attachment Flashcards
feldman and eidelman 2007
mothers pick up on and respond to their babies alertness 2/3 of the time
Meltzoff and Moore 1977
observed beginings of interactional synchrony in babies 2weeks+. adult displayed 1/3 facial expression or 1/3 gestures, babies response filmed and labelled by independent observers, likely to mirror actions.
isabella et al 1989
observed 30 mothers and babies together and assessed the degree of synchrony, also assessed quality of attachment. high levels of synchrony assosiated w better attachment.
feldman 2012
ideas like synchrony simply give names to patterns of observable behaviours, can be observed but may not be useful in understanding child development, doesnt tell us purpose of behaviours.
schaffer and Emerson 1964
studied attachment behaviours of babies, longitudinal observation of 60 Glasgowbies, mothers recorder behaviour in diary and researchers visited every month for year then 18m, questioned about behaviour. 4 attachment types
asocial
indiscriminate
specific
multiple
Schaffer and Emerson ROF
3% fathers first sole attachment at 7 months. 27% father joint attachment. 75% babies formed attachment to father by 18months.
Grossmann et al 2002
longitudinal study, babies attachments studied until teens, looked at parents behaviour and relationship to quality of baby’s later attachments to other people. quality with mothers related to attachments in adolescence. fathers less important.
fathers play with babies related to quality of adolescence attachment, distinctive role, play and stimulation.
Field 1978
filmed 4 month babies in face to face interaction with primary caregiver mothers, secondary caregiver fathers, primary caregivers.
both primary caregivers spent more time smiling, imitating and holding babies than secondary caregiver fathers, reciprocity and interactional synchrony, process of attachment formation.
fathers have potential.
McCallum and Golombok 2004
children from single parent and same sex parents dont develop differently from children in 2 parent heterosexual families.
fathers may not have distinctive role.
Lorenz 1952
observed imprinting, divided clutch of eggs, half hatched with mother goose in natural environment, other in incubator where first moving object was Lorenz, followed first moving object - imprinting.
critical period for imprinting.
Lorenz case study
described peacock, reared in reptile house, firstmovin objects they saw were giant tortoises. only showed direct courtship to the tortoises, sexual imprinting.
Regolin and Vallortigara 1995
supports imprinting (Lorenz), chicks exposed to simple shape combinations that moved, all shapes shown and they followed original one most closely, innate mechanisms.
harlow 1958
infant monkeys preferred cloth-covered mother to a wire one regardless of which provided milk.
monkeys without mother dysfunctional as adults
critical period - 90 days to attach to mother figure or no attachment.
Howe 1998
lack of bonding is risk factor in child development, can intervene to prevent poor outcomes, real world application Harlow.
dollard and miller 1950
caregiver infant attachment can be explained by learning theory, emphasises importance of attachment figure as provider of food.
Sears 1957
drive reduction theory, as caregivers provide food, the primary drive of hunger becomes generalised to them, attachment is secondary drive learned by association between caregiver and satisfaction of primary drive.
Bowlby 1988
monotropic theory, childs attachment to first caregiver is different and more important than the others.
law of contunuity, law of accumulated separation.
social releasers, critical period, internal working model
Brazelton et al 1975
observed babies trigger interactions with adults using social releasers, adults instructed to ignore, babies became distressed.
role of social releasers in emotional development, important in attachment process.
Bailey et al 2007
attachment relationshios in 99 mothers and 1yo babies compared to mothers attachment to own PAF.
mothers with poor attachment to own PAF more likely to have poorly attached babies.
supports bowbly internal working model
korienko 2016
genetic differences in anxiety and sociability affect behaviour in both babies and adults, could also impact parenting ability
Ainsworth and Bell (1970)
The Strange Situation, aim to observe key attachment behaviours as a means of assessing the quality of baby’s attachment to a caregiver.
controlled observation
proximity seeking, secure base, stranger anxiety, seperation anxiety, reunion response.
Ainsworth et al 1978
distinct patterns of child behaviour.
1.secure attachment - B, 60-75% British babies
2. Insecure-avoidant - A, 20-25% babies
3. Insecure- resistant - C, 3%
Wilson and Smith 1998
assessed attachment type and bullying involvement using questionnaire 196 children in London.
secure- not involved
avoidant- victims
resistant - bullies.
Ward et al 2006
babies that have type B attachment tend to go onhaving better mental health in adulthood.
kagan 1982
genetically inflenced anxiety levels could account for variations in attachment behaviour in the strange situation and later development.
SS may not measure attachment.
Bick et al 2012
tested inter-rater reliability for SS, trained observers, agreement on attachment type in 94% of cases, controlled conditions and behaviours esy to observe.
objective
Ijzendoorn and kroonenberg 1988
cultural variations in attachment, meta-analysis of 32 studies in 8 countries, found more vairation of attachment with same country than between countries, most B.
individualist- type C smililar to SS
collectivist - rates of C above 25%.
Silmonelli et al 2014
76 babies, 12months
50% secure
36% insecure avoidant
increase in no mothers of young children who work long hours and need professional childcare
SS not temporally valid
Jin et al 2012
Korea, SS used 87 babies
similar results
more inscecure resistant than avoidant
japan similar in izjendoorn study, similar child rearing styles.
Goldfarb 1947
founf lower IQ in children whohad remaines in institutions as opposed to those who were fostered and had higher standard of emotional care.
Bowlby 1944
44 thieves study, link between AP and MD. thieves interviewed for signs of AP, families interviewed.
compared to control group, emotionally disturbed teens.
14/44 thieves AP
12/14 MD
30/44 experienced separations
2/44 control MD
Rutter 1981
distinction early -ve experience
deprivation- loss of PAF after attachment developed.
privation- failure to form any attachment in the first place (institutionalised)
long tern result of deprivation more due to privation
goldfaarbs children prived, not deprived.
Koluchova 1976
Czech twins, experienced sever physical and emotional abuse 18m-7yo, both recieved excellent care and recovered fully when teens.
lasting harm not inevitable, critical period more sensitive period.
Rutter et al 2011
followed 165 romanian orphans, ERA, adopted by families in UK.
development assessed ages 4,6,11,15 and 22-25 years.
control group 52 british adoped children
arrival- delayed intellectual development, undernourished
adopted before 6m iq 102,
adopted 6m-2y was 77, also showed disinhibited attachment.
Zeanah et al 2005
Bucharest Early Intervention project.
assesed attachment using SS in Romanian children 12-31months, 90% instition care
compared to control group not adoptees.
74% control group secure type
19% insitutionalised group
44% disinhibited attachment.
Hazan and Shaver 1987
association between attachment and adult relationships.
analysed 620 replies to a love quiz printed american local newspaper
section 1- current relationships
section 2- general love experience
section 3- choose best suited statement
56% securely attached - good relations
25% avoidant
19% resistant - both avoidant showed jealousy and fear of intimacy.
attachment reflected in romantic relations.
McCarthy 1999
40 adult women, assessed when babies to esablish early attachment type, those securely attached as babies had best adult relationships, insecure resistant had problems maintating relationships.
avoidant struggled with intimacy.
Clarke and Clarke 1998
influence of early attachment is probabilistic, insecure attachment doesnt invariably cause increased risk of later developmental problem.
