Attachment Flashcards
What is attachment
Attachment is an emotional bond between two people. It is a two-way process that endures over time.
Caregiver-Infant Interactions (AO1) (reciprocity and interactional synchrony)
- Reciprocity (turn-taking) is a two way, mutual process where each party responds to the others signals to sustain interaction. The behaviour of one part causes a response from the other essentially. Studies have demonstrated that infants coordinate their actions with their caregiver’s actions in a kind of conversation.
- Interactional synchrony is when adults and babies respond in time to maintain communication. The caregiver and infant mirror each other through their actions. Research has found infants at 2-3 weeks imitated facial and hand gestures after seeing adults do the same thing. Dummy placed in baby mouth- saw adult display facial/hand expression - removed dummy and saw association between adult and infant
Caregiver and infant interactions (AO3)
Pros:
- Murray and Trevarthen (1985) - mothers interact with baby over video monitor - baby then showed tape of mother who couldn’t respond - babies tried to attract mothers attention but failed so gave up - shows baby want mother to reciprocate
- Abravanal and Deyong (1991) showed babies a puppet that looked like a human mouth and made faces with it. Infants showed little response showing they don’t imitate anything they see (interactional synchrony)
Cons:
- babies can’t use language so psychologists don’t know if they’re actually communicating so they have to rely on inference
- expressions tested like smiling and sticking out tongue are frequently made by infants. Infants may not have deliberately imitating what they saw
- there are difficulties investigating caregiver-infant interaction:
1. Lack of validity with lab experiments, babies show stronger attachment here than at home
2. Studies are observational so may be observer bias (countered using more that one observe which provides inter-rate reliability)
3. Practical issues, infants need to sleep and eat so research can’t take too long
4. Extra-care needs to be taken relating to ethics
Stages of attachment (AO1)
Shaffer and Emerson (1964) investigated development of attachment in infants after studying 60 infants over 2 yrs. they found there were 4 stages:
- Pre-attachment (0-3 months) - from 6 weeks infants come attracted to other humans and prefer them objects. Shown by smiling at people
- Indiscriminate attachment (3-7 months) - infants discriminate between familiar and unfamiliar ppl and smile more people at those they know. They still allow strangers to handle them
- Discriminate (7+ months) - develop specific attachment to primary attachment figure (usually mum) and stay close to them. Show separation protest (distress shown by infants when primary attachment figure leaves) and stranger anxiety (distress when approached by someone they don’t know). Who the Primary attachment figure is depends on quality of relationship rather than time spent
- Multiple attachments (7+) - after first attachment develops infants develop them with other major caregivers known as secondary attachments. Fear of strangers weaken but primary attachment figure bond stays the strongest
Stages of attachment AO3
Only cons:
- data collected by shaffer and Emerson unreliable as it was based on mothers reports (could be less sensitive to infants protests and then would be less likely to report them)
- biased sample as it included infants from working-class population so can’t apply findings to other social groups AND only included infants from individualistic cultures and not collectivist cultures aswell where attachments could be formed differently
- no temporal validity as conduced in 60s so care of children has changed. Stigma of women staying home to care for child is not the case anymore
- stage theories inflexible and don’t account for individual differences, infants can form multiple attachments first rather than one single one
Role of father
Lack of research about role of father. Some shows they provide play and stimulation to complement mother who provides emotional support. Fathers role is considered just as crucial to the child’s wellbeing
Shaffer and Emerson found fathers less likely to be primary attachment figure for a few reasons:
- spend less time with infant
- less psychologically equipped to form intense attachment. This could be due to biological factors (female hormone oxytocin underlies caring behaviour) or societal norms (stereotypes that it’s feminine to be sensitive to needs of others)
AO3:
Shaffer and Emerson (1964) found that 75% of infants studied had formed an attachment with their father at 18 months.
Fathers can even be their primary attachment figure (Field, 1978). Field (1978) conducted research which compared the behaviours of primary
caregiver mothers with primary and secondary caregiver fathers. Face-to-face
interactions were analysed from video footage with infants at four months of
age. Overall, it was observed that fathers engaged more in game playing and
held infants less. However, primary caretaker fathers engaged in significantly
more smiling, imitative grimaces and imitative vocalisations than secondary
caregiver fathers. The behaviour of primary caregiver fathers was comparable
with that of mothers’ behaviour. This demonstrates that there is flexibility in
the role of the father and how men can respond to the different needs of their
children.
Reseaech also questions whether father plays a distinct role. The role of the father in a single-parent family is more likely to adopt the traditional maternal role, to be the primary caregiver and a nurturing attachment figure.
- There is inconsistency in the research as to the importance of the role of the
father. Research investigating the effects of growing up in a single female or
same-sex parent family show there is no effect on development, and therefore
suggests the role of the father is not important. - It seems the father is less important to later development than the mother in
terms of nurture. Grossman (2002) found that the early attachment to the
mother was a better predictor of what the teenage relationship was like than
the early attachment with the father. However, if the father had engaged in
active play with the child when they were young, the adolescent relationship
with BOTH parents was strengthened.
Types of attachment AO1
Strange situation - Ainsworth et al (1970) investigated differences in attachments between infants and their caregivers. It was a controlled observation which took place in a room that had been furnished with some toys. They observed infants in different scenarios (mother and baby, stranger enters, mother leaves then returns). They found 3 types:
1- Type A (insecure-avoidant) - 20% of babies had this. They largely ignore caregiver and explore room, show no separation protest, no reunion joy when they come back and show no stranger anxiety. Caregiver and stranger treated in same way
2 - Type B (secure) - 70% showed this. Use caregiver as safe base while exploring room and play with toys. Show separation protest even when not completely alone, show reunion joy and stranger anxiety but still accepts comfort from stranger
3- Type C (insecure-resistant) - 10% showed this. Very fussy and cry, don’t explore room (very clingy), extreme separation protest but show no reunion joy. Also show extreme stranger anxiety
Strange Situation AO3
Pros:
- can be replicated as study had high control and standardised procedures
Cons:
- culturally bias as carried out in USA. In Germany children were encouraged to be independent and behaviours such as crying wee seen as spoilt and didn’t reward them. Children show less anxiety when separated because of this and thus would be classed as avoidant
- validity question, argued that proximity seeking is measure of insecurity and not security
- gender bias, only carried with mothers as primary caregiver they could be more securely attached with father. Main and Weston (1981) showed behaviour is different depending on what parent they’re with
- lacks ecological validity as babies attachment is much stronger in a lab than at home
Cross-cultural variations (AO1) meta analysis study
Van Ijzendoorn and Kroonenberg (1988) conducted a meta-analysis of 32 studies into attachment to see if attachment occurs in the same way across all cultures. Used the strange situation to measure attachment in individualistic cultures (USA, UK, and Germany) and some collectivist cultures (Japan, China, and Israel).
Carried out on babies under 2yrs and main findings were:
- secure attachment was the most common attachment style in all of the
eight countries studied. - the second most common attachment style was insecure-avoidant, except
in Israel and Japan where avoidant was rare but resistant was common. - the lowest percentage of secure attachments was in China.
- the highest percentage of secure attachments was in Great Britain.
- the highest percentage of insecure-avoidant attachments was in West
Germany. - overall variations within cultures were 1.5 times greater than the
variation between cultures.
Cultural variation in attachment AO3
Pros:
- study is meta-analysis, large sample used so increases validity
Cons:
- culturally bias, methodology used was developed in USA and may not be valid in other cultures. Ainsworth assumed willingness to explore shows secure attachment which may not be the case in other cultures
- The infants from Israel in this study lived on a Kibbutz (closed community) and did not come into contact with strangers. This could be the reason why these children showed severe distress when confronted with strangers and so were classed as resistant
- compared countries not cultures. Compared USA with Japan for example but there’s many sub-cultures within these countries. Study of attachment in Tokyo were similar to USA but in more rural areas in Japan there were more insecure-resistant infants
- gender bias, studies in this meta-analysis looked at attachments to mothers but not father, where secure attachment could me more present. Doesn’t measure overall attachment rather than attachment to one individual. Main and Weston (1981) showed children behave differently depending on what parent they’re with
Learning theory of attachment AO1
According to learning theory all behaviours is learned rather than it being innate or inherited. Learnt through classical conditioning maintained through operant
Classical:
- food is unconditioned stimulus and produced pleasure which is the unconditioned response
- person providing food is NS and over time become associated with pleasure gained from food
- Person become CS and produces pleasure which is the CR
- this is how attachment bond developed and is why children feel pleasure when with caregiver
Operant conditioning:
OC Strengthens attachment
- positive reinforcement received for crying or when hungry as they’re fed
- caregiver receives negative reinforcement for feeding their baby when they cry as it makes the crying stop
Learning theory AO3
Pros:
- plausible and scientific as it’s an established theory. Likely that association between person who needs something and the person providing them leads to strong attachments
Cons:
- Harlow (1959) study separated infant monkeys from mothers and put them in cages. Milk was provided by a wire mesh or one made with comfortable cloth. Monkeys clung to comfortable cloth even if it didn’t even provide milk. Shows comfort is more than food when determining infant attachment
- Schaffer and Emerson (1964) found food isn’t necessary. Babies are attached to those who play with them. 39% of cases even though mother fed them, babies were more attached so someone else
- This theory explains how attachments form but not why they form. According to Bowlby’s theory of attachment infants form an attachment to their caregiver to ensure they are protected.
- learning theory is environmentally reductionist as it explains a complex behaviour in a simp,e way. Infant caregiver relationship is very sophisticated and they’re many types of attachment. Unlikely that the attachment is merely the result of food being provided. It is also environmentally deterministic as is states early learning determines later attachmetn behaviour
How does Bowlby’s theory explains why attachments form
Principle behind it is that attachment between infants and their caregivers is an instinct that has evolved because it increases of babies’ survival and parents’ passing on genes thus making it adaptive.
How do attachments form according to Bowlby
- infants have an innate drive to become attached to an adult. Innate behaviours have a critical period where they MUST occur or they will have difficulty forming attachments (b4 2yrs)
- Bowlby suggested attachment is determined by caregivers sensitivity. More responsive and co-operative caregivers provide stronger attachment
- social releases (behaviours that elicit care giving like smiling and crying) are important and ensure attachments develop. Babies display them to encourage caregivers to look after them
- Bowlby argued infants have a special emotional bond (MONOTROPY) which is often with the biological mother. Also form secondary attachments which are an emotional safety net and are vital for healthy psychological + social development
Consequences of attachment relating to Bowlby
- infants use monotropy to form a internal working model (mental view of relationships)
- secure relationships ensure positive working models and mean current and future generations relationships will be positive and secure
- continuity hypothesis proposes individuals who are securely attached in infancy remain socially and emotionally competent as secure childhood leads to a positive internal working model