attachment Flashcards
Caregiver-infant interactions
There is reason to have some doubt about the findings of research on the facing page because of the difficulties in reliably testing infant behaviour. Infants’ mouths are in fairly constant motion and the expressions that are tested occur frequently(tongue sticking out, yawning, smiling). This makes it difficult to distinguish between general activity and specific imitated behaviours. To overcome these problems Meltzoff and Moore measured infant responses by filming infants and then asking an observer (who had no idea what behaviour was being imitated) to judge the infants’ behaviour from the video.
This research highlights the difficulties in testing infant behaviour, but also suggests one way of increasing the internal validity of the data.
Caregiver-infant interactions
An important feature of interactional synchrony is that there is some variation between infants.
Isabella et al. (1989) found that more strongly attached infant-caregiver pairs showed greater interactional synchrony Heimann (1989) showed that infants who demonstrate a lot of imitation from birth onwards have a better quality of relationship at three months. However, it isn’t clear whether the imitation is a cause or an effect of this early synchrony.
This research therefore shows that there are significant individual differences but doesn’t indicate the cause of the differences
Caregiver-infant interactions
Another method used to test the intentionality of infant behaviour is to observe how they respond to inanimate objects.
Abravanel and DeYong (1991) observed infant behaviour when ‘interacting’ with two objects, one simulating tongue movements and the other mouth opening/closing. They found that infants of median age 5 and 12 weeks made little response to the objects. This suggests that infants do not just imitate anything they see - it is a specific social response to other humans
The development of attachment
The sample was biassed in a number of ways.First, it was from a working-class population and thus the findings may apply to that social group and not others. Second, the sample was from the 1960s. Parental care of children has changed considerably since that time. More women go out to work so many children are cared for outside the home, or fathers stay at home and become the main carer. Research shows that the number of dads who choose to stay at home and care for their children and families has quadrupled over the past 25 years (Cohn et al, 2014).
Therefore, if a similar study to that of Schaffer and Emerson was conducted today, the findings might well be different.
The development of attachment
There are important differences between cultures in terms of the way people relate to each other.
In individualist cultures (such as Britain and the US), each person in the society is primarily concerned with their own needs or the needs of their immediate family group. In contrast collectivist cultures are more focused on the needs of the group rather than the individuals, with people sharing many things, such as possessions and childcare. It follows that we would expect multiple attachment to be more common in collectivist societies. Research supports this. For example, Sagi et al. (1994) compared attachments in infants raised in communal environments (Israeli kibbutzim) with infants raised in family-based sleeping arrangements. In a kibbutz children spend their time in a community children’s home cared for by a metapelet; this includes night-time. Closeness of attachment with mothers was almost twice as common in family-based arrangements than in the communal environment.
This suggests that the stage model presented on the facing page applies specifically to individualist cultures.
The development of attachment
The data collected by Schaffer and Emerson may be unreliable.
This is because it was based on mothers’ reports of their infants. Some mothers might have been less sensitive to their infants’ protests and therefore less likely to report them. This would create a systematic bias which would challenge the validity of the data
Animal studies
Lorenz
A number of other studies have demonstrated imprinting in animals.
For example, Guiton (1966) demonstrated that leghorn chicks, exposed to yellow rubber gloves while being fed during their first few weeks, became imprinted on the gloves. This supports the view that young animals are not born with a predisposition to imprint on a specific type of object but probably on any moving thing that is present during the critical window of development. Guiton also found that the male chickens later tried to mate with the gloves, showing that early imprinting is linked to later reproductive behaviour. Therefore, Guiton’s findings provide clear support for Lorenz’s original research and conclusions.
Animal studies
Lorenz
There is some dispute over the characteristics of imprinting.
For many years the accepted view of imprinting was that it was an irreversible process, whereby the object encountered was somehow stamped permanently on the nervous system. Now, it is understood that imprinting is a more ‘plastic and forgiving mechanism’ (Hoffman, 1996). For example, Guiton (1966) found that he could reverse the imprinting in chickens that had initially tried to mate with the rubber gloves. He found that, later, after spending time with their own species, they were able to engage in normal sexual behaviour with other chickens.
This suggests that imprinting may not, after all, be so very different from any other kind of learning. Learning can also take place rapidly, with little conscious effort, and is also fairly reversible.
Harlow
One criticism that has been made of Harlow’s study is that the two stimulus objects varied in more ways than being cloth-covered or not.
The two heads were also different, which acted as a confounding variable because It varied systematically with the independent variable (mother being cloth-covered or not). It is possible that the reason the infant monkeys preferred one mother to the other was because the cloth-covered mother had a more attractive head.
Therefore, the conclusions of this study lack internal validity
Harlow
The ultimate aim of animal studies is to be able to generalise the conclusions to human behaviour.
However, humans differ in important ways - perhaps most importantly because much more of their behaviour is governed by conscious decisions. Nevertheless, a number of studies have found that the observations made of animal attachment behaviour are mirrored in studies of humans. For example, Harlow’s research is supported by Schaffer and Emerson’s findings (on the previous spread) that infants were not most attached to the person who fed them.
This demonstrates that, while animal studies can act as a useful pointer in understanding human behaviour, we should always seek confirmation by looking at research with humans.
Explanation of attachment:learning theory
One strength of learning theory is it can explain some aspects of attachment. Infants do learn through association and reinforcement, but food may not be the main reinforcer. It may be that attention and responsiveness from a caregiver are important rewards that assist in the formation of attachment. Such reinforcers were not part of the leaning theory account. It may also be that responsiveness is something that infants imitate and thus leam about how to conduct relationships
Learning theory may not provide a complete explanation of attachment but it still has some value
Explanation of attachment:learning theory
The main limitation of learning theory as an explanation for attachment is that it suggests that food is the key element in the formation of attachment.
There is strong evidence to show that feeding has nothing to do with attachment. Famously, the study conducted by Harlow (1959), described on the previous spread, showed that infant rhesus monkeys were most attached to the wire mother that provided contact comfort, or food. Although Harlow’s study was with animals, it is supported by Schaffer and Emerson’s research
These research studies therefore suggest that the learning explanation is oversimplified and ignores other important factors such as contact comfort
Explanation of attachment:Bowlby’s theory
Attachment is clearly important in emotional development, but the question is whether it is critical for survival.
Bowiby suggested that attachments develop when the infant is older than three months. This is very late as a mechanism to protect infants, In our distant ancestors it might have been vital tor infants to become attached as soon as they are bom - after young monkeys cling tenaciously to their mother’s fur. The age of attachment may be Inked to features of a species’ life. Human infants don’t need to cling on - mothers can carry their babies. However, when human infants start crawling (from around six months), attachment is vital and that is when attachments develop in humans This therefore supports Bowlby’s view that attachment is adaptive
Explanation of attachment:Bowlby’s theory
According to Bowlby it should not be possible to form attachments beyond the important critical period between three and six months.
Psychologists have studied children who fail to form attachments during this period Evidence from Rutter et al (which we review on page 86) shows, that Bowlby’s claim is true to an extent it appears less likely that attachments will form after this period, but it is not impossible. The developmental window is one where children are maximally receptive to the formation of certain characteristics or behaviour, but nevertheless such developments can take place outside this window.
For this reason researchers now prefer to use the term ‘sensitive period rather than ‘critical period.
Explanation of attachment:Bowlby’s theory
The multiple attachment model proposes all attachments are simply integrated into one single internal working model.
This appears to contradict Bowlby’s idea of monotropy. However, the two models may not be very different. Secondary attachments, in Bowlby’s theory, do contribute to Social development, but healthy development requires one central person higher than all the others in a hierarchy. Research on infant-father attachment, for example, suggests a key role for fathers as secondary attachments and in social development (Grossmann and Grossmann, 1991). Prior and Glaser (2006) conclude, from a review of research, that the evidence still points to the hierarchical model.This therefore supports Bowlby’s concept of monotropy
