Attachment Flashcards
Infant-Caregiver Interactions
Feldman and Edelman (2007) – mothers can pick up on and respond to baby’s alertness 2/3 of the time
Finegood et al. (2016) – varies with skill of mother and external factors such as stress
Brazelton et al. (1975) – described interaction as a ‘dance’, active involvement
Meltzoff and Moore (1977) – interactional synchrony, adult displayed 3 facial expressions or gestures, baby filmed and labelled by independent observers, more likely to mirror the adult than chance would predict
Isabella et al. (1989) – observed 30 mothers and babies together and assessed degree of synchrony, high levels of synchrony associated with high quality mother-baby attachment
Feldman (2012) – point out ideas like synchrony and reciprocity are simply given names to patterns of behaviour, no particular usefulness in understanding child development
Isabella et al. (1989) – interactional synchrony predicted development of good quality attachment
Crotwell et al. (2013) – 10-minute Parent-Child Interaction Therapy improved interactional synchrony in 20 low-income mothers and their pre-school children
Schaffer’s Stages Of Attachment
Schaffer and Emerson (1964) – 60 babies (31 male and 29 female), 1950s Glasgow working class families, observation done by mother, report to researchers every month for the first year and at 18 months
Van Izjendoorn (1993) – multiple attachments from a very early age are the norm in collectivist cultures, not generalisable, lacks cultural validity
Role Of The Father
Schaffer and Emerson (1964) – fathers as secondary attachment figures, 3% cases of father as primary attachment figure, 27% joint primary attachment figure, 75% form attachment after 18 months
Grossman et al. (2002) – distinctive role of father, longitudinal study, quality of fathers’ play with babies related to fathers’ quality of adolescent attachments, play and stimulation vs emotional development
Field (1978) – filmed 4 month-old babies’ face-to-face interaction with PC mothers, SC fathers and PC fathers, PC fathers and mothers spent more time smiling, imitating and holding babies, fathers have the potential to be the more emotion-focused primary caregiver
McCallum and Golombok (2004) – studies consistently show that children raised in single-parent and same-sex parent families do not develop differently from two-parent heterosexual families
Animal Studies Of Attachment
Lorenz (1952) – imprinting, randomly divided a clutch of geese eggs, half hatched with mother goose in natural environment, half hatched in incubator and first moving object they see is Lorenz
Lorenz (1952) – sexual imprinting, peacock and tortoise
Harlow (1958) – 16 baby monkeys, 2 wire model ‘mothers’, one condition milk was dispensed from plain-wire mother and second condition milk dispensed from cloth-covered mother
Regolin and Vallortigara (1995) – chicks hatched and exposed to moving shapes like triangles and rectangles, range of shapes moved in front of them but followed original shapes the closest
Seebach (2005) – computer users exhibit ‘baby duck syndrome’, attached to first computer operating system
Howe (1998) – help social workers and clinical psychologists understand how a lack of bonding experience can cause later disruption in child development
Explanations Of Attachment: Learning Theory
Dollard and Miller (1950) – Learning theory of attachment
Sears et al. (1957) – primary drive of hunger may be generalised over to the primary caregiver, attachment is the secondary drive
Schaffer and Emerson (1964) – babies tended to form main attachment with mother regardless of whether they usually fed them
Isabella et al. (1989) – interactional synchrony indicated the quality of attachment, no reference or association to feeding
Feldman and Eidelman (2007) – babies play active roles in interactions forming attachments, learning theory suggests babies play passive role
Hay and Vespo (1988) – parents teach children to love them by demonstrating (modelling) attachment behaviours (hugging)
Explanations Of Attachment: Bowlby’s Monotropic Theory
Bowlby (1988) – monotropy (law of continuity and law of accumulated separation), social releasers, critical period, internal working model
Schaffer and Emerson (1964) – significant minority of babies also formed multiple attachments, main attachment has particularly strong influence, does not necessarily indicate a difference in quality of attachment
Brazelton et al. (1975) – evidence for social releasers as adults responded to babies social releasers, ignoring social releasers caused babies distress and some curled up and laid motionless
Bailey et al. (2007) – assessed attachment relationships of mothers and their 1-year-old babies, measured attachment between mothers and their primary caregivers, mothers with poor attachment with PC were more likely to have poorly attached babies
Kornienko (2016) – genetic differences in anxiety and sociability affect social behaviour in babies and adults
Burman (1994) – laws of continuity and accumulated separation may be set up to blame mothers for everything that goes wrong for their child in the future, especially mothers that work
Types Of Attachment
Ainsworth et al. (1978) – 60-75% type B secure attachment, 20-25% type A insecure-avoidant attachment, 3% type C insecure-resistant attachment, Procedure: Baby encouraged to explore, Stranger enters and interacts with caregiver and approaches baby, Caregiver leaves, Caregiver returns and stranger leaves, Caregiver leaves, Stranger enters, Caregiver enters
McCormick et al. (2016) and Kokkinos (2007) – type B attachment indicates better achievement in school and less involvement in bullying
Ward et al. (2006) – securely attached babies tend to have better mental health as adults
Kagan (1982) – genetically-influenced anxiety levels could account for variations in attachment behaviour in the strange situation and later development
Bick et al. (2012) – inter-rater reliability of 94%, confident that it is not judged subjectively
Takahashi (1986) (1990) – babies displayed very high levels of separation anxiety in Japan, disproportionate number classified as insecure-resistant, unusual experience of separation from mother in Japan
Main and Solomon (1986) – type D attachment, disorganised
Cultural Variations In Attachment
Van Ijzendoorn and Kroonenberg (1988) – 32 studies, 15 USA, 1990 children, 75% secure for Britain, 50% secure for China, insecure-resistant rates above 25% for China, Japan and Israel, Germany highest proportion of insecure-avoidant
Simonelli et al. (2014) – 76 babies aged 12 months, 50% secure, 36% insecure-avoidant
Mi Kyoung Jin et al. (2012) – 87 babies, proportion of insecure and secure attachments similar to other countries, more insecure-resistant attachment, 1 case of insecure-avoidant
Grossman et al. (1981) and Takahashi (1986) – psychologists from same cultural background as participants
Morelli and Tronick (1991) – outsiders from America studying child-rearing styles and attachment in the Efé of Zaire
Bowlby’s Theory Of Maternal Deprivation
Bowlby – “mother love in infancy and childhood is as important for mental health as vitamins and proteins for physical health”
Goldfarb (1947) – lower IQ in children who remained in institutions than those fostered, higher standard of emotional care
Bowlby (1944) – 44 thieves study, criminal teenagers accused of stealing, interviewed for signs of affectionless psychopathy (lack of guilt and empathy), families interviewed, control group of non-criminal but emotionally-disturbed youths, 14/44 affectionless psychopaths, 12/14 had prolonged separation from mothers in first 2 years, 5/30 thieves had experienced separations, 2/44 of control experienced long separations
Lévy et al. (2003) – separating baby rats from their mother for as long as a day had permanent effects on their social development
Rutter (1981) – 2 types of early negative experience, deprivation vs privation
Koluchová (1976) – Czech twins, severe emotional and physical abuse from 18 months to 7 years, severely damaged emotionally but received excellent care in their teens and recovered fully, sensitive period
Lewis (1954) – 500 young people, no association between early separation and later psychopathy
Gao et al. (2010) – poor quality maternal care associated with rates of psychopathy in adults
Romanian Orphan Studies: Institutionalisation
Rutter et al. (2011) – 165 Romanian orphans, assessed at 4, 6, 11, 15, and 22-15 years, 52 UK adopted as a control, mean IQ 102 when adopted before 6 months, mean IQ 86 when adopted between 6 months and 2 years, mean IQ 77 when adopted after 2 years
Beckett et al. (2010) – differences remained at 16
Kennedy et al. (2016) – ADHD more common in 15-25 year-olds
Zeanah et al. (2005) – Bucharest Early Intervention, 95 Romanian children, 12-31 months, control of 50 non-institutionalised children, 19% securely attached vs 74% securely attached, 44% disinhibited attachment vs 20% disinhibited attachment
Langton (2006) – improved understanding of effects of institutional care and how to prevent effects
Influence Of Early Attachment On Later Relationships
Kerns (1994) – securely attached babies tend to go on to form best quality childhood friendships vs insecurely attached babies with later friendship difficulties
Myron-Smith and Smith (1987) – 196 children in London, 7-11, secure unlikely to be involved in bullying, insecure-resistant as bullies, insecure-avoidant as victims
Hazan and Shaver (1987) – cupboard love quiz, 56% secure, 25% insecure-avoidant, 19% insecure-resistant, good and long-lasting relationships vs jealousy and fear of intimacy
Fearon and Roisman (2017) – early attachment consistently predicts later attachment, emotional well-being and attachment to own children
Becker-Stoll et al. (2008) – longitudinal study, 43 individuals, followed from age 1 to 16, no evidence of continuity
Clarke and Clarke (1998) – likely that influence of early attachment is probabilistic, not a guarantee of the future, no one is doomed to not find love or be a bad parent
