Attachment Flashcards
caregiver-infant interactions + AO3
reciprocity- from around 3 months, responding to one anothers actions
Brazleton describes it as a dance
interactional synchrony- Meltzoff and Moore found at around 2 weeks , mirroring actions, observed with camera, inter rater reliability, double bind
Feldmen describes it as the coordination of micro level behaviour, alert phase, 3 months
Isabella et al, 20 mothers, high levels of synchrony = better attachment
AO3
:) hard to know whats happening as they’re infants as based on hand movements and expressions
:)usually filmed = controlled procedure
:( Feldmen, synchrony simply behaviour occurring at the same time
:(socially sensitive
role of the father + AO3
Schaffer and Emerson found majority of babies attach to mothers first, only 3% dads
27% joint first
75% secondary attachment
Hrdy -biologically determinded
Grossman, longitudinal
study - mothers more important than fathers for teenage years, fathers play is more important, different role
Field, fathers as PGC - when fathers take on this role they adopt behaviours more typical of mothers e.g smiling, imitating, holding
McCallum and Gocombok, same sex families don’t develop differently
AO3
:(different research questions, some interested in role as secondary attachment, some as primary
:(undermines ideas of fathers having a key role in attachment, e.g same sex
:( no clear answer
:( economic implications for motherd
Schaffer and Emerson attachment stages
Asocial (first few weeks) - similar behaviour towards objects and people
Indiscriminate (2-7months) - preference to people but same towards all
specific (around 7months) - stranger and separation anxiety occurs - 65% mother
multiple (by 1 year) - secondary attachments
Schaffer and emerson study + AO3
60 Glaswegian babies from wc families
visited evey month for one year then again at 18 months
self report about stranger and separation anxiety
50% separation anxiety 25-32 weeks
attachment was the caregiver most interactive towards baby
AO3
:) external validity, observations made by parents in natural setting
:) longitudinal
:( problem with how multiple attachments assessed - Bowlby get distressed when playmate leaves but not attached to them
:( self report
Lorenz + AO3
divided 12 grey gosling eggs, left half to hatch naturally and half to hatch in an incubator with him
upon hatching Lorenz was first moving objects incubator half saw
upon hatching all placed together to see who they would follow, incubator group followed and imprinted on Lorenz and the other half imprinted on their mother
critical period for imprinting = few hours after hatching
sexual imprinting = desirable characteristics for a mate
-peacock imprint on giant tortoise, attempted direct courtship to tortoise
AO3
:( birds are not humans
:) Guiton et al , sexual imprinting on rubber gloves
:( Guiton et al, later learnt to mate with their own - not long lasting
Harlow + AO3
16 rhesus monkeys with 2 wire model ‘mothers’
1- food dispenser mother
2- cloth covered mother
monkeys preferences was measured
preference for cloth mither was clear even if monkeys starved
consequences= as adults monkeys were aggressive, less sociable, neglected and even killed offspring
critical period = 90 days
AO3
:) practical application - social work understand risk of child abuse
:( ethics
:( generalisability HOWEVER, monkey’s = biological similarities to children
Learning theory + AO3
Dollard and Miller
importance of food - cupboard love
classical conditioning, associate food with pleasure and therefore the person who feeds them
UCS (food) - UCR (pleasure)
caregiver starts as NS but becomes CS
operant conditioning- crying to get fed
caregiver negative reinforcement- picking baby up to stop crying
hunger = primary drive (innate)
attachment = secondary drive (learned by association)
AO3
:( animal studies, harlows monkeys
:( schaffer and emerson, pcg not always person who fed
:( ignores factors linked to attachment e.g reciprocity
:( socially sensitive
Bowlby + AO3
attachment = innate and formed for survival and protection
monotropy
law of continuity - more time better
law of accumulated separation - less time worse
social releasers e.g crying to encourage attention
critical period = 2yrs
internal working model
AO3
:) brazleton social releasers when ignored babies curled up motionless
:( schaffer and emerson significant minority that formed multiple attachments at 7month mark
:( socially sensitve e.g mothers going to work
Ainsworth + AO3
strange situtaion PESSR
controlled lab observation, 2 way mirror
episodes
1-child encouraged to explore
2-starnger enters
3-caregiver leaves
4-caregiver returns, stranger leaves
5-cargiver leaves
6-stranger returns
7-caregiver returns
type B (secure) 60-75%
-happy to explore but seeks proximity
-shows moderate anxieties
-requires and accepts comfort on reunion
type A (avoidant) 20-25%
-explores with no proximity seeking
-no anxieties
-doesn’t require comfort on reunion
type C (resistant) 3%
-high proximity seeking
-high anxieties
-resists comfort
AO3
:)predicts future development, secure = success at school, resistant = bullying
:) inter rater reliability 94% agreement
:( culture bound e.g Japanese rarely separated from mothers
Cultural variation + AO3
Van Ijzendoorn and Kroonenberg
32 studies of ss, 8 different countries
secure most common overall but ranged e.g 50% China 75% Britain
intraculture variation = more prominent e.g Japan more IR than avoidant
individualist cultures - resistant rates similar
this wasnt the same for collectivist cultures e.g China as rates were above 25& and avoidant reduced
varaiations between studies within same country were 150% greater than between countries
e.g USA 49% vs 90% secure
Simonelli
76 12month olds using SS, wanted to see if attachments still matched previous Italy studies
50% secure 36% avoidant (lower secure than previous) - due to mothers working
had been change
Takashi
60 mc japaanese
0 IA
32 IR
68 S
90% had to stop alone infant stages as became too anxious (ethics)
AO3
:)Large sample
:( compares countries not cultures - unrepresentative
:( ss bias to american culture
:( temperament
Maternal deprivation + AO3
continuous emotional care from mother is essential
mother love at infancy is as important for mental health as vitamins
separation = not physically in presence
deprivation = losing emotional care as a result of separation
30 months critical period for substitute emotional care otherwise psychological damage is inevitable
result of prolonged deprivation = low IQ
links to affectionless psychopathy (inability to experience guilt)
44 thieves
44 delinquent teenagers
all interviewed for affectionless psychopathy characteristics
14/44 = affectionless psychopaths
12/14 = prolonged separation from early age
AO3
:( Goldfarb, sources of evidence = flawed, Bowbly carried out interviews himself knowing what he was looking for
:( Lewis replicated with 500, early separation did not predict criminality
:) animal studies, Levy et al rats = permanent effect on social development
Romanian orphans + AO3
Rutter et al
165 Romanian orphans who experienced very poor conditions before being adopted in Britain
tests extent of which good care can make up for poor early experiences in institutions compared with 52 british adopted children
physical cognitive and emotional development assessed at 4, 6, 11 and15 years
frequency of disinhibited attachment related to age of adoption:
- after 6months old = clingy, attention seeking
- this rare in children before 6 months
IQ
before 6m =102
6m - 2y = 86
after 2 y = 77
supports view of sensitive period in development of attachments
AO3
:) practical applications, improvements in care system
:( generalisability, conditions were so bad it may not reflect general situations of deprivation
:(long term effects still ongoing so incomplete
Early attachment on later relationships + AO3
internal working model
Hazan and Shaver 620 ‘love quiz’ in local usa newspaper
assessed 3 aspects
1- current and most important relationship
2- general love experiences
3- attachment type
56% secure (good long lasting relationships)
25% IA (jealous and fear of intimacy)
19% IR
AO3
:( Clarke and clark, influence exaggerated
:(IWM are unconscious
2 effects on institutionalisation
disinhibited attachment - equally friendly and affectionate towards people they know well or who are strangers
damage to intellectual development = often show signs of mental retardation
Bucharest early intervention project
Zeanah et al
used ss to assess attachment in 95 institutional cared children
compared to control group of 50 children
19% institutionalised group = securley attached
65% classified with disorganised attachment
