Attachment Flashcards
2 modes of Caregiver-Infant Interaction
Reciprocity = Responding to action of another with similar action
International Synchrony = When 2 people interact they mirror what they are doing.
Research into reciprocity
Feldman & Eidelman : Babies have “ alert phases” and signal ready for interaction ( mother responds 2/3 of the time).
Babies and carer spend time in pleasurable interactions
Interactional Synchrony
Meltzoff & Moore : adult makes 1/3 facial expressions and child reaction recorded.
Showed association between adult and infant behaviour.
Ao3 of caregiver-infant interaction
•unreliable due to infants. Infants pull funny faces often. Unable to conclude imitation.
•research supp. Meltzoff & Morre repeated with 3 day olds and got same results.
•controlled. High valid. Inter rated reliability. Recorded.
•Unethical. Socially sensitive as it can be used to argue against mother returning to work.
•prac app. Crotwell, 10 mins of interaction improved interactional synchrony and used as therapy.
Stages of Attachement
Asocial (0-6w) : Behaviour to people and objects similar.
Indiscriminate (6w-6m): Preference for humans but not specific humans.
Specific (6m-1y): Stranger & separation anxiety. Attach to primary figure.
Multiple (1year +): Second attachment 29% have within first month of primary attachment.
Stages of Attachment study
Schaffer & Emerson
60 Glaswegian babies (working class families)
Visited every month for 12 months and again at 18months.
Interviewed + observed mother
Findings & conclusion of Attachment stages study
25-32 weeks = 50% separation anxiety
40weeks = 80% specific attachment and 30% multiple.
Conc: Stages
Ao3 of stages of attachment
•High Ext val. took place in ptsps home. Natural env.
•Lack pop val. only 60 working class babies. Not generalisable.
•Social Desirability bias. Report better info of child to be better mother.
•lack temp val. social roles of men and women loosened.
•low cultural val. Not all babies for specific. In collectivist they form multiple from birth.
Schaffer & Emerson findings on role of father
Less likely to be primary attachment figure possibly due to less time spent with infant.
General ideas of role of father
Lack oestrogen causing inability to form close attachment.
Heerman
Men less sensitive to infant social cues.
Men unable to form attachment due to lack of emotional sensitivity.
Playmate.
Arguments of role of father
Fathers can demonstrate sensitive responsiveness and respond to needs of child.
Ao3 of Role of Father
•Res supp. Playmate. Geiger fathers play interactions more fun than with mother.
•Contra res. McCallum & Golombok same sex families don’t develop diff.
•Economic implications. Mother pressured to stay home. Socially sensitive.
•Bio deter. Lower oestrogen. Men bio programmed to not be primary caregiver.
•Ovserver bias. Observer sees what they wish to.
Animal Studies
Imprinting
Procedure
Lorenz
12 geese. Half hatched with him and half with mother.
Mixed all together and report who they follow
Animal Studies
Imprinting
Findings
Incubator group followed Lorenz. Control followed mother
Critical period where imprinting needs to take place. No imprinting = No attachment
Sexual imprinting also occurs. Birds acquire template of desirable characteristics.
Animal Studies
Contact comfort
Procedure
16 rhesus monkey 2 wire model mothers
1.milk from wire mother
2.milk from cloth covered mother
Preferences measured to frightening situations (noisy teddy bear in environment)
Also continued to study those who deprived real mother.
Animal Studies
Contact Comfort
Findings
Baby monkey always preferred soft object to wire. Regardless of which dispense milk.
Contact comfort more important than food.
As monkeys aged deprived ones more aggy less social less skilled and killed their offspring.
Ao3 of Animal Studies
•Animal bias. Animals not humans. Not fair to generalise.
•Animals and humans not too different. Provides insight into attachment behaviour.
•Unethical. Caused distress to monkeys. Harlow knew he was wrong calling wire mother Iron Maiden which relates to old torture device.
•Prac app. Helped social workers understand child abuse. And zoos.
•Low int val. confounding variables. Different faces on wire monkey.
Learning Theory of Attachment
Classical
Attachment through classical conditioning.
Caregiver neutral. Food unconditioned stimulus.
Overtime caregiver associated with food. Now conditioned stimulus.
Learning Theory of Attachment
Operant
Crying lead to attention from caregiver. Reinforces crying as its consequence is positive.
Caregiver negative reinforcement as baby stops crying.
This relation of pos & neg reinforcement strengthens attachment
Ao3 of Learning Theory of Attachment
•Contra res. Animal studies didn’t matter who fed them. Fundamentally flawed.
•Env deter. Ignores free will only considering classical and operant.
•Oversimp. Too linear approach. Multi-dimensional needed.
•Animal bias. Skinners pigeons and others generalised to humans.
•Valid explanation. Humans no different from animals.
Bs Theory of Attachment
Bowlby
Infants born with tendency to form attachment to survive.
Attachment give ADAPTIVE ADVANTAGE increasing survival.
Babies have SOCIAL RELEASERS to signal mother to care for them.
Have to form attachment during CRITICAL PERIOD. Between birth and 2 1/2 years.
Babies need 1 attachment. MONOTROPIC attachment.
This MONOTROPIC attachment builds INTERNAL WORKING MODEL for future relationships.
Ao3 of Bs Thoery of Attachment
•Supp res. Bailey study 99 mothers found poor attachment with parent lead to poor attachment in child.
•Supp res. Hazen & Shaver. Love quiz pos corr attachment types and love experience. Further supp Internal Working Model.
•Oversimp. More than just IWM effects attachment. Multi needed.
•Ethical issues. Blames mother for poor attachment. Socially sensitive.
•Contra res. Rutted found adopted orphans were still able to form attachments.
As Strange Situation
Procedure
Ainsworths
100 American infants (9-18months). 7 procedures lasting 3 mins.
1.Infant encouraged to play
2.Stranger enters tries to interact with child.
3.Caregiver leaves and stranger interacts with infant.
4.Caregiver return & stranger leaves
5.Caregiver leave child alone
6.Stranger return interact with child.
7.Caregiver reunited with child
Studied for Proximity seeking.
Exploration & Secure base behaviour
Stranger Anxiety
Separation Anxiety
Response to reunion
As Strange Situation
Secure 60-75%:willing to explore, moderate sep and stranger anxiety enthusiastic on reunion.
Insecure-Avoidant 20-25%: Very willing to explore. Low sep and stranger anxiety. Avoid reunion.
Insecure-Resistant 3%: Not willing to explore. High sep & stranger anxiety. Reject comfort on reunion
Ao3 of As Stange Situation
•Inter-rater reliability. No observer bias. Bick 94% agreement in one team
•Culturally bias. Diff cultures have diff ways of raising children. E.g Japan
•Oversimp. Main & Soloman found other attachment types.
•Unethical. Forces children through trauma.
•Prac app. Circle of Security project to teach caregivers. Imp area of app psych.
Cultural Variation of Attachment
Procedures
Van Ijzendoorn & Kroonenberg
Meta-analysis of 32 studies of strange situation. 1990 children and looked at 3 attachment types.
Cultural Variation
Finding
Van Ijzendoorn & Kroonenberg
Secure most common 50% China 75% Britain
Indiv cultures insecure-res similar to Ainsworths. Collectivist like china,Japan all above 25%
Variations within same country 150% larger than between countries. US 46% secure and 90% secure in another study
Bs Theory of Maternal Deprivation
Study
Bowlby’s 44 Thieves Study
Bs Theory of Maternal Deprivation
Procedure
44 criminal teenagers accused of stealing.
Interviewed for sign of affection less psychopathy.
Families interviewed to see if prolonged early separation from mothers.
Bs Theory of Maternal Deprivation
Findings
14 of 44 thieves had affection less psychopathy. 12 of 14 had prolonged separation from their mothers in first 2 years of life.
5 of remaining 30 had separation.
In control only 2 of 44 controls had separation.
Ao3 of Bs Theory of Maternal Deprivation
*Contra res. Replicated and proven otherwise with sample of 500.
*Oversimp. Czexh case study showed effects reversible. Critics period not critical.
*Animal supp. Levy et al rats seperation = Perm damage.
*Animal bias. Animals & humans not the same.
*Real-life app. Lead to social change, kids aren’t left anymore. Parents can visit kids in hospital.
Who was used to show Effects of Institutionalisation
Romanian Orphans
Who studied Effects of Institutionalisation
Rutter et al
2 Effects of Institutionalisation
Disinhibited Attachment - Cupboard love, Child is affectionate toward all.
Damaged Intellectual Development - Signs of Mental retardation, low IQ
Effects of institutionalisation
Procedure
Rutter et al
165 Romanian Orphans
Longitudinal study test if good care can help poor early experience
Physical,cognitive and emotional development assessed at 4,6,11,15
Control of 52 adopted British children
Effects of institutionalisation
Findings
Half showed mental retardation
*Adopted before 6m mean IQ 102
*Adopted 6m-2years mean IQ 86
*Adopted after 2y mean IQ 77
Disinhibited attachment - Adopted after 6m = Clingy, Attention Seeking, indiscriminate affection
Ao3 of Effects of Institutionalisation
*Prac app. Improved institutional care. Imp area of applied psych
*Not generalisable. Roman orphan conditions were terrible. Not applicable to most forms of care.
*Longitudinal study. Large quantity of qualitative data. High int val
*Lack Eco Val. No data for long term effects. Requires further work
*Oversimp. Other factors like lack of cog stimulation and physical deprivation.
Who studied early attachment on later relationship
Hazen & Shaver
How was early attachment on later relationship studied
Love Quiz
Study of Early Attachment on Later Relationship
Procedure
Hazen & Shaver
Analysed 620 results of “Love Quiz” in American news paper, on 3 aspects
1)Respondents’ current & most important relationship
2)General Love Experience
3)Attachment Type
Study of Early Attachment on Later Relationship
Findings
Hazen & Shaver
56% of respondents identified as securely attached, 25% insecure- avoidant, 19% insecure-resistant
*Secure likely to have good long lasting relationships
*Avoidant jealous and fear intimacy
Ao3 of Early Attachment on Later Relationships
*Oversimp. Temperament argued more important
