Attachment Flashcards

1
Q

(AO1) caregiver infant interactions

A

*reciprocity. The importance of reciprocity was demonstrated by Brazleton et al, who found that children as young as 2 weeks old can attempt to copy their caregiver, who in turn responds to the child’s signals two-thirds of the time (Feldman and Eidelman 2007)
*interactional synchrony - same action simultaneously
*Meltzoff and Moore (1977) - observed infants as old as 2 weeks. Adults displayed 1 of 3 faces and there was a significant association with babies mirroring the actions.

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
2
Q

(AO3) caregiver infant interactions

A

*Strength. Filmed observations. Can be analysed by additional researchers at a further date. Can establish greater inter rater reliability and also babies don’t change due to being filmed.
*Limitation. Hard to interpret babies behaviour. Infants lack co-ordination and it is hard to know if this is on purpose on just natural.

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
2
Q

(AO1) stages of attachment (Schaffer and Emerson 1964) *****

A

*60 babies from Glasgow. visited each month for 18 months. tested separation anxiety and stranger anxiety. found sensitive responsiveness more important than time spent with the baby. Also found stages of attachment:
*Asocial 0-2 months. For the 1st few weeks, humans and objects are similar but babies begin to develop preference of being with humans
*Indiscriminate 2-7 months. Clear they prefer human company. Like familiar human however accept cuddles from anyone and don’t show stranger/ separation anxiety
*Specific 7-1 year. generate primary attachment figure. evidence of stranger and separation anxiety
*Multiple - build secondary attachments

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
2
Q

(AO3) stages of attachment (Schaffer and Emerson 1964) *****

A

*Good external validity. Many of the babies are observed and recorded by parents/ guardians therefore the baby does not act any differently as they might do if a researcher came in.
*COUNTERPOINT - Mothers are unlikely to be objective observers. might be biased or might miss important information or even forget.
*Poor evidence for asocial stage. young babies are immobile and lack coordination therefore might not be able to show stranger/separation anxiety which could also explain why it is difficult for mothers to observe behaviour.

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
3
Q

(AO1) role of the father *****

A

*fathers very rarely primary attachment figure.
*Schaffer and Emerson (1964) found that majority of babies first attachment was with mother and only 3% was with the father. However, found that 75% of babies formed secondary attachment figure to father after 18 months
*Grossman et al (2002) longitudinal study found that mothers are mainly involved with emotional development and fathers are involved with play and stimulation

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
4
Q

(AO3) role of the father *****

A

*Fathers show they can be primary caregiver. Field found that primary caregivers were always more attentive to infants and this was regardless of gender. Therefore, in the modern day with more women working, fathers can still become primary caregivers.
*McCallum and Golombok (2004) showed that children do not always act different when in 2 parent heterosexual relationships therefore shows that gender is not the most significant
*Could be due to elements of biology. women have higher levels of oestrogen and lower testosterone than men making them potentially be more caring which puts biological restraints on the theory/idea.

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
4
Q

(AO1) animals studies (Lorenz and Harlow)

A

*Lorenz (1952) Geese. control/experimental group. identified critical period
*Harlow (1958) rhesus monkeys. cloth and wire surrogate mothers. wire dispensed food however monkeys preferred cloth demonstrating contact comfort greater than food.

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
5
Q

(AO3) animals studies (Lorenz and Harlow)

A

*Strength for Lorenz. Vallortigara (1995) supports Lorenz. Chicks were exposed to different shapes. they would imprint on a specific shape and then follow the original imprint
*Strength for Harlow. Howe (1998) claimed it helped social workers and psychologists understand lack of bonding experience may be a risk factor in child development. Allows intervention to prevent bad outcomes.
*Limitation of both. Hard to generalise animals to humans. Although monkeys have mammalian attachment system, human brain system is still more complex to generalise

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
6
Q

(AO1) explanations: learning theory

A

*Dollard and Miller (1950) ‘cupboard love’
*classical conditioning - UCS+UCR. NS+UCS=UCR. CS=CR
*operant conditioning - consequences. positive/negative reinforcement

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
7
Q

(AO3) explanations: learning theory

A

*limitation. Harlow research does not support this. the rhesus monkeys considered comfort more important than food.
*lack of support from baby studies. Schaffer and Emerson (1964) found babies would tend to form main attachment to mother regardless of who fed them. Isabella et al (1989) found that high levels of interactional synchrony predicted the quality of factors. these factors aren’t related to food.

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
8
Q

(AO1) explanations: bowlby monotropic theory

A

*first 2 and a half years as critical period for psychological development. inevitable there would be psychological harm if a child was deprived form emotional care in this critical period. demonstrated in bobbly 44 thieves study. maternal deprivation linked to affectionless psychopathy as 12/14 affectionless psychopaths showed some form of deprivation
*monotropy = one carer. Bowlby said you form one special intense attachment and if this is deprived then emtional and intellectual developmental deficits
*Internal working model. create mental schema for relationships throughout childhood as it is perception of attachment with primary caregiver. dysfunctional working memory will lead to dysfunctional relationships.
*social releasers = e.g. cute baby face which unlocks innate tendency for care

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
9
Q

(AO3) explanations: bowlby montoropic theory

A

*supporting evidence for the importance of internal working models by Bailey et al. (2007) Through observation of 99 mothers and the recording of their children’s
attachment type using the Strange Situation, the researchers found that poor, insecure attachments coincided with the mothers themselves reporting poor attachments with their own parents. Therefore, this suggests that internal working models are likely to be formed during this first, initial attachment and that this has a significant impact upon the ability of children to become parents themselves later on in life.
*Monotropy may not be evident in all children. For example, Schaffer and Emerson found that a small minority of children were able to form multiple attachments from the outset. This idea is also supported by van Izjendoorn and Kronenberg, who found that monotropy is scarce in collectivist cultures where the whole family is involved in raising and looking after the child. This means that monotropy is unlikely to be a universal feature of infant-caregiver attachments, as believed by Bowlby, and so is a strictly limited explanation of some cases of attachments.

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
10
Q

(AO1) types of attachment (strange situation) *****

A

*Ainsworth and Bell (1969) strange situation. controlled observation of American infants in a playroom with 2 way mirror. tested for separation anxiety, stranger anxiety, joy at reunion, exploration, proximity seeking
*Findings. Type A - insecure avoidant (20-25% British babies), type B - secure attachment (60-75%), type C insecure resistant (3%)

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
11
Q

(AO3) types of attachment (strange situation) *****

A

*Strength. Good inter rater reliability. Bick et al (2012) tested inter rater reliability for strange situation and found agreement on attachment type in 94% of the cases. Could be due to the controlled condition which increases internal validity.
*Limitation. Not valid for different cultural contexts. Strange situation developed in Britain and USA. Hard to generalise as babies might have different responses in different cultures. Takahashi (1986) found babies in Japan showed high levels of separation anxiety but also lots were diagnosed as insecure resistant. Therefore, they did not get separation anxiety due to attachment style, it was due to the rare nature of experience in Japan where mothers and babies don’t split.
*Ethical considerations. 20% children cried desperately at one point. could cause emotional and psychological harm to the child for a simple study. However, it is important to make a cost-benefit analysis as to whether ethical costs are lower.

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
11
Q

(AO1) cultural variations in attachment *****

A

*Izjendorn and Kronenberg (1988) studied secure, insecure avoidant and insecure resistant across different cultures using strange situation. Conducted meta analysis of 32 studies across 8 countries. 75 % secure attachments in Britain. 50% China. Individualistic countries had higher insecure resistant than collectivist countries.
*Simonella et al demonstrated that the proportion of securely attached children in Italy was only 50%, which was lower than expected and lower than the predictions formed across a variety of different cultures. The researchers suggested that these changes may be due to changing cultural and social expectations of mothers - more mothers are working and are choosing to use professional childcare to enable them to do so, thus decreasing the likelihood that their children will be able to form a secure attachment with a consistent primary caregiver.

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
12
Q

(AO3) cultural variations in attachment *****

A

*Large confounding variables. Different methodology in different countries due to difficultly to replicate the environment. size of room, amount of toys. Less visible proximity-seeking due to room size might make a child more likely to be classified as avoidant
*Mi Kyoung Jin et al (2012) compared proportions of attachment types in Korea to other studies. Strange situation used to assess 87 babies. Findings of insecure to secure was similar to most countries which supports finding of Izjendorn and Kronenberg
*Indigeneous researchers. Those from same background as participants. For example, Tikihashi (1986) is Japanese and his work was included in Ijzendorn and Kronenberg. This can increase the chance of generating bias through sterotyping. This reduces validity.

13
Q

(AO1) bowlby: maternal deprivation

A

*critical period. first 2 and a half years, attachment is crucial for later emotional and intellectual development.
*theory of maternal deprivation. (deprived from emotional care)
*affectionless psychopathy - inability to feel guilt or strong emotion towards others.
*Bowlby (1944) 44 thieves study. found 14 were affectionless psychopaths. 12/14 had early deprivation therefore link can be made with maternal deprivation and affectionless psychopathy

14
Q

(AO3) bowlby: maternal deprivation

A

*Lewis et al disagreed with Bowlby’s conclusion that affectionless psychopathy and maternal deprivation caused criminality. Through collecting qualitative data from interviews conducted with 500 juveniles, the researchers found no link between maternal deprivation and a difficulty in forming relationships in later life. This suggests that Bowlby may have made incorrect causal conclusions.
*methodology issues. Bowlby was researcher and could be biased. Also, Bowlby also based his theory of maternal deprivation from interviews collected from war-orphans. This does not control for the confounding variable of poor quality care in orphanages or post-traumatic stress disorder, which may have had a larger influence on the children’s development rather than simply maternal deprivation.
*

15
Q

(AO1) Romanian orphan studies: effects of institutionalisation *****

A

*Rutter (2011) followed group of 165 Romanian orphans. been adopted by UK. Aim was to see how good care could influence early experiences in institutions. age 4,6,11,15,22,25. compared to control group of 52 children adopted from within the UK.
*Rutter findings - half showed signs of delayed intellectual development when first brought into the uk. MEAN IQ OF THOSE ADOPTED BEFORE 6 MONTHS WAS 102, COMPARED TO 86 FOR THOSE BETWEEN 6 MONTHS AND 2 YEARS AND 77 AFTER 2 YEARS. Many children adopted after 6 months also showed signs of disinhibited attachment.
*HODGES AND TRIZARD (1989)

16
Q

(AO3) Romanian orphan studies: effects of institutionalisation *****

A

*studying the effects of the Romanian orphans has improves psychological understanding of the effects of early institutional care and how to prevent the worst of these effects. lead to improvement in the effort to accommodate such children in foster care/ have them adopted.
*Strength. fewer confounding variables. many orphan studies involved before ww2 had confounding variables of trauma and it is hard to take this away from institutional care. However, Rutters study involves orphans with loving parents who just couldn’t afford them.

17
Q

(AO1) early attachment on later relationships

A

*Bowlby (1969) said that the 1st relationship with carer acts as mental representation for current and future relationships.
*relationships in childhood - Kerns (1994) said securely attached babies tend to form best childhood relationships but insecure attachment later have friendship difficulties
*relationships in adulthood - McCarthy (1999) studied 40 adult women who had been assessed as a baby. Those who were assessed as securely attached had the best adult and romantic relationships. insecure resistant struggled with friendships and insecure avoidant struggle with intimacy
*Internal working model

18
Q

(AO3) early attachment on later relationships

A

*supported by Bailey (2007). They found that the majority of women (out of the 99 studied) had the same attachment classification both to their babies and their own mothers. supports the idea of continuity, as suggested by Bowlby. The internal working models that we develop in response to our first attachment to our primary attachment figure contain our perceptions of what a normal relationship looks like, and so we seek out such relationships in accordance with our internal working model.
*confounding variables. associations between attachment and later development is affected by confounding variables. Could be due to parenting style or maybe genetics but it is not clear to just make an assumption. can be shown by Fraley who conducted a meta-analysis of studies- found correlations of up to 0.50 between early
attachment types and later relationships. This demonstrates the link between some attachment types and adult relationships being less clear than they were with other attachment types. This in turn suggests that some attachment types are more unstable over time, and so reduces the confidence that can be placed in Bowlby’s theories of attachment and continuity.