Attachment Flashcards
(AO1) caregiver infant interactions
*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.
(AO3) caregiver infant interactions
*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.
(AO1) stages of attachment (Schaffer and Emerson 1964) *****
*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
(AO3) stages of attachment (Schaffer and Emerson 1964) *****
*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.
(AO1) role of the father *****
*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
(AO3) role of the father *****
*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.
(AO1) animals studies (Lorenz and Harlow)
*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.
(AO3) animals studies (Lorenz and Harlow)
*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
(AO1) explanations: learning theory
*Dollard and Miller (1950) ‘cupboard love’
*classical conditioning - UCS+UCR. NS+UCS=UCR. CS=CR
*operant conditioning - consequences. positive/negative reinforcement
(AO3) explanations: learning theory
*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.
(AO1) explanations: bowlby monotropic theory
*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
(AO3) explanations: bowlby montoropic theory
*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.
(AO1) types of attachment (strange situation) *****
*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%)
(AO3) types of attachment (strange situation) *****
*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.
(AO1) cultural variations in attachment *****
*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.