Attachment Flashcards
1
Q
Define:
1. Attachment
2. Caregiver
A
- Attachment = close emotional, reciprocal bond between two people, that endures over time
- Caregiver = person who provides care for a child
2
Q
Give three ways to recognise attachment
A
Proximity seeking behaviour: wanting to be close to caregiver. Have to make inferences cause babies cant really communicate feelings.
Separation distress: display anxiety and distress
Secure base behaviour: maintaining frequent contact with each other for security+safety
3
Q
Difference between reciprocity and interactional synchrony
A
Reciprocity = form of turn taking as a response to a different behaviour
Interactional synchrony = mirroring behaviour simulatanously
4
Q
Define reciprocity
Give a study for it
A
RECIPROCITY STUDY:
> Feldman and Eidelman (2007) : Found that from 3 months reciprocity becomes more frequent as form of communication. Referred to as an ‘alert phase’
Reciprocity = a form of interaction between infant and caregiver, where the actions elicit a response from the other. (Turn taking)
caregivers responsiveness and sensitivity affects quality of development
5
Q
What affects reciprocity
A
caregivers responsiveness and sensitivity in reciprocating behaviour affects quality of development
6
Q
Define interactional synchrony and
Give study
A
> Meltzoff and Moore (1997): examining interactional synchrony ( mirroring )
Using controlled observation, an adult model made 1/3 facial expressions where the babies mirrored the same expressions. There was a clear association between the infants and adults. Later found same findings in three day old infants.
Interactional Synchrony = mirroring behaviour and it happens at the same time
7
Q
Isabella (1989)
A
observes 30 mothers and babies.
Found that higher degrees of synchrony had a higher quality attachment.
Observed 30 mothers and their babies. Found that higher degrees of synchrony were linked with higher quality attachment.
More securely attached
8
Q
Meltzoff and Moore
A
> Meltzoff and Moore (1997): examining interactional synchrony ( mirroring )
Using controlled observation, an adult model made 1/3 facial expressions where the babies mirrored the same expressions. There was a clear association between the infants and adults. Later found same findings in three day old infants.
might suggest its innate as it from 3 days, so its maybe a survival adaptive process, as when an infant develops interactional synchrony with caregiver out aids their chance of survival
9
Q
Feldman and Eidelman (2007)
A
> Feldman and Eidelman (2007) : Found that from 3 months reciprocity becomes more frequent as form of communication. Referred to as an ‘alert phase’
Signal to caregiver that they are ready for interaction such as feeding, sleep, nappy, ill/discomfort.
10
Q
Difference between primary and secondary attachment figures
A
Primary = most intense
Secondary = additional support
11
Q
Primary attachment
A
= person to who an infant is most intensely attached. Child responds to most intensely at separation. Usually mothers, but this might be confounded by social roles.
12
Q
Secondary attachment
A
= person that an infant receives additional support from. They provide an emotional safety net.
13
Q
Schaffer and Emerson (1964)
A
Found attachment diff
identify that majority of infants do form an attachment with their mothers first ( at around 7 months )
Secondary attachments are to other family members aka father, become noticeable by 18 months, found by protest when that caregiver walked away - eg of separation anxiety
Founded the four stages of attachment
14
Q
What are three main ideas about different gender attachment roles
A
1: fathers important in a diff role
2: mothers are more important
3: gender/sex of parent is irrelevant its more the behaviour
15
Q
Give studies which would back up the opinion that fathers are more important but play a different role (3)
A
Geiger - fathers play is ‘more exciting’ than mums. Mums were more affectionate
Hrdy - fathers are less able to detect low levels of infant distress, could be cause of a lack of oestrogen
Grossmans - study of teens found that infant mother attachment was more important in developing quality of adolescent attachment but fathers play quality is important in quality of
16
Q
Geiger (1996)
A
> GEIGER (1996): fathers play interactions were ‘more exciting’ compared to mothers. Mothers interactions were more affectionate and nurturing,
17
Q
HRDY
A
fathers are less able to detect low levels of infant distress than mothers - could be oestrogen, : affects ability to detect emotions?
predisposed :
18
Q
Taylor et al (2000)
A
( Taylor et al 2000) : alpha bias, overestimating the difference between female and male behaviour
19
Q
grossmans (2002)
A
did a longitudinal study into their teens, finding that infant-mother attachment (not the infant father attachment) was important in determining the quality of adolescent attachment.
However, they found the father quality of play behaviour was important in determining the quality of these adolescent attachments.
Socially sensitive; might mean that fathers feel insecure and unimportant or mothers feel too much pressure?
20
Q
Field (1978)
A
> Field (1978) - filmed 4 month old babies interactions with primarry/secondary figures and found primary fathers spent more time smiling, synchronising and holding infants than secondary fathers. Shows that fathers can be more nurturing
Maybe it’s just about the role not the gender .
21
Q
Freeman (2010)
A
> Freeman et al (2010) : found that male kids are more likely to prefer their father as attachment figure than female kids.
more about the identification with figure instead of societal roles
22
Q
Schaffer and emerson (1964)
A
identify that majority of infants do form an attachment with their mothers first ( at around 7 months )
Secondary attachments are to other family members aka father, become noticeable by 18 months, found by protest when that caregiver walked away - eg of separation anxiety
Founded the four stages of attachment
23
Q
Give studies for opinion that sex/gender of parent are irrelevant but its more about what the parent DOES
A
> Field (1978) - filmed 4 month old babies interactions with primarry/secondary figures and found primary fathers spent more time smiling, synchronising and holding infants than secondary fathers. Shows that fathers can be more nurturing
Maybe its just about the role not the gender .
> Freeman et al (2010) : found that male kids are more likely to prefer their father as attachment figure than female kids.
more about the identification with figure instead of societal roles
24
Q
What did ‘Schaffer and Emerson’ aim to find and what was the findings and procedure
A
“Schaffer and Emerson (1964) study ” they developed four stage theory of attachment when primary and secondary attachments develop
60 Glaswegian babies, working class smilies, mother and babies came once a month for 12 months, 18 months
7 months - 50% showed separation anxiety
10 months - 80% formed an attachment, 30% with a secondary attachment
25
Name Schaffer adn Emersons four stages of attachment and the ages
1: asocial stage (first few weeks)
2: indiscriminate attachment (2-7 months)
3: specific attachment (7 months)
4: multiple attachment (8-12 months)
26
Asocial stage of attachment ( SCHAFFER AND EMERSON )
Stage 1: Asocial stage (first few weeks)
babies behaviour towards humans and non humans are fairly similar
There may be some preference to certain adults but in general are happier in human contact
No real attachment in this stage
Not asocial stage
27
Indiscriminate stage of attachment ( SCHAFFER AND EMERSON )
Stage 2: indiscriminate attachment (2-7 months)
Indiscriminately be comforted by anyone, display more social behaviour
Infants can recognise and prefer familiar adults
Prefer people over objects
28
Specific attachment stage ( SCHAFFER ADN EMERSON )
Stage 3: specific attachment (7 months)
Begin to show separation anxiety
Become anxious around strangers, has a specific attachment to a person usually the mother which might be confounded by social norms of mother being stay at home
This person becomes primary attachment figure , who responds most sensitively not the one who spends the most time with them : Schaffer and Emerson, and Isabella
29
Multiple attachment stage ( SCHAFFER AND EMERSON )
Stage 4: Multiple attachments (8-12 months)
Expand attachment behaviour to other adults they are familiar with, known as secondary attachments
Schaffer and Emerson: 1/3 of babies formed a secondary attachment formed a secondary attachment within a month of forming primary attachment
Nomothetic study ( applied conclusions generally to everyone, even tho it was only to one third of babies from the study )
30
What stage of Schaffers attachment is:
Behaviour towards non/ humans is similar
No real attachment here
May be preference but dont really care
Stage one
Asocial stage
First few weeks
31
What stage of Schaffers attachment is:
Comfroted by anyone
More social now
Infants can recognise and prefer adults
Prefer people over objects now
Stage 2
Indiscriminate attachment
2-7 months
32
What stage of Schaffers attachment is:
Begin to show separation anxiety
Anxious around strangers
Specific attachment to person ( usually mother but that can be confounding variable from social norms )
Stage 3
Specific attachment
7 months
33
What stage of Schaffers attachment is:
Expand attachment to other adults they are familiar with , secondary attachment
Schaffer and Emerson: 1/3 of babies formed secondary attachment between a month of a first one
Stage four
Multiple attachment
(8-12 months)
34
Strengths/weaknesses of Schaffer and Emerson Glaswegian babies study
Strengths
- economical implications: help people in relationships structure lives.
- longitudinal study : internal validity is high. Research method was strong, controlled and repetitive
Limitations
- ethnocentric bias: Glaswegian babies , unrepresentative to: different social classes, different cultures like collectivist, non Glaswegian ones. Low population validity. Van Ijzeedorn(1993) found that multiple attachments are formed from the get go in collectivist cultures.
- no application/reference to neurodivergent babies, lowers external validity as there isnt any application to people with different brains/functioning
- socially insensitive: negative implications of going back to majority stay-at-home mothers
- deterministic: environmentally reductionist: assumes stimulus + response processes only.
- deterministic : too much inference, we don’t know whether actions or babies are conscious/deliberate/ just random cause they are babies.
- reductionist: cause the questions were based on separation anxiety, which isnt the only thing that attachment is, its reducing the complex attachment too simply
Low internal validity: cause of social desirability bias - social norms ( all working class) could cause social desirability bias = confounding variables
Economic implications : creates a gender pay gap for some
Reductionist: Inferences are too used/relied on
Reductionist because reduces complexity of attachment to separation/stranger anxiety
asocial stage is completely inferred and based on mother/father report
35
What is the learning theory of attachment
Who developed it
- concept that babies are classically conditioned to be attached to humans if they are associated ( bring ) food, milk…
Dollard and Miller (1950) - cupboard love theory
- kind of like two process model
Classical conditioning: learning through association
Operant conditioning: learning through reinforcement or punishment (p/n)
More about the importance of food and who brings it
Operant conditioning;
Positively reinforces the behaviour of crying from baby, cause every time they cry they are comforted
Mum is negatively reinforced. Picking up baby and comforting it, takes away the crying. Reinforces the behaviour of picking it up
36
What is a theory against the cupboard love ( LEARNING THEORY )
Drive Reduction Theory: Hull (1943)
behaviourist theory that explains motivation
Theory identifies that we have primary and secondary drives
Primary drive: biological needs such as food water or warmth
Secondary drive: need for things that help us achieve our primary drives eg attachment to get food
mums are babies secondary drives
Therefore we are not conditioned to attach to mums it is an innate biological need for food that results in our attachment
37
Drive Reduction Theory: Hull (1943)
Drive Reduction Theory: Hull (1943)
behaviourist theory that explains motivation
Theory identifies that we have primary and secondary drives
Primary drive: biological needs such as food water or warmth
Secondary drive: need for things that help us achieve our primary drives eg attachment to get food
mums are babies secondary drives
38
Strengths/limitations of Drive reduction theory
2p
4c
Strengths
Plausible > founded in established scientific research of principles of behaviourism:
Face validity = it seems to study what it appears to, it seems to make sense.
Limitations
Environmentally Reductionist: reduces complex behaviours down to two processes ( classical > operant ) stimulus and then response. humans are more complex, impulsive, conscious. Means that its undermining the learning theory doesnt encompass the complexity of attachment. Too simplistic
Conditioning research (skinners rat, pavlovs dog) based on animals, which is based on inferences that animals are the same as us, are doing it unconsciously. They probably have less complex emotional/conscious brain processes.
Schaffer and Emerson: Glaswegian babies: four stages of attachment, which they found its the person whose most responsive, not feeds them/spends most time with them.
Isabella: higher level of interactional synchrony = higher level of attachment. Shows that the sensitivity is what is important.
39
harlows monkeys
Harlow’s monkeys:
Found physical comfort is more important than food
Measured:
Time spent with wire ‘monkey’ vs cloth ‘monkey’ mum.
Loud bang> cloth> no cloth
Food > on wire, but went to cloth
40
MacCallum and Golombok
people with lesbian parents develop no different
show its more about opinion 3 : behaviour of parent not sex
41
Dollard and Miller
1950) - cupboard love theory
links to phobias : Mowrers two process model
Classical conditioning: learning through association
Operant conditioning: learning through reinforcement or punishment (p/n)
More about the importance of food and who brings it
Operant conditioning;
Positively reinforces the behaviour of crying from baby, cause every time they cry they are comforted
Mum is negatively reinforced. Picking up baby and comforting it, takes away the crying. Reinforces the behaviour of picking it up
42
Harlows monkeys
(HULL)
testing the role of food and comfort in forming an attachment of baby monkey
Found physical comfort is more important than food
Measured:
Time spent with wire ‘monkey’ vs cloth ‘monkey’ mum.
Loud bang> cloth> no cloth
Food > on wire, but went to cloth
16 12 month old baby monkeys were read and they recorded time spent, feeding time, mother preference during stress with a loud noise.
Wire mother dispensed milk and cloth mum with no milk
Opposite
They preferred cloth mum in every situation, stretching to wire to grab food. When only wire mother was available they showed signs of stress, diarrhoea
Also greater exploration with cloth mom: more emotional security
Conclusion: comforts>food
43
Lorenz
Research on Geese imprinting: is it attachment?
Aim: scientifically test imprinting
Method:
Collected goose eggs, using random allocation he left half with mother goose and the other half left with Lorenz. Observes their behaviour.
Those who saw Lorenz first imprinted on him ( followed him ), those who saw goose mother first followed her.
Conclusion: geese form attachment though the process of imprinting
Lorenz also observed that all aviary ( flying ) that are mobile from birth form attachments through imprinting. Lorenz found a ‘critical period’ for imprinting which is 4-25 hours persisted over time and irreversible.
Some species that didnt imprint after a few hours, it couldn’t attach to anything.
Imprinting lead to determining sexual behaviours, animals will direct their mating preferences to those animals that they imprint on.
Pros
Cons
is it ‘attachment’ ? Attachment is a ‘close emotional reciprocal bond’, Lorenz cannot assume the geese have this bond and he might not either.
One weakness is that infant geese are mobile from birth and are able to function from hatching, whereas infant humans cant walk for months or function at all without a parent. Hard to compare two very different species
44
Harlows monkeys second variation
Pros/cons
Complete Isolation
variation where monkeys were places in complete isolation, blank cage with food for 3/6/12/24 months
All survived but all suffered, irreversible emotional social consequences including rocking or holding
One monkey died of emotional anorexia - didnt eat from depression
Pros
Practical application which helps identify factors in human neglect and abuse
Monkeys are closer to humans than geese
Cons
Cant really replicate in humans
45
Guiton et al (1966) -
- chickens imprint on ‘yellow washing up gloves’, and try to mate with it. Bit it wasnt irreversible and persistent like the critical period, but they changed and prefer mating with other chickens.
So maybes its innate but maybe the learning explanation is a better one.
Against Lorenz and Bowlbys critical period
46
Hazan and Shaver
Hazan and Shaver - love quiz. Found peoples attachment with own parents correlated with later romantic relationships
47
Bailey et al
Bailey et al (2007) - mothers who report poor attachment to their own mums, had poor utility attachment to their children. Supports Harlows monkeys (complete isolation version), Bowlbys Monotropic theory (internal working model)
48
Bowlbys monotropic theory
Eight supporting studies
A Snap Chat Makes Images
A - Adaptive
Attachments are adaptive, meaning they are innate, adaptive, more likely to survive. They are kept safe.
SUPOORTING STUDIES: Harlow, hull, dollard and miller
S - Social releases - secure base
Infants have social releases, unlocking innate tendency in adults to care for them.
For eg:
Physical: grabbing, baby faces,
Behavioural: crying cooing smiling,
SUPPORTING STUDIES: Ainsworth type of attachments,
C - Critical period
Infants must form attachment in this period of time, between 3-6 months.
SUPPPORTING STUDY: Lorenz, Schaffer and Emerson,
M - Monotropy
Only one very special attachment is formed, frequently the mother. (gender bias?)
This is called the monotropy
SUPPORTING STUDY: schaffer and emerson
I - Internal working model, a continuity hypothesis.
From the monotropy the infant forms an internal working model, and the infant then seeks out the same blueprint of attachment style. Healthy attachment style in monotropy means healthy attachment style in later relationships.
SUPPORTING STUDY: hazen and shaver, bailey et al
49
Ainsworth
People enjoy spicy sausage rolls
Outline study no pros/cons
Strange situation test - video of mother
Aim: To test attachment strength/ TYPE
Lab controlled structured observation not experiment.
Observation not experiment because IV wasnt manipulated
Structured observation : operationalised behavioural categories.
room with 2 chairs and toys, camera
5 behaviours they were observing: People Enjoy Spicy Sausage Rolls
Proximity seeking
Exploration an secure base behaviour
Stranger anxiety
Separation anxiety
Reunion behaviour
Had 7 episodes of different situations between stranger, infant and mother to find 5 behaviours
Results: three types of attachment
Secure Attachment - most common in UK
Generally had moderate behaviours, and was easily calmed in reunion behaviour
Insecure Avoidant - German most common (hard to get)
Had low proximity seeking, low stranger and separation anxiety.
Insecure resistant - clingy, needy wont leave you alone
High exploration
Ignore at reunion
Insecure Resistant
High proximity seeking, high stranger and separation anxiety
Low exploration
Hard to calm in reunion
50
Strange situation - Ainsworth pros/cons
1p
4c
2 studies against aswell
Pros/cons of the Strange Situation study
Pros
94% inter observer reliability, has to meet 80% to be reliable
Its reliable, they use a controlled observation with operationalised behavioural categories
Cons
- no reason why these behaviours occur, nature/nurture explanation only a classification and identification of symptoms
- Reductionist - in the study they mainly base on reunion behaviour which they cant do accurately and also you cant accurately base a whole theory on one behaviour
- OVERT DESIGN: Demand characteristics - the mum might’ve increased some behaviours because of being in a study. Social desirability bias, reducing internal validity.
- Ethnocentric bias( viewing all other cultures through the lens of your own): Takahashi (90) : found that Japanese infants are rarely separated from mothers, and strong separation anxiety and proximity seeking behaviour is a healthy response, but western observers would classify it as insecure resistant
- Main and Solomon (86) : suggest that Ainsworth missed an fourth type of attachment: ‘insecure disorganised’. Van Ijzendoorn classified 15% of his participants as insecure disorganised
Insecure disorganised - dont fit into any of three other types, show any behaviours
51
Main and Solomon (86)
suggest that Ainsworth missed an fourth type of attachment: ‘insecure disorganised’. Van Ijzendoorn classified 15% of his participants as insecure disorganised
Insecure disorganised - dont fit into any of three other types, show any behaviours
52
Two studies against Ainsworth same situation
- Main and Solomon (86) : suggest that Ainsworth missed an fourth type of attachment: ‘insecure disorganised’. Van Ijzendoorn classified 15% of his participants as insecure disorganised
Insecure disorganised - dont fit into any of three other types, show any behaviours
Ethnocentric bias( viewing all other cultures through the lens of your own): Takahashi (90) : found that Japanese infants are rarely separated from mothers, and strong separation anxiety and proximity seeking behaviour is a healthy response, but western observers would classify it as insecure resistant
53
What are three types of attachment according to Ainsworth
Secure Attachment - most common in UK (“healthy”)
Generally had moderate behaviours, and was easily calmed in reunion behaviour
Insecure Avoidant - German most common (hard to get)
Had low proximity seeking, low stranger and separation anxiety.
High exploration
Ignore at reunion
Insecure Resistant (clingy)
High proximity seeking, high stranger and separation anxiety
Low exploration
Hard to calm in reunion
54
Takahashi
Takahashi (90) : found that Japanese infants are rarely separated from mothers, and strong separation anxiety and proximity seeking behaviour is a healthy response, but western observers would classify it as insecure resistant
55
Van Ijzendoorn and Kroonenberg
investigating whether attachment styles are universal or dependant on cultural influences. If they are universal then it would mean that attachment types are biologically innate
meta analysis looking at results of 32 studies from 8 different countries (germany, GB, Netherlands, Sweden, Israel, japan, china, us)
Almost strange situations classifications.
Findings:
Generally, the most common attachment type is secure from 50-70% common.
And in the UK its that countries most highest type
Second most common: Insecure avoidant
Most common in germany
Insecure resistant: LEAST COMMON
Most common in (1)Israel, (2)Japan (3)China
There was around 150% more variation WITHIN cultures rather than between cultures.
Conclusion:
Although these variations do exist, they are small differences.
Secure attachment being overall most common, supports it being the ‘healthiest’. (Does frequency equivilate to health/correct)
Insecure attachments:
Individualist cultures = insecure avoidant
Collectivist = insecure resistant
56
Jin et al (2012):
compared proportion of attachment types in Korea to other studies
strange situation was used to assess 87 children
Proportion of secure and insecure was similar to most countries that most infants are secure.
All insecure ones align with van ijzendoorn and kroonenberg.
57
Pros/ cons of Van Ijzeendorn and Kroonenberg
1p
4c
Support:
- Jin et al (2012): compared proportion of attachment types in Korea to other studies
strange situation was used to assess 87 children
Proportion of secure and insecure was similar to most countries that most infants are secure.
All insecure ones align with van ijzendoorn and kroonenberg.
Limitation - biased assessment
strange situation is an American study- ethocentric to western beliefs.
Makes assumptions that secure attachment is the most healthy type
Takahashi (90) found that Japanese infants, who are rarely separated from other show high PSB and separation anxiety, which is healthy in japan. But not healthy for western culture.
27/32 studies in the meta analysis are carried out in individualistic cultures which lowers population validity of the study.
58
Deprivation
Lost primary attachment
59
privation
Never formed attachment in first place with caregiver
60
Maternal deprivation
Maternal deprivation = emotional and intellectual consequence of separation between a child and primary carer
61
Consequences of maternal deprivation: According to Bolwby
One problem with it
1. Mental retardation (low IQ) which is seen in a lack of skills needed for daily life, eg sitting up c rawling, walking, potty training.
Goldfarb (‘47) - those in institutions had a lower IQ than those who were fostered
Problem:
This might be reductionist, as low IQ might be influenced by multiple complex variables and so this correlation may be too simplistic and not a real cause and effect
2. Affectionless Psychopathy - person with the inability to experience guilt remorse and empathy.
62
Bowlbys maternal deprivation study - 44 thieves
Conclusions no eval
Aim: test role of maternal deprivation in development of criminals.
Method:
Group 1: 44 juvenile thieves from child london clinic.
Group 2: 44 non criminals
Carried out interviews with criminal and mother to identify for signs of affectionless psychopathy and maternal deprivation.
Lacks of affection guilt or empathy
conclusions
Criminals were more likely to have affectionless psychopathy, and those were also more likely to be deprived.
Therefore maternal deprivation increases your chances of affectionless psychopathy and criminal behaviour.
63
Evaluation of Bowlbys maternal deprivation - 44 thieves
6c (2 are studies)
Cons
- correlation not causation, also retrospective questions ( to mother: how was your relationship with child growing up). Meaning it shows a lack of internal validity.
- Lewis (44) failed to replicate with larger sample: Shows Bolwbys study is unreliable
- Bowlby was the interviewer: high investigator bias> results might have lower internal validity because we dont know that his behaviour confounds the results (behaviour facial expressions etc)
- Koluchova (76) - 2 Czech twins where isolated in a cupboard for a year and a half (5 1/2 to 7y). They developed fine and made healthy attachments. Shows that even though it was in Bowlby critical period (monotropic theory) they can still form attachments
- Rutter: states that Bowlby fails to distinguish whether privation and deprivation.
Deterministic pov from Bowlby: no free will, and suggests that any child with some deprivation might beleive they’re become criminals. This is just a wrong concept cause of koluchovas results on the Czech twins.
-Also means any psychopaths can escape moral culpability if they can just say it was something that was bound to happen because of their childhood. It contradicts justice system in place.
Some confounding environments on the independent variable of deprivation in infancy.
lacking other figures in life - lack of stimulation/attention
Peer group: orphanage, area,
Food
64
Koluchova
- Koluchova (76) - 2 Czech twins where isolated in a cupboard for a year and a half (5 1/2 to 7y). They developed fine and made healthy attachments. Shows that even though it was in Bowlby critical period (monotropic theory) they can still form attachments
Against Hazen and Shaver, Bailey et al, Harlow, Bowlbys maternal deprivation
65
Rutter
Rutter: states that Bowlby fails to distinguish whether privation and deprivation.
Deterministic pov from Bowlby: no free will, and suggests that any child with some deprivation might beleive they’re become criminals. This is just a wrong concept cause of koluchovas results on the Czech twins.
66
Institutionalisation
the effects of living in an institutional setting, eg; hospital, foster care, orphanage
Setting where there is little emotional one to one care provided.
67
What are the effects of institutionalisation in accordance to Bowlby
Physical underdevelopment
Low IQ ( maternal deprivation)
Poor parenting
Internal working model
Disinhibited attachment - insecure attachment where they are equally friendly with everyone even strangers. Attention and clingy ness from anyone.
Emotional functioning ( affection less psychopathy )
Quasi autism
68
What is the Bucharest early intervention project based on
Romanian orphans - ‘90s Romania the former president ceauscu required women to have five children. Because the people couldn’t afford to take care of so many kids, majority of them were sent to overcrowded orphanages in poor conditions.
69
Bucharest Early intervention project (2005)
Aim : does institutionalisation affect what type of attachment is formed
Attachment in 100 kids from 12-31 months in care
Control group: 50 never in care.
Triangulation: when lots of different methods are used to test for something, in this case it was strange situation and interviews being used
74% from control group had secure attachments - supports Van Ijzeendorm Kroonberg and Ainsworth findings
19% from institutions were secure
65% from institutions were disinhibited attachment style ( Unpredictable confusing behaviour ) seek attention from anyone, no stranger anxiety,
- Shows that institutionalisation does make a secure attachment less likely
70
Triangulation:
Triangulation: when lots of different methods are used to test for something, in this case it was strange situation and interviews being used
71
disinhibited attachment style (from Bucharest early intervention project)
( Unpredictable confusing behaviour ) seek attention from anyone, no stranger anxiety,
72
Rutters English and Romanian Adoptee: ERA (2011)
Aim: can good care make up for early poor experiences in institutions
Procedure: Romanian adopted to Britain and then Britain adopted in Britain
165 Romanian , 111 adopted in Britain before 2 y o
Control group - 52 british children adopted before 6 months
Physical emotional and cognitive development was checked at the ages of 4,6,11,15
Found all outcomes were worse after 6 months.
Cognitive - adopted before 6 months had IQ of 102, those up after 2 years had 77
Emotions - disinhibited attachment style - attention seeking clingy..
Physical - delayed development, smaller, weighed less
Conclusions
all outcomes were worse if adopted after 6 months
Effects last at least till 16
73
Pros/cons of Rutters ERA : English and Romanian adoptee study
3p
3c
PROS
- Longitudinal study - higher internal validity
- Romanian orphan study has real life application
- Aligns with critical period concept, Ainsworth
CONS
- The Romanian orphanages had different bad conditions : extraneous situational variables, mental stimulation, sanitary conditions : cant be generalised to british orphanages for eg
- Natural experiment: cannot naturally allocate or test IQ before study
- Those that were adopted in the ERA study, couldv’e already had a high IQ anyway. Confounding variable
74
Does early attachment affect later outcomes: YES, studies in agreement
5
- Rutters ERA study : critical period importance, also this was a study from 4y-16y
- Harlows monkeys, importance of comfort, maternal deprivation. Complete isolation: dead babies
- Grossmans - quality of mother attachment determined adolescent quality attachment , father play
- Bwolbysinternal woking model, same blueprint of attachment style.
- Hazan and Shaver (love quiz) : peoples parent relationships form your future romantic relationships. 56% of respondents to love quiz printed in newspaper were securely attached and more likely to have good long lasting relationships. 25% were avoidant and reported more jealousy and intimacy fear.
75
Does early attachment affect later outcomes? No - studies against.
7 studies
- Czech twins is wrong cause its a tiny sample size no population validity, case
-Guiton Ichickens who tried to imprint failed and were fine) cant compare quicker development of animals to infant humans
- Kagans temperament hypothesis. - some are born needy/just in certain ways.
- Internal working model ( bowlbys monotropic theory) is hard to test. The techniques also used are like conscious like the Hazan and shaver quiz, but IWM is not conscious cognitive blueprint.
- correlational evidence isnt causation proof.
- Deterministic. (But some infants can recover so its not entirely deterministic)
- Lots of extraneous variables;es
76
Kagan
Kagans temperament hypothesis. - some are born needy/just in certain ways.
