attachment Flashcards
discuss research into animal studies of attachment AO1
Harlow: 16 baby monkeys taken > cage with 2 mock mothers
- 2 conditions
-time spent recorded + behaviour when frightened
- learning theory predicts .. however
- demonstrated importance of
Lorenz - geese
- before hatching, put into 3 conditions
- after hatching, recorded
- results from conditions
- after several variations, Lorenz concluded
- proposed idea of imprinting
discuss research into animal studies of attachment AO3
+ (H) practical applications - helped social workers understand risk factors in child abuse + prevent & attachment figures in zoos > valuable as benefits society
- (H) problems generalising to humans (more similar but not humans) w/ speech like communication > disagreement on extent
- (L) recent research questions - Guiton chickens > effects of imprinting on mating behaviour not as long lasting as believed
- (L) problem generalising findings as mammalian attachment system different e.g. mothers more emotional > not appropriate to generalise
Outline and evaluate learning theory as an explanation of attachment AO1
Dollard and Miller
- attachments learned/initiated by classical conditioning (person who feeds them + pleasure of being fed so will maintain proximity)
- innate primary drive (UCS) > UCR pleasure
- NS = PAF as don’t produce innate pleasure
- PAF always present during feeding
- infant now associates PAF with pleasure + is motivated to maintain proximity > separation anxiety
- PAF = CS, pleasure = CR
Operant conditioning = why babies cry for comfort
> response from caregiver > reinforced
- crying directed towards caregiver
- reinforcement is two-way > strengthens attachment
Learning theory - drive reduction
- sears (caregiver = person who provides food, hunger becomes associated)
- attachment is a secondary drive
Outline and evaluate learning theory as an explanation of attachment AO3
+ can explain some aspects of attachments incl. reinforcement > possible parental attention and responsiveness are more important> doesn’t provide full explanation but has value
- contradicting research from animal studies - Lorenz geese+ Harlow, Schaffer and emerson many babies PAF not person who fed them > attachments don’t form due to feeding
- ignores other factors linked to attachment - quality of attachment linked to reciprocity + interactional synchrony > if attachments developed due to feeding, these interactions would have no purpose and wouldn’t expect relationships
- alternative explanation based on SLT - Hay and Vespo parents teach children to love them by modelling attachment behaviours > babies could have learned attachment behaviours as a result of interactions
Outline and evaluate Bowlby’s monotropic theory as an explanation of attachment AO1
Ability to form an attachment is innate + evolved
- monotropy suggests .. with PCG + quality depends on infants working model
- internal working model is
- IWM develops during .. > if it doesn’t form
- bowlby viewed this as
Outline and evaluate Bowlby’s monotropic theory as an explanation of attachment AO3
- of monotropy is that there is evidence for it is mixed - Schaffer and Emerson so unclear if > Could mean attachment to PAF is stronger but not diff in quality
+ Brazleton observed mothers + babies and told to ignore signals > supports idea about importance of social behaviour in eliciting care and role of releasers in initiating social interaction
+ support for internal working model Bailey - 99 mothers+ 1 yr old on quality of attachment to own mothers using interview + babies using observation > supports idea that internal working model is passed through families
- overemphasised role of attachment as temperament highlighted as important > these differences explain later social behaviour
Outline and evaluate Ainsworth’s strange situation AO1
Infants 12-18 months observed using standardised procedure
- 7x 3min episodes to show behaviours
- 1 way mirror, observations every 15 secs
- intensity of behaviours scored 1-7 > quality of attachment assessed
All infants explored and played with greater confidence //presence of stranger
- one of 3 attachment types
- insecure avoidant, insecure resistant, secure base
Outline and evaluate Ainsworth’s strange situation AO3
+ concept of attachment types has evidence to support idea it predicts later development - secure base, conversely insecure-resistant > concept of types has validity as it can explain future outcomes
+ good inter-rather reliability as diff observers watching same children agreed on attachment - Bick, 94% agreed as in controlled conditions + categories easy > confident that attachment type doesn’t depend on observer
- culture-bound test as differences mean they respond differently - takashi japanese mothers > test may not have same meaning in countries outside WEU + USA
- temperament may be a confounding variable - Ainsworth assumed but Kagan> challenges validity of strange situation as it meant to measure quality of attachment not temperament
Discuss research into cultural variations in attachment AO1
van izjendoorn + kroonenberg meta analysis of 32 strange situation - 27 v 5
- up to 1.5x variation within cultures
- important similarities between diff countries in meta-analysis
- secure attachment most common (USA 65%, Germany 57%, Japan 68%)
- countries with similar cultural norms
- great differences within individual countries (IA)
- differences between countries (IA in Germany 35, japan 5)
Individualist cultures - IR similar to Ainsworth, IR higher in collectivist but lower IA
Discuss research into cultural variations in attachment AO3
- culture has little influence on attachment type - Tronick children in African Eve tribe so, strange situation is valid measure > strengthens monotropic theory as innate explaining why children show similar attachment regardless of culture
+high in internal validity as large sample - 2000, reducing biased methodology + unusual participants > more confident about conclusions drawn
- unrepresentative of cultures as comparisons between countries not cultures (diff child rearing practices) - VI & Sagi attachment in Tokyo v rural area (IR) > comparisons between countries have little meaning and cultures/caregiving styles need to be specified
- alternative explanation, Bowlby explanation for cultural similarities (innate, universal) but VI +kroonenberg - small cross-cultural differences reflect impact of mass media > parenting norms, similarities in child-rearing common
outline and evaluate bowbly’s theory of maternal deprivation AO1
Long-term or permanent separation from PAF > developmental issues
- negative internal working model
- deprivation > cognitive, emotional + social developmental issues
C- IQ, delayed intellectual development
E - affectionless psychopathy, disinhibited attachment
S - quasi-autistic behaviour, difficulty interacting with peers + forming close relations
Poor adult relationships (difficulty forming + maintaing adult relationships + poor parenting skills - continuity hypothesis)
outline and evaluate bowbly’s theory of maternal deprivation AO3
+ bowlby 1944 - 88 children from care home in London, 44 thieves + found long-term separation from PAF during critical > poor CESD > maternal deprivation does cause poor development
- Lewis replicated Bowlby on a larger scale (500) prolonged emotional separation from PAF doesn’t predict criminality/difficulties forming relations > contradicts by suggesting separation doesn’t lead to poor development
+ practical development - change practices in range of care settings e.g. hospital care > clear bowlby’s work has led to major social change in way we care for children
- didn’t distinguish between deprivation + privation - Rutter made a distinction, deprivation (loss of PAF after attachment), privation (failure to form attachment) > many of 44 thieves moved so never formed > this severe long-term damage Bowlby associated with deprivation is more likely to be due to privation
Outline and evaluate research into the effects of institutionalisation AO1
Rutter ERA study
- 4 groups of orphans, assessed aged 4,6,11 and 15 on physical, cognitive and emotional/social development
Initial assessment - all had signs of malnutrition, 51% 6m-2 years height, weight and head circumference in bottom 1/3
- physical development improved rapidly after adoption. By age 6, only 2%
- cognitive difficulties incl. lower IQ + difficulty concentrating
- initially, no sig difference between early adoptees (mean 101) until 6 months compared to British control (105)
- later adoptees showed lowest cog abilities (mean 83)
- higher disinhibited attachment
Outline and evaluate research into the effects of institutionalisation AO3
+ improvements in way children are cared for in institutions (Langton) - day care centres key worker (mother substitute) > just as likely to form a secure attachment > develop normal attachments
- generalisability as conditions were so bad can’t be applied to better quality > poor standards of care > unusual situational variables means studies may lack generalisability
- long-term effects of early experience not clear - may catch up as adults > can’t be certain effects of early experience last into adulthood
- not randomly assigned to conditions - didn’t interfere in adoption process so could have been more sociable > Bucharest intervention project orphans randomly assigned (IC or F) > methodologically better as confounding variable removed
