Attachment Flashcards
Care-giver infant interactions A01
- reciprocity = two way interaction of fulfilling needs
- Interactional Synchrony = mirroring of behaviours
Care-giver interactions A02
- Belsky = more reciprocal = more secure
- Melzoff and Moore = infants at 2 weeks display IS (innate)
- Condor and Sander = IS evident in observation of parent child interaction
Care-giver interactions A03
Good
- consistent evidence
- practical appl.
Bad
- Cultural Bias
- Klaus and Kennel - field exp. (skin-to-skin contact)
Stages of attachment (Schaffer) A01
- Asocial (3m) - Indiscriminate (8m) - Specific (8+) stranger anx. - Multiple (10+)
- Role of the father = mother cares / nurtures - father = rough ad tumble play
Stages of attachment (Schaffer) A02
- Schaffer and Emerson = 60 Glasgow babies -sensitive responding most imp. - 65% PA mom / 3% dad / 87% multiple
- Camras = 3m infant smiles more at familiar
- Grossman = Longi study - male fathers = subsidiary role / less imp.
Stages of attachment (Schaffer) A03
Methodology = GOOD as
- observation / SR = qualitative - ecological validity
Methodology = BAD as
- retro/ social desirability
GOOD = supp.
BAD = poor temporal validity 1960s - father / alpha bias - androcentrism
Animal Studies in Attachment AO1
ETHOLOGY = extrapolation
- Harlow = wire food monkey vs cloth comfort = contact comfort / sensitive responding pref.
- Lorenz = imprinting / sensitive period
Animal Studies in Attachment A02
- Harlow = 22hrs on cloth mother // ran to her when stimulated by stress toy
- Lorenz = 13-16hrs post hatch = imprinting = BOWLBYS sp = 1-3 years - control group
- Immelmann = Zebra finches = hatched with Bengalese finches – pref to mate with B not Z. – Long term
Animal Studies in Attachment A03
GOOD
- practical appl. - implications on childcare / fostering etc.
BAD
- extrapolation - oversimplification
- poor ethics - not replicable
- Guiton = imprinting = no irreversible? - chicken rubber gloves
Explanations for Attachment A01
- Bowlby Monotropy: bio predis. / evolut. / adaptive/ survival - social releasers / secure base / crit p/ IWM / CH
- Learning theory D/M: tabula rasa - CC / OC
Explanations for Attachment A02
-LT
Shaffer and Emerson = 39% PA to the one who fed them
Harlow = pref for cloth over food
- M
Ainsworth = SR / secure base
Hazan and Durett = secure = more exploration
Explanations for Attachment A03
GOOD
= Bowlby is influential
= research supp. for CH / IWM (SIMP/ H/S)
= useful
= scientific
BAD
= alternate exp. Kagan Temperament Hyp.
= evolutionary theories less falsifiable - but conclusions drawn from it = useful
Ainsworth - Classification A01
- child and parent security of exploration – stranger and parent stranger anxiety – stranger and child– parent comforts reunion – parent leaves separation anxiety – parent comforts.
Secure = 70% / Avoidant = 20% / Resistant 10%
Ainsworth - Classification A02
Ainsworth = observation – 106 American children – 12 -18m old 70-20-10 (S/A/R)
Main = Longi study - 100% sec babies same 6 years later (75% for avoidant)
Ijendoorn and Kroonenberg = MA 32cc - 8 c - secure = 65% US best type for development
Ainsworth - Classification A03
GOOD
- amazing replicability (Main) est. reliability
- controlled environment - no ev’s
- practical appl. = Cooper (Circle of security projects)
BAD
- Cultural bias - ethnocen / etic / GG / T (also IK = less sec in collectivist cultures)
Bowlby’s Theory of Maternal Deprivation / institutionalisation A01
MD = dep = developmental adjustment (ST = ADDIDDAS) (aggression / Delinquency / Depression / Dependency etc.) LT = delinquency
Institutionalisation = disinhibited form (indiscriminate attachment) Inhibited (isolated / selfish)
Bowlby’s Theory of Maternal Deprivation / institutionalisation A02
- Bowlby (44 thieves): 22 aged 5-11 / 22 aged 12-16 + 44 controls
- matched (tested IQ + interview (w parent) interviewed parents
14 – affectionless psychopaths with 12 experienced long MD before 5yrs
Robertson and Bowlby: PROTEST DESPAIR DETACHMENT model (parent in hospital) – 3 stage response
Robertson and Robertson: Hospitalisation – fostered 4 – 5 child in nursery – adapted poorly 4 were fine
Rutter et al: natural quasi experiment – 165 children from Romanian institutions – 111 adopted pre 2 / 54 adopted by 4 / 52 control adopted before 1
Bowlby’s Theory of Maternal Deprivation / institutionalisation A02
GOOD
= Supp research (Hodges and Tizard - no love instit. = 65% agg seek attention.)
= relatively influential - good for practical appl.
BAD
= Bowlby method = poor
= Rutter MD reassess IofW = situational
= Individual diff. in PDD - age environment / econ
Bowlby’s Theory of Maternal Deprivation / institutionalisation A03 - CONCLUSION
Conclusive statement: Bowlby overestimates effects of Deprivation but both deprivation and privation are now classified as risk factors for later maladjustment in later life
Influence of Early attachment A01
IWM = cognitive representational structure – develops expectations of self (Markus / Cross) / others (Main) / relationships influenced by attachment –
retain info = conscious but unconsciously influenced by IWM
CH = how attachment style = changes future relationships
Influence of Early attachment A02
- Simpson: I-C-A-A = years = interviews from peers etc. = Secure = higher social competence than insecure
- Hazan and Shaver: 600+ from newspaper – secure = closer / avoidant = don’t need love / resistant = change a lot + fear of separation
- McCarthy: 40 women = insecure = avoidant less successful in love
Influence of Early attachment A02
GOOD
- supp research
- est. sense of reliability
- grounded in sound theoretical ideas
BAD
= Correlational longi- not causal
Cultural Bias
Small selective US samples = not generalisable
Self-selecting samples = polemic/ extreme answers
Retrospective
Deterministic
