Attachment Flashcards
Reciprocity
Responding to each other’s signals
Tronick’s still face experiment
Baby becomes distressed when caregiver turns away or has no expression
Interactional synchrony
Reflecting the actions and emotions of one another in a coordinated and mirrored way
Meltzoff and Moore
Baby would imitate one of three faces/gestures the caregiver performed
Parent-infant attachment
Schaffer & Emerson
Majority of babies become attached to their mother first & become attached to a SCG around 18 months (75% father)
Role of the father
Grossman
Longitudinal observation of quality of teen attachment with m and f
Fathers only have purpose of play and stimulation
Role of the father
Field
Films of 4 month old babies interacting with SCG fathers and PCG fathers
Fathers can be PCGs with a more nurturing and caring side
PCG = smiling, imitating; holding
Caregiver-infant interactions/att figures AO3 1: Controlled observations
+
Captures fine detail
E.g., captures mother & infant from multiple angles
Less demand characteristics
Caregiver-infant interactions/att figures AO3 2: Hard to know what is happening when observing infants
-
What is being observed is merely hand movements and expression
Might not be deliberate
Temperament
Caregiver-infant interactions/att figures AO3 3: Biological support for mothers as PCGs
+
Taylor
Female hormones create higher levels of nurturing; women are biologically pre-disposed to the PCG
Protection of offspring
Schaffer & Emerson procedure
60 babies - 31 male, 29 female, Glasgow; working-class
Visited every month for 1st year & again at 18 months
Mothers asked questions about protest babies showed in 7 everyday separations
Schaffer & Emerson findings
25-32 weeks = 50% signs of separation anxiety to particular adult (most interactive)
40 weeks = 80% specific, a few multiple
Asocial stage
Recognising and forming bonds
Similar behaviour with objects and humans
Happier in preference of other humans
Indiscriminate stage
2-7m
More observable social behaviour
Preference for people rather than objects
Usually accept comfort from anyone/do not show anxiety
Specific stage
7m
Start to display anxiety with strangers; when separated
Formation of a PCG
Multiple attachments stage
Extending to secondary
Others who spend time
Schaffer AO3 1: Good external validity
+
Carried out in own homes
Observation mostly done by parents
Unlikely researcher effects
More natural behaviour
Schaffer AO3 2: Monotropy
-
Alternative
Only one figure is responsible in ensuring sufficient development
Schaffer AO3 3: Unrepresentative sample
-
Same place; social class
Child-rearing practices vary (identified in SS)
Ungeneralisable
Schaffer AO3 4: Measuring attachment
-
Just because a baby is distressed when someone leaves the room doesn’t mean that is the issue
Temperament
Babies unable to clarify
Cause and effect, e.g., hunger
Lorenz method
Division of goose egg clutch
Half hatched with mother, half in incubator
Lorenz findings
Incubator group followed L; control group followed mother (imprinting)
Critical period few hours after hatching
Sexual imprinting
Birds imprinted on a human later displayed courtship behaviour towards them
Harlow method
16 baby monkeys
One wire, one cloth: milk dispenser
Monkeys scared
Harlow findings
Monkeys cuddled cloth mother to sought comfort
Harlow conclusion
Contact comfort is key
Harlow: maternally deprived monkeys as adults
Permanent effect
Monkeys going to wire models less sociable; more aggressive
90 day critical period - damage done irreversible
Animal studies AO3 1: Generalisability
-
Mammalian attachment different to humans
E.g., mammalian mothers show more emotional attachment; may be able to form attachment at any time
Animal studies AO3 2: Questionable observations
-
Guiton
Chickens imprinted on yellow washing up gloves would try to mate with them as adults but learned to prefer other chickens
Animal studies AO3 3: Ethical issues
-
Psychological harm
Animal studies AO3 4: RWA
+
Helped social workers understand risk factors in child neglect; how to prevent it
Care of captive monkeys
Cupboard love
Emphasises importance of caregiver as a provider of food
Child learns to love whoever feeds them
Classical conditioning (CLT)
UCS > UCR
food pleasure
NS > NR
mother
UCS + NS > UCR
food mum pleasure
CS > CR
mum pleasure
Operant conditioning (CLT)
Positive reinforcement - crying leads to response from caregiver, e.g., feeding
Negative reinforcement - baby stops crying; mother escapes something unpleasant
Attachment as a secondary drive
Drive reduction - hunger (primary drive): innate, bio motivator.
Attachment: secondary drive (becomes generalised to them)
Learning theory of attachment AO3 1: Counter-evidence from animal research
-
Young animals do not necessarily attach to those who feed them
E.g., Lorenz - geese imprinted before fed
Learning theory of attachment AO3 2: Counter-evidence from human research
-
Schaffer & Emerson
Many babies developed primary attachment to biological mother even though other carers did most of the feeding
Learning theory of attachment AO3 3: Ignores other factors
-
E.g., reciprocity/interactional synchrony
Studies shown best quality att with sensitive carers who pick up signals
Learning theory of attachment AO3 4: Supporting evidence
+
Conditioning works in many cases
E.g., Pavlov
Dogs can salivate to the sound of a bell which they associated with food
Monotropy
One person is diff/more important
Presumably mother
Continuity
Consistency of a child’s care = better quality
Law of accumulated separation
Effects of every separation from the mother add up
Social releasers
Babies born with set of innate behaviours that encourage attention from adults
Critical period
Time bond must form if it is to at all
2 1/2 years
Internal working model
Template/mental representation
Affects future relationships
Brings qualities along
Monotropic theory AO3 1: Multiple attachment
-
Schaffer and Emerson
Found babies attached to one figure at first but continued to form multiple
More than one may affect IWM
Monotropic theory AO3 2: Support for IWM
+
Bailey
99 mothers - assessed att quality with 1 y/o babies & their mothers & their own mothers
Mothers reporting poor att with own parents more likely to share same bond
Monotropic theory AO3 3: Socially sensitive idea
-
Law of accumulated separation = burden of responsibility on mothers: pushes them into particular lifestlye
Monotropic theory AO3 4: Contrasting evidence to assumption about mothers as PCGs
-
Field
PCG fathers have equal ability as PCG mothers to be nurturing/caring
Strange situation procedure
- Child explores playroom (exploration)
- Stranger interaction (stranger anxiety)
- CG leaves stranger with child (stranger/separation)
- CG returns, stranger leaves (reunion/exploration)
- Child left alone (separation)
- Stranger returns (stranger)
- CG returns (reunion)
Secure (B) findings SS
Explore happily
Proximity seek
Mod sep/str
Accept comfort from CG at reunion
Insecure-avoidance (A) findings SS
Explore freely
Do not proximity seek
Little reaction/need for comfort when CG leaves/returns
Low str
Insecure-resistant (C) findings SS
Proximity seek greatly
Explore less
High str/sep
Resist comfort at reunion
Strange situation AO3 1: Culture-bound
-
Ethnocentric
Solely a US focus - does not have same meaning in diff countries outside Western
Japanese M rarely separate from B
Strange situation AO3 2: Not completely reliable labels
-
Ungeneralisable to all
At least one more: minority
DISORGANISED - mix of resistant/avoidant
Strange situation AO3 3: Support for validity in real-life cases
+
Secure tend to have better outcomes
E.g., success at school/romantic relationships
Insecure-resistant = worst (bullying/adult MH problems)
Strange situation AO3 4: Good inter-rater reliability
+
Diff observers agree on what att type to classify
Controlled conditions - beh categories easy to observe
Bick - looked at IRR (F) agreement for 94% tests
