Attachment 🫃 Flashcards
What is attachment?
Attachment is an emotional tie or bond between two people, usually a primary caregiver and a child.
— The relationship is reciprocal (shared), which means that it is a two-way relationship that endures over time.
What is reciprocity?
Reciprocity is when an infant responds to the actions of another person in a form or turn-taking. With reciprocity the actions of one person (i.e. the caregiver) elicits a response from the other (i.e. the infant).
Which psychologist describes the reciprocity interaction as a dance?
Brezelton et al. (1975)
— describes this interaction as a dance because when a couple dance together they each respond to one another’s movements and rhythm. Likewise, reciprocity as a caregiver-infant interaction is where the interaction between both individuals flows back and forth.
What did Feldman suggest happens at 3 months old?
Reciprocity increases in frequency. It is suggested that showing this sensitive responsiveness, whereby the caregiver pays attention sensitively towards the infant’s behaviour, will lay the strong foundation for attachment to develop later between the caregiver and infant.
What is meant by Interactional Synchrony?
Interactional synchrony takes place when infants mirror the actions or emotions of another person eg. their facial expressions.
— In this infant-caregiver interaction the child will move their body or carry out the same act as their caregiver simultaneously and the two are said to be synchronised (in ‘sync’).
Explain the study carried out by Meltzoff and Moore (1977) : interactional synchrony.
Meltzoff and Moore (1977)
AIM: To examine interactional synchrony in infants
METHOD: Using a controlled observation, an adult model displayed one of three facial expressions, or a hand gesture. To start with the child had a dummy placed in his/her mouth to prevent a facial response.
Following the display from the adult model. the dummy was removed and the child’s expressions were filmed.
RESULTS: There was a clear association between the infants’ behaviour and that of the adult model. Later research by Meltzoff and Moore (1983) found the same findings in three-day-old infants.
CONCLUSION: These findings suggest that interactional synchrony is innate and reduces the strength of any claim that imitative behaviour is learned.
EVALUATION : Infant-Caregiver Interactions
LIMITATION - INDIVIDUAL DIFFERENCES
P: A limitation of this theory is that it does not consider the individual differences between infants that may affect their behaviours.
E: Isabella et al. (1989) found that more strongly attached infant-caregiver pairs showed greater interactional synchrony, suggesting a link between attachment and interactional synchrony.
E: Additionally, Heimann (1989) showed that infants who demonstrate a lot of imitation from birth onwards have been found to have a better quality of relationship at three months, although cause and effect is not clear.
L: Therefore, a limitation of this theory is that it assumes all infants will respond in the same way, when in reality it may be different from infant to infant.
LIMITATION - FAILURE TO REPLICATE
P: A limitation of research into caregiver-infant interactions is that other research has failure to replicate findings and support the theories.
E: Koepke et al (1983) failed to replicate Meltzoff and Moore’s findings, however Koepke was criticised for being less carefully controlled.
E: Furthermore, another researcher replicated the study by Murray and Trevarthen and found that infants couldn’t distinguish live from videotaped interactions with mother. This suggests that the infants are not actually responding to the adults, and behaviour is instead due to chance (rather than intentional).
L: Therefore, evidence from other research casts doubt on these theories.
STRENGTH - RESEARCH SUPPORT
P: There has been research conducted that supports the behaviour is intentional.
E: There has been research done in the early 1990s which observed infant behaviour when interacting with two inanimate objects, one stimulating tongue movements and other other opening/ closing the mouth.
E: They found that infants (median age 5-12 weeks) made little response to the objects.
L: Therefore conducting that infants do not just imitate anything they see - it is a specific social response to other humans, supporting the idea of caregiver-infant interactions.
STRENGTH - VALUE OF RESEARCH
P: A strength to research into these theories is that they are investigating key behaviours that allow infants to develop their understanding of others.
E: Meltzoff developed a ‘like me hypothesis’, which explains how infants learn about others. First, there is a connection between what the infant sees and their imitation; secondly the infant associates their own acts and their own underlying mental states; thirdly the infant projects their own internal experiences onto others performing similar acts.
E: In this way, an infant is beginning to acquire an understanding of what other people are thinking and feeling, related to Theory of Mind, and is key for developing relationships.
L: Therefore a strength of this research is that it explains how children begin to understand what others think and feel, and thus are able to conduct relationships.
What are the four stages of attachment?
- Asocial (0-2mon)
- Indiscriminate attachments (2-6mon)
- Discriminate (specific) attachments (7-12mon)
- Multiple attachments (1yr +)
What is the Asocial stage of attachment?
An infant shows similar responses to objects and people. Although towards the end of this stage they do display a preference for faces/ eyes.
What occurs in the stage of indiscriminate attachment?
An infant shows a preference for human company over non-human company. They can distinguish between different people, but are comforted indiscriminately (by anyone) and do no show stranger anxiety yet.
What occurs in the ‘discriminate attachments’ stage?
An infant shows a preference for one caregiver, displaying separation and stranger anxiety. Te infant looks to a particular person for security and protection. The infant shows joy upon reunion and are comforted by their primary caregiver.
What occurs in the ‘multiple attachments’ stage?
Attachment behaviours are now displayed towards several different people eg. siblings, grandparents etc. and are sometimes referred to as secondary attachments.
They typically form inn the first month after the primary attachment is formed and the number of multiple attachments which develop depends on the social circular to whom the infant is exposed.
Explain the study carried out by Schaffer and Emerson (1964) : stages of attachment.
Schaffer and Emerson (1964)
AIM: To examine the formation of early attachments
METHOD: Their sample consisted of 60 babies (31 male, 29 female) from working class families in Glasgow aged between 5-23 weeks at the start of the investigation.
1. The researchers visited the babies in their homes, every month for the first 12 months and then again at 18 months.
2. The researchers interviewed the mothers and observed the children in relation to the separation and stranger anxiety in a range of everyday activities.
RESULTS: The results provided some support for the different stages of developing an attachment. At around 25-32 weeks, 50% of the children showed separation anxiety towards their mothers, expected of the discriminate attachment stage. At 40 weeks, 80% of the children had a discriminate attachment and 30% started to form multiple attachments.
CONCLUSION: The results provide some support for Schaffer’s stages of attachment and suggest that attachment develops through a series of stages across the first year of life.
EVALUATION : Schaffer and Emerson (1964)
LIMITATION - UNRELIABLE DATA
P: A limitation of the theory used that the data may be unreliable.
E: The data collected by Schaffer and Emerson in their study was self-report data from the mothers of the infants being studied.
E: This is a problem as the mothers may not have all followed the same procedures in collecting their data, they may not have been completely honest and depending on the relationship they had with the infant and how sensitive they were to the infant’s needs and protests, may have reported different things.
L: Therefore, a limitation is that the data is systematically biased meaning the validity of the findings is reduced.
LIMITATION - CULTURAL VARIATIONS
P: Another limitation of this theory is that it can arguably only be applied to individualist cultures, like the one in which it was originally studied.
E: This is because this theory does not account for the different types of childcare practices that may be more common in other cultures. For example, in collectivist cultures the needs of the group are valued over the needs of the individual. As a result, in many of these cultures childcare is shared amongst many individuals, meaning that multiple attachments may be more common from a very early age.
E: This is supported by research, such as Sagi et al (1994) who found that children raised in communal environments were less likely to have close attachments with their mothers than children raised in a family environment.
L: Therefore, different cultures may affect the way in which children form attachments and these stages are not applicable to cultures where childcare practices are different.
LIMITATION - BIASED SAMPLE
P: The sample size of 60 babies and their carers was good considering how much data was gathered on each individual participant.
E: However, the fact that all families were from the same district and social class in the same city and at a time of over 50 years ago is a problem.
E: Child-rearing practices vary from one culture to another and one historical period to another. For example, research has shown that the number of stay-at-home dads has quadrupled in the past 25 years (Cohn et al. 2014).
L: These results therefore do not generalise well to other social and historical contexts and can be argued that there is a low external validity in this sense.
LIMITATION - UNCLEAR EXPLANATION ON MULTIPLE ATTACHMENTS
P: It is still not entirely clear when children become capable of multiple attachments.
E: Some research seems to indicate that most if not all babies form attachments to a single main carer before they become capable of developing multiple attachments. Bowlby (1969) believed that this primary attachment has special significance. Following this, other attachments form, which were important for other needs and as an emotional safety net.
E: On the other hand, Rutter (1995) has argued that all attachment figures are equivalent, and all of them are integrated to produce an infant’s attachment type.
L: Therefore, it is difficult to try and identify the stages children go through as it is unclear if there are differences in their attachments or not.
How has the role of the father been viewed traditionally?
Until very recently, men were expected to be breadwinners and not to have direct involvement in their children’s care. In many parts of the world men work several hundred miles away from their homes in order to provide an income for their families and many others have to work long hours, in order to keep their families afloat.
What do psychologists say about the biology in men and women?
Heerman et al. 1994
— Men seem to lack the emotional sensitivity to infant cues that women offer spontaneously.
— This could be due to the fact that women produce a hormone, oestrogen which increases emotional response to other’s needs.
Explain the findings of Grossman (2002) : role of the father.
Grossman (2002) carried out a longitudinal study looking at both parents’ behaviour and its relationship to their quality of children’s attachments into their teens.
Quality of infant attachment with mothers but not fathers was related to children’s attachments in adolescence, suggesting that father attachment was less important.
— However, the quality of fathers’ p;at with infants was related to the quality of adolescent attachments.
—> This suggests that fathers have a different role in attachment, one that is more to do with play and stimulation, and less to do with nurturing.
EVALUATION : Role of the father
CHILDREN WITHOUT FATHERS ARE NOT DIFFERENT
P: Grossman’s research found that fathers as secondary attachment figures had an important role in their children’s development.
E: However, other studies have found that children growing up in a single or in same-sex parents families do not develop any differently from those in two-parent heterosexual families.
L: This would seem to suggest that father’s role as a secondary attachment figure is not important.
FATHERS ARE NOT AS BIOLOGICALLY EQUIPPED
P: Research evidence suggests that fathers are not as equipped as mothers to provide a sensitive and nurturing attachment.
E: Hrdy (1999) found that fathers were less able to detect low levels of infant distress, in comparison to mothers.
E: Thee results appear to support the biological explanation that the lack of oestrogen in men means that fathers are not equipped innately to form close attachments with their children.
L: This suggests that the role of the father is, to some extent, biologically determined and that a father’s role is restricted because of their makeup. This provides further evidence that fathers are not able to provide a sensitive and nurturing type of attachment, as they are unable to detect stress in their children.
PLAYMATE RATHER THAN PRIMARY CAREGIVER
P: There is research evidence that provides support for the role of the father as a ‘playmate’ rather than primary caregiver.
E: Research by Geiger (1996) found that a fathers’ play interactions were more exciting in comparison to a mothers’.
E: However, the mothers’ play interactions were more affectionate and nurturing.
L: This suggests that the role of the father is in fact as a playmate and not as a sensitive parent who responds to the needs of their children. These results also confirm that the mother takes on a nurturing role.
PARENT RELATIONSHIPS AFFECT ATTACHMENT
P: Research suggests that father can form secure attachments with their children, if they are in an intimate marriage.
E: Belsky et al (2009) found that males who reported higher levels of marital intimacy also displayed a secure father-infant attachment, whereas males with lower levels of marital intimacy displayed insecure father-infant attachments.
L: This suggests that males can form secure attachments with their children but the strength of the attachment depends on the father and mother relationship.
When and why was animal studies popular in early psychology research?
Early research into attachment was often conducted on non-human animals on the basis that there is a biological similarity between animals and humans. Therefore, if something was observed in animal attachment behaviour, it stands to reason that it could also be applied to humans.
— Research studies on animal subjects are often seen as more ethical when conducted with human participants. Since researchers are often interested in seeing results over a life span there are also practical advantages of using animals since they breed faster than humans do.
Explain the study by Lorenz (1935) : imprinting
Konrad Lorenz (1935)
AIM: To examine the phenomenon of imprinting in non-human animals (where the offspring follows and forms an attachment bond to the first large moving object they see after birth).
METHOD: Lorenz conducted an experiment where he randomly divided grey goose eggs into two batches.
— One batch, the control group, was hatched naturally by the mother.
— The second batch, the experimental group, were placed in an incubator, with Lorenz making sure he was the first large moving object that the goslings saw after hatching.
The following behaviour, of either the mother goose or Lorenz, was recorded.
Lorenz then marked the goslings so he knew in which condition they were hatched and then placed them under an upside-down box. The box was then removed and their following behaviour of the mother goose and Lorenz was recorded again.
RESULTS: Lorenz found that straight after birth the naturally-hatched goslings followed their mother goose, whereas the incubator-hatched goslings followed Lorenz.
— When the upside-down box was removed, the naturally-hatched goslings move immediately towards their mother, while the incubator-hatched goslings followed Lorenz, showing no attachment to their biological mother.
Lorenz noted that this imprinting only occurred within a critical period of 4-25 hours after hatching. This relationship persisted overtime and was irreversible.
CONCLUSION: These results suggest that imprinting is a form of attachment that is exhibited by birds that typically leave the nest early, whereby they imprint onto the first large moving object they encounter after hatching.
EVALUATION : Lorenz (1935)
RESEARCH SUPPORT
P: A strength of Lorenz’s research is that it has been supported by other studies that have demonstrated imprinting in animals.
E: Guitton (1966) found that chicks exposed to a yellow rubber glove for feeding them in the first few weeks after their birth became imprinted on the gloves. Later on male chickens tried to mate with the gloves.
E: This is important as it shows that animals are not born with predispositions to imprint oj a specific type of object, but will imprint on and demonstrate attachment behaviours towards any moving thing that is present during the critical period. It also shows that early attachment type is linked to later reproductive behaviour.
L: Therefore a strength of Lorenz’s study is that it appears to be the case that some animals will imprint on whatever moving thing they see, as supported by additional research.
CHARACTERISTICS OF IMPRINTING HAVE BEEN QUESTIONED
P: However, a limitation of Lorenz’s research is that the characteristics of imprinting have been questioned.
E: For example, it was initially believed that in imprinting the object imprinted on was somehow stamped irreversibly on the nervous system. However, it is now understood that imprinting is not so rigid. Guitton (1966) found that imprinting could be reversed with the chickens who had tried to mate with rubber gloves. After spending time with their own species, they were able to engage in normal sexual behaviour with other chickens.
E: It has been suggested that imprinting may not be so different from learning as first thought.
L: This is a problem for Lorenz, as he suggested that imprinting was irreversible, which has since been shown not to be the case.
Explain the study carried out by Harlow (1959) : contact comfort and food influences on attachment
Harry Harlow (1959)
AIM: To examine the extent to which contact comfort and food influences attachment behaviour in baby rhesus monkeys.
METHOD: Harlow constructed two surrogate mothers: one harsh ‘wire mother’ and a second soft ‘towelling mother’. A sample of 16 rhesus monkeys were used across the four caged conditions.
1. ‘wire mother’ dispensing milk and ‘towelling mother’ with no milk
2. ‘wire mother’ with no milk and ‘towelling mother’ dispensing milk
3. ‘wire mother’ dispensing milk
4. ‘wire mother’ dispensing milk
The amount of time the baby rhesus monkey spent with each mother was recorded, alongside how long they spent feeding at each one. To test for mother preference during periods of stress, the monkeys were startled with a loud noise and their responses were recorded. A larger cage was used in some conditions in order to observe the degree of exploration by the baby rhesus monkeys.
RESULTS: Harlow discovered that, when given a choice of surrogate mother, the baby monkeys preferred to make contact with the soft ‘towelling mother’ irrespective of whether she dispensed milk.
— It was observed that they would even stretch across to the ‘wire mother’ for food whilst clinging onto the ‘towelling mother’ for contact comfort.
— The baby monkeys in the condition with only the ‘wire mother’ showed signs of stress such as diarrhoea.
+ When startled by the loud noise, the baby rhesus monkeys would cling tightly to the soft ‘towelling mother’ in the conditions where this surrogate was available to them.
+ When given larger caged conditions, greater exploration behaviour was seen by the baby monkeys with the ‘towelling mother’ surrogate. which is indicative of emotional security.
CONCLUSION: Harlow concluded that baby rhesus monkeys appear to have an innate drive to seek contact comfort from their parent suggesting that attachment is formed through an emotional need for security rather than food, which is in contrast to the learning theory explanation.
— This contact comfort provided by the mother is associated by a higher willingness to explore their surroundings and lower levels of stress.
EVALUATION : Harlow (1959)
CONFOUNDING VARIABLE
P: One criticism of Harlow’s study is the method used.
E: There were more differences between the two mothers than whether they had cloth or not. The two mothers also had different heads. This is a confounding variable as varied systematically with the independent variable.
E: The confounding variable is a problem as it could be that the monkeys preferred one mother not because she was covered in cloth, but because she had a more attractive head.
L: This therefore reduces the validity of the findings of the study, meaning it is limited.
ETHICAL PROBLEMS
P: It is questionable whether the ethical implications of this study are justified for the understanding of attachment gained.
E: In Harlow’s study, the monkeys involved were caused significant emotional distress and there were severe implications for their social and emotional development long-term. The harm was considerable enough that the experiments could not be carried out with humans.
E: However, this study has had significant effect on our understanding of attachment, and the information from it has allowed for the better care of many human and primate infants since. It could therefore be argued that the benefits of the study outweigh the costs to the animals involved.
L: Therefore, whilst the findings of the study are still strong, the method in which they were gained can be criticised for the harm it did to the animals involved.
What is the learning theory as an explanation of attachment?
The learning theory explanation of attachment explains how learn to become attached to their primary caregiver through the process of either classical conditioning or operant conditioning.
— It is sometimes referred to as the ‘cupboard love’ theory because the main principles of this explanation for attachment focuses on food.
In a nutshell, it is though that infants will form an attachment to whoever feeds them.
How can classical conditioning be applied to human attachment? (learning theory)
> Classical conditioning is a process of learning by associating two stimuli together to condition (learn) a response.
- Before conditioning, food is an UCS which produces an UCR (reflex) in the child - relief from hunger/pleasure.
- Before conditioning, the caregiver is a NS, who produces no CR at all from the child.
- During conditioning, the child associated the caregiver who feeds them (the neutral stimulus) with the food (unconditioned stimulus)
- Through many repeated pairings, the caregiver becomes a conditioned stimulus who is associated the pleasure from feeding. This results in the caregiver eliciting a CR (relief from hunger) from the child and the formation of an attachment.
What is operant conditioning? (in general terms)
Skinner (1938) was the first psychologist to study operant conditioning and show that behaviour in non-human animals could be learned through consequences (reward and punishment).
— When a behaviour is rewarded (through positive or negative reinforcement) it is repeated and conversely when it is punished the behaviour stops.
Which psychologists applied the principles of reward and reinforcement to explain human attachment between a caregiver and an infant?
Dollard and Miller (1950)
