleton et al instructed primary attachment figures to ignore social releasers and babies showed some distress but then curled up and laid motionless - supports bowlbys idea about role of releasers in initiating social interaction
+mixed evidence for monotropy - schaffer and emerson found that babies did attach to one person at first but then formed multiple attachments contradicting bowlby that primary attachment is unique, attachment to mothers does better predict later behaviour cos they are primary attachment figure but not due to diff attachment quality!
-Bowlby overexaggerates role of attachment - research shown that childs temperament play a role - some babies more anxious and some more social due to genetic makeup so temperamental differences than quality of attachment CAN EXPLAIN LATER BEHAVIOUR
-Monotropy has socially sensitive implications - law of accumulated separation - separation can lead to poor quality attachment that disadvantages a child but feminists argue that mothers blamed for anything that goes wrong in child life e.g. returning to work when child born - bowlby didnt mean this he tried to emphasise the importance of mothers rather than how it pushes them to make lifestyle choices
Ainsworth’s Strange Situation AO1
Controlled lab observation - 8 diff scenarios including stranger entering and caregiver leaving and returning, infants reactions constantly observed!
3 main types of behaviour -
Secure attachment - child happy to explore but seeks proximity with care giver - secure base, shows moderate separation and stranger anxiety and requires and accepts comfort from caregiver reunion
Insecure avoidant - child happy to explore but doesnt seek proximity, shows little or no separation stranger anxiety and doesnt require comfort upon reunion
Insecure resistant - child explores less, seeks more proximity, shows considerable separation stranger anxiety and resists comfort upon reunion
Ainsworth’s Strange Situation AO3
+inter rater reliability - diff observers watching same children agree on attachment type bick et al found 94% agreement - strange situation in controlled environment and behaviour categories easy to observe so confident that attachment type doesnt depend on who observed
+predictive validity - attachment type predicts later development - insecure resistant attachment assosciated with bullying and mental health problems unlike secure which form long lasting romantic relationships and succeed at school - valid as it predicts future outcomes
-cultural bias - may not have same meaning in outside western countries - caregivers and children from diff cultures behave differently e.g. research shows japanese mothers rarely separated from infants so infants show HIGHER levels of separation anxiety!
-temperament is a confounding variable - research shown that childs temperament play a role - some babies more anxious and some more social due to genetic makeup so temperamental differences than quality of attachment can explain SEPARATION STRANGER ANXIETY!
Cultural variations in attachment AO1
van Ijzendoorn et al meta analysis - 32 studies of strange situation in diff countries analysed to find patterns, secure attachment most common in all countries but ranged from 50% in china to 75% in britain. In western countries, dominant type of insecure attachment was avoidant highest in germany, non western, dominant was resistant highest in japan.
Shows cross cultural similarities and differences
