Attachment Flashcards
What is an attachment
A strong long lasting emotional bond formed between a baby + main caregiver
What are the 3 features of attachment
- safe base
- separation anxiety
- stranger anxiety
Stages of forming an attachment
- Pre attachment
- Indiscriminate stage
- Discriminate stage
- multiple attachment
Features of pre attachment
0-3 months
Babies show no preference for any adult
Features of indiscriminate stage
3-7 month
Babies begin to prefer familiar ppl, don’t form a strong attachment to particular person yet
Features of discriminate stage
7-9 months
Babies develop strong attachment to one person
Features of multiple attachment stage
9+ months
Able to form attachments with several ppl
Outline Schaffer and Emmersons study
- naturalistic observation
- 60 babies and families from birth to 18 months
- longitudinal study
What did Schaffer and Emmerson observe
Observed babies in presence of strangers and when caregiver was removed - test stranger + separation anxiety
Interviews were also conducted
What did Schaffer and Emmerson find
~ evidence for 4 stages of attachment
~ 87% babies formed attachments to 2+ caregivers
~ 31% babies formed attachments to 5+ caregivers
~ babies main attachment figure wasn’t always the main caregiver
~ babies who formed strongest attachments had caregivers who displayed most sensitive responsiveness
Schaffer and Emmerson strengths
+ naturalistic observation
+ ecological validity
+ generalisable to how babies and caregivers behave in everyday life
Schaffer and Emmerson weaknesses
- observer bias
- interview, pps may show social desirability
What are the two caregiver infant interactions
- Reciprocity
- Interactional synchrony
What is reciprocity + give example
Infant and caregiver take in turns, responding to each others action
High reciprocity = strong attachment bond
E.g baby laughing in response to caregiver pulling funny face
What is Interactional synchrony + give example
Infant and caregiver perform similar action in time/synch with each other
E.g mum talks, baby makes noises in time with her speech
Caregiver infant interactions: name studies that support it
> condon and sander
Isabella et al
Outline + state state findings of Isabella et al study
- frame by frame video analysing movements babies make when with mother
-found positive correlation
-> high Interactional synchrony, high reciprocity = stronger attachment bond
Strength + weakness of Isabella et al study
+ frame by frame analysis, highly detailed and reliable observations
- observer bias, gestures and movement over interpreted by observer
- correlational study, hard to infer cause and effect
Outline aim and findings of condos and sander
- frame by frame video analysis, movements of babies with mothers
= found babies time actions to occur in time with mothers speech -> support caregiver infant interactions
Strengths and weaknesses of using animal studies
+ directly test cause and effect
+ no need to rely on natural and quasi experiments
- unethical
- animals are different to humans, not generalisable as attachments may be different
3 main theories about role of father
- Lack sensitivity + nurturing personality to form attachment with their child
- Dad role is playmate whereas mums role is carer and nurturer
- Dads are just as caring and sensitive as mothers + can form similar attachment to child eren as mums can
What is bowlbys mono tropic theory
Unique bonds formed between child and mother
Evolutionary theory, mothers naturally / biologically nurturing respond to social releases + look after baby
One study that goes against bowlbys mono tropic theory
Schaffer and Emmerson -> babies form multiple attachments (not mono tropic + babies do form attachments with father
Outline grossmen et als method
- longitudinal study observed relationships between children and parents
- toddler -> 6yrs old -> 10yrs old -> 16 yrs old
What did grossman et al measure/examine
- Strength of attachment
- Parents play sensitivity
- Child’s internal working model
What did grosssmen et al find
- fathers = playmate and mothers = provide care (have diff roles in child’s development
- internal working models associated with strength of attachment to mum not dad
- internal working models associated with play sensitivity of dad
Outline field et als study + what did they measure
- observational study, frame by frame analysis observe interactions between parents and kids
Measured: - sensitive responsiveness of parents to kids needs
- amount of time they spent playing with their child
Field et al : findings
- Dads who were primary caregivers displayed as much sensitive responsiveness as mothers
- Dads = play more Mum= more sensitive responsiveness
- More time spent looking after babies = the more role is like mum
DADS CAN TAKE ON CARING, NURTURING ROLE
Outline Brown et als study :
Longitudinal —> relationship between child + father, observed them at multiple time periods ( 13moths to 3yrs)
Brown et al : measured
- Strength of attachment between dads and kids
- Sensitive responsiveness from each parent
- How involved each parent was with caretaking
Brown et al: findings
More involved + sensitive fathers were when child is 13 months, the stronger their attachment to their child at 3 yrs old
Define internal working model
A schema built from a child’s relationship/attachment with main caregiver that provides beliefs + expectations about future relationships
What are the 2 cultural factors /societal norms about how women and men should behave
- Mothers= caregivers Fathers= breadwinners, display no sensitivity/emotions
- Fathers couldn’t get paid paternity leave = hard to take on primary caregiver responsibilities
Why do we form attachments: 2 theories
- The learning theory of attachment
- Bowlbys’ mono tropic theory
Outline the learning theory of attachment
- attachments, learned through experiences of being fed by caregiver repeatedly
*babies form attachments to caregiver because the feed them - attachments are learned through CLASSICAL + OPERANT CONDITIONING
The learning theory of attachment: CLASSICAL CONDITIONING
= neutral stimulus becomes conditioned stimulus through repeated association with unconditioned stimulus
1. Food = unconditioned stimulus
2. Caregiver = neutral stimulus
Repeated experiences of being fed by caregiver, babies learn to associate caregivers with food
So caregiver now = conditioned stimulus + babies develop happy conditioned response to caregiver
The learning theory of attachment: OPERANT CONDITIONING
= learn to associate actions which an outcome through reinforcement
*POSITIVE REINFORCEMENT = learn to repeat behaviour, rewarding outcome (stay near caregiver = rewarding outcome is food)
- NEGATIVE REINFORCEMENT = learn to repeat behaviour, avoid unrewarding outcome (stay near caregiver = avoid unpleasant feeling of hunger
Evaluation of learning theory of attachment
+ Dollard and miller’s observation, found babies get fed 2000 times by caregiver per year = believable
- harlows monkey study -> baby monkeys comfort > food
- Israel communal environments raised by foster mums (metapeletes) -> don’t attach to foster mums (who feed them )
Harlows study: IV + DV + aim
IV = type of mother providing milk ( cloth or wire)
DV = amount of time baby spent with each mother
Aim = test learning theory of attachment, investigating whether monkeys choose comfort or food
Harlows study : findings
- attachment driven by comfort not food
- spent majority time with cloth mother regardless of her providing milk
- group (wire monkey had milk), only approached when needed food
- when placed in cage with only wire monkey, babies showed distress + stress
DOESNT SUPPORT LEARNING THEORY OF ATTACHMENT
Harlows study : strength
+ lab exp= control over extraneous variables, establish cause + effect between IV and DV
Harlows study : weaknesses
*confounding variables = appearance of wire and cloth mother were different
*lacks generalisability = conducted on monkeys, doesn’t tell us how humans form attachments
* unethical = distressing situation causing psychological harm
Harlows study : sample + method
- separated 8 baby monkeys from mother = group 1 (4 monkeys) + group 2 (4monkeys)
- group one = wire monkey provides milk
- group two = cloth monkey provides milk
Outline Bowlbys Monotropic theory
~ attachments are biologically pre programmed into both babies and caregivers (driven by need to protect )
~ Evolution , babies form attachments as a mechanism for survival
~ attachments are vital for shaping babies development
What are social releases
= behaviours babies perform to attract attention of caregivers, babies biologically pre programmed to perform social releases
E.g. crying, smiling, crawling attract attention of caregiver + help baby get what it wants
What is a monotropic attachment
= 1 strong unique bond/attachment to special caregiver
What is the critical period
Short time frame where babies form attachment to main caregiver = 2 and 1/2 years
What is the study support for bowlbys monotropic theory
Lorenz and gosling study (1952)
What was the control and experimental group in Lorenzs study
Control group = left to hatch normally, geese were born normally, in presence of mother goose. (6 geese)
Experimental group = hatched in an incubator away from mother, the first thing the geese saw was Lorenz. (6 geese)
What did Lorenz find
Control group -> geese attached to mother immediately and followed her around
Experimental group -> geese attached to Lorenz immediately and followed him around
Baby geese form attachments to first thing they see when they’re born, immediately after birth = attachment is biologically pre programmed
How does lorenzs study support Bowlby
- Imprinting happens during a narrow time window - critical period
- Imprinting is irreversible, only formed onto one animal/person - monotropic
- Imprinting occurs immediately after birth - biologically pre programmed
Evaluation of lorenzs study
- results weren’t completely replicable
*Guiton study on baby chicks found that attachments are not mono tropic and reversible (can change) although baby chicks imprint onto first object they see (spade) can be reversed, can still form an attachment to its mother - not generalisable as study conducted on baby geese who may have different mechanisms of attachment to humans
What is another study that supports Bowlby
Metapelets in Israel supports idea that attachments are formed to the main caregiver who provides emotional support and comfort - MONOTROPY
Give a study that doesn’t support Bowlby
Schaffer and Emerson found 87% of babies formed multiple attachments to 2 or more caregivers - NOT MONOTROPIC
Bowlby monotropic theory - positive changes in the real world
- longer parental leave
- longer visiting hours for children in hospital
Bowlby monotropic theory - negative (unintended) consequences
- less women in work force
- women feeling guilted into staying at home to look after children due to fear of their absence would have negative implications for child’s development (right wing politicians)
Secure attachment style
~ happy to explore, uses mother as safe base
~ high separation anxiety, distressed
~ high stranger anxiety, distressed
~ caregiver is responsive to childs needs
~ positive and happy reunion
Insecure avoidant attachment
~ high willingness to explore, no safe base
~ low separation anxiety, no sign of distress
~ low stranger anxiety, fine with strangers and plays normally
~ caregiver behaviour is indifferent, isn’t responsive to needs
~ reunion is indifferent, little interest to caregiver returning
Insecure resistant attachment
~ unwilling to explore, cries
~ extreme separation anxiety, intense distress
~ extreme stranger anxiety, avoids, fears stranger
~ inconsistent care
~ reunion, approaches caregiver resists contact and pushes away
The strange situation -> Mary Ainsworth : sample
- controlled - overt - non participant observation
- studied 9-18 months old babies and their mothers
Mary Ainsworth : method
Observation divided into 8 scripted episodes (standardise across pps)
1. Mother + infant go into room -> measure safe base behaviour
2. Stranger enters room tries to talk + play with child -> stranger anxiety
3. Mother leaves room, leaving child with stranger -> separation anxiety
4. Mother returns into room + stranger leaves -> response to reunion
5. Mother leaves room, infant alone -> separation anxiety
6. Instead of mother returning, stranger returns trying to comfort/play with baby -> stranger anxiety
7. Mum re enters room + stranger leaves -> response to reunion
Mary Ainsworth : Results
70% SECURE ATTACHMENT
15% INSECURE RESISTANT
15% INSECURE AVOIDANT
Mary Ainsworth : findings
State findings for each attachment for Safe base, separation + stranger anxiety, caregiver behaviour, reunion
What is one weakness of Ainsworth study
All American, similar white middle class background
- sample has low population validity
- can’t generalise results to infants + mothers from other backgrounds
What are social norms
Rules + expectations about how we should behave ( varies across different cultures)
Ijzendoom + Kroonenberg : sample
- meta analysis of 32 studies
- 8 countries
- used strange situation method
Which 8 countries did Ijzendoom + Kroonenberg use
Germany, US, UK, Sweden, Israel,Netherlands, Japan, China
Ijzendoom + Kroonenberg : findings
Strengths of the strange situation
- Method is replicable
- Method is highly standardised, high control over extraneous variables = valid + reliable
- Results have been replicated across cultures in other studies
- Results are stable + reliable across time -> Mary Main looked at same children at 1 and 6 yrs old found they have the same attachment style both times
Weakness of strange situation
- Lab -> lack ecological validity
- Results can’t be generalised to other members of population -> lack population validity
- Culturally biased towards behaviours expected in western cultures
Grossman and grossman 1981
Takahashi 1990
Who came up with the Maternal deprivation theory
Bowlby
When children are deprived of an attachment figure:
- they never had a loving attachment figure during critical period
- they are separated from their loving attachment figure during critical period
Maternal deprivation theory says that damage is
Long lasting and irreversible
3 consequences of deprivation (long term separation)
- Impaired cognitive development = low IQ, poor language skills, difficulty with attention + memory
- Impaired emotional development = struggle to control emotions + form relationships
- Impaired behavioural development = deprived children behave badly, turn to crime, delinquency, violence
3 consequences of deprivation ( short term separation)
Protest = child becomes angry about being abandoned by main caregiver
Despair = child become sad + withdrawn + refuse comfort
Detachment = child reject main caregiver when reunited with them
Maternal deprivation theory study support names and method
Robertson and bowlby -> case study little john = separated from mother placed in nursery for 9 days, 17 months old
Robertson and bowlby findings:
- Little John experienced PDD model
- protest, cried for hours in nursery to get attention
- despair, curled up in corner of room sucked thumb refuse to eat and sleep
- detachment, parents picked him up, ignored them went to play with toys refused to look at or hold mum
- Refused to display affection to mother several months later -> effects of separation are long term caused damage permanently to little John supports bowlby
Evaluation of Robertson and bowlby
- case study , can’t be generalised to other children
- confounding variables, may influence johns behaviour so causal cause and effect relationship can’t be established
Outline method and hypothesis of 44 thieves study support of maternal deprivation
- Bowlby compared 44thieves to control group 44 non criminal children
- naturalistic exp
- conducted interviews in own clinic while working as psychiatrist treating teens with psychological disorders
- asked children to describe childhood focusing on whether they’ve been separated from attachment figure
Hypothesis = children deprived of attachment figure turned to delinquency
Findings of 44 thieves study
- 44 thieves group, 50% experienced separation from mothers in early life
- control group, 5% experienced separation from mothers in early life
- bowlby came up with term “psychopathy” to describe the thieves
- 44 thieves group, 32% had severe difficulty forming relationships with other ppl, displayed total lack of empathy/guilt for actions
- 86% labelled “affectionless psychopaths” had experienced separation from mothers in early life
Bowlby 44 thieves study: conclusion
Deprived of love of caregiver during early childhood makes children more likely to become delinquent in later life + suffer from affection less psychopathy
Evaluation of 44 thieves study
- interviews relied on self report, not always accurate + objective when describing feelings, attitudes, behaviours
- memory = unreliable, biased by leading questions + post event discussions not accurate
- natural experiment = can’t directly manipulate IV, lacks control over extraneous variables
- investigator effect, pps feel bowlby wanted them to say they experienced deprivation, may pretend to experience more deprivation in childhood then rlly did = demand characteristics
Limitations of Bowlby maternal deprivation theory
- Effects of deprivation can be reversed -> Koluchovas case study
- twins, 7yrs, severe deprivation, help of adopted parents, effects of twins deprivation reversed by adults both twins above average intelligence, good jobs + happy in relationships
- Ignores other factors affecting psychological development -> confounding variables can cause psychological damage to children, cause emotional distress (poverty, abuse, malnutrition) = establishing casual relationships between deprivation + psychological damage is difficult
- Oversimplified -> Michael Rutter : bowlby confused deprivation with privation
Deprivation
Child forms attachment to caregiver, which is then removed
Privation
Child never experiences an attachment figure
Institutionalised
Children grow up in institutions (orphanages/foster homes)
Name studies that looked at institutionalisation
- Hodges + Tizard (1989)
- Michael Rutter
Hodges + Tizard (1989) sample + method
~ 65 childeren, institution before 4months
~ natural experiment
~ 4 groups :
* remained in institution * returns to biological parents
* adopted early * control group = not institutionalised
Hodges + Tizard (1989) : Findings
-> adopted early = didn’t develop psychological damage
-> effects of privation can be reversed if placed in loving environment when young
-> kids who experienced privation + remained in institution/returned to biological parents experienced impaired emotional development
Does Hodges + Tizard support Bowlby
NO evidence against Bowlbys claim that effects of being deprived during critical period are irreversible
Romania 1960 background info
Leader : to boost economy, make it rich need to increase population so banned contraception + abortion, taxed ppl without kids.
-> ppl were poor + couldn’t afford care for kids so sent to Romanian institutes / orphanages
Michael Rutter : Romanian orphan study method
- longitudinal natural experiment
- 111 Romanian orphans brought into British homes
- 52 British kids adopted from British orphanages
- investigated cognitive, behavioural, emotional development
Rutter findings:
- Romanian orphans adopted BEFORE 6 months = good emotional development
- Romanian orphans adopted AFTER 6 months = long term emotional + cognitive impairment
- British children is played good emotional + cognitive development even if adopted after 6months
Rutter conclusions :
-> effects of privation can be reversed even if privation is severe as long as they’re introduced into loving homes from young age
-> longer experience of severe privation = worse long term outcomes
-> worse outcomes can be due to abuse + neglect that comes with privation + lack of attachment figure
Evaluation of research into institutionalisation
- longitudinal studies = attrition, pps decide stop taking part in research half way through -> underestimate negative effects of privation
- interviews = social desirability, pps give incorrect answers to appear socially acceptable + avoid negative judgements
Internal working model is..
Schema we build from attachments to parents that shapes understanding + expectations of future relationships
What is the continuity hypothesis
Internal working model continues to influence behaviours in adult relationships + imitate relationship with parents in future relationships with friends, partner, kids
What does continuity hypothesis state about 3 attachment type
SECURE - secure, trusting future relationships
INSECURE AVOIDANT - expect ppl not to show them love, be independent
INSECURE RESISTANT - expect ppl to be inconsistent with their love + act out for attention
Studies into continuity hypothesis
- Hazan + Shaver (1987)
- Mary Main
Hazan + Shaver (1987) sample and method
- self report * sent out 2 questionnaires in local newspaper
- volunteer sample
- sample 1 = 205 men + 415 woman age 14-52
- sample 2 = 38 men + 70 women
*Tested whether correlation between q1 (attachment with parents) + q2 (attachment with partner)
Hazan + Shaver (1987) sample and method
- self report * sent out 2 questionnaires in local newspaper
- volunteer sample
- sample 1 = 205 men + 415 woman age 14-52
- sample 2 = 38 men + 70 women
*Tested whether correlation between q1 (attachment with parents) + q2 (attachment with partner)
Hazan + Shaver (1987) findings
~ pps childhood attachment to parents influence romantic relationships
~ secure attachment to parents = secure romantic relationships, believed in love
~ insecure attachments to parents = less successful relationships + more lonely
Hazan + Shaver (1987) evaluation
- volunteer sample = not representative of gender population
- correlational study = can’t infer cause + effect, lack causation
- self report = social desirability bias + not accurate/ objective when answering
Mary Main (1985) method
- interview based
- asked questions about relationship with parents + with own children
- asked to explain attachment in 5 adjectives + describe why
- specialists grouped them into categories:
- erratic - unstable - unsteady - unpredictable - inconsistent
Mary Main (1985) findings
- attachment styles to parents correlated with attachment to own child
- %of adults displaying 3 attachment styles were similar to % found by Mary Ainsworth
Mary Main (1985) Evaluation
- responses may be inaccurate-> asked to recall, memory is unreliable
- social desirability bias -> not objective, lie to appear socially acceptable
- investigator effects -> pps behaviour influenced by attitudes, behaviours + expectations of researcher
