Attachment Flashcards
Caregiver infant interactions
- Reciprocity (response)
- Interactional synchrony (mother and infant interact that their actions mirror one another-Meltzoff and Moore, and Isabella et al)
Attachment figures
- Schaffer and Emerson-attatched to mother then secondary attachment by 18 months (75% of babies)
- Grossman-Infant attachment with father wasn’t’t related to attachment in adolescent but quality of play affected it (fathers play a role in stimulation not nurturing)
- Field- Primary caregiver fathers spent time nurturing (level of responsiveness matters not gender)
Infant attachment-evaluation
Strengths:
-Good validity due to high levels of control (both mother and infant observed, from different angles)
Weaknesses:
-Observing infants is hard to interpret
-Don’t tell us why or how things occur
-Role of father is seen as primary and secondary depending on researcher
-Can’t tell why fathers don’t become primary attachments (hormones vs traditional roles)
-If fathers have a distinct role, people without fathers should be different
-Studies on working mothers are socially sensitive
Schaffer and Emerson’s study
60 babies from Glasgow (31M 29F) visited every months for first year and 18 months, asked mothers about separations (separation and stranger anxiety)
Schaffer and Emerson’s study-evaluation
Strengths:
-Good external validity due to natural setting
-Longitudinal study with regular observations so high internal validity
Weaknesses:
-Limited sample
-problems with studying asocial stage as babies are immobile
-Conflict on multiple attachments as Bowlby suggest that primary comes first, others suggest that collectivist cultures develop multiple attachments
-Measuring attachment was invalid, just because baby is distressed doesn’t mean that they’re attached (Bowlby showed attachment to playmates)
-Only used simple behaviour to measure attachment
Stages of attachment
- Asocial stage-few weeks, limited social interaction but happy when with people
- Indiscriminate attachment-2-7 months, preference for people, recognise familiar adults but don’t show stranger anxiety
- Specific attachment-7 months, attached to primary attachment figure and show separation anxiety
- Multiple attachments-secondary attachments with other adults
Lorenz’s study
Randomly divided goose eggs, half with mother and half hatched in incubator
-incubator-followed Lorenz, mother-followed the mother goose
Imprinting-birds attach and follow the first object they see
Critical period-time when imprinting takes place, afterwards goose don’t attach themselves
Sexual imprinting-peacock imprinting tortoises only showed courtship behaviour towards tortoises
Lorenz’s study-evaluation
Weaknesses:
-Animal studies can’t be generalised to humans
-Guiton et al-chickens imprinting on gloves still preferred other males
Harlow’s study
- 16 monkeys with 2 ‘mothers’, one with wire and one soft, milk given by either one
-monkeys seek comfort from the soft mother-contact comfort - followed monkeys with maternal deprivation-more aggressive, less sociable, less mating, bad mothers
-critical period
Harlow’s study-evaluation
Strengths:
-Important in understanding human attachment, showed contact comfort not from being fed
-Practical value, helped social workers understand lis factors in child neglect
Weaknesses:
-unethical as monkeys suffered
-Animal studies can’t be applied to humans
Learning theory and attachment
- Classical conditioning-food is neutral (unconditioned) stimulus that gives pleasure (unconditioned response) but over time the caregiver becomes associated with food, food becomes conditioned stimulus. Seeing the caregiver produces conditioned response of pleasure
- Operant conditioning-repeating behaviour depending on consequence (reinforced)
Crying-response from caregiver (social suppressor behaviour)-repeated-parent receives negative reinforcement as crying stops - Drive reduction-hunger is a primary drive, attachment is a secondary drive (learned from association between caregiver and satisfaction of primary drive)
learning theory-evaluation
Strengths:
-Conditioning could explain some aspects of development
Weaknesses:
-Animal studies (Lorenz and Harlow) showed that animals don’t get attached to food givers
-Ignores other factors such as reciprocity and interactional synchrony
-Schaffer and Emerson’s study-primary attachment to biological mothers even feeding was someone else
-hay and Vespa’s social learning theory-social behaviour acquired due to imitation, parents teach love by attachment behaviour (hug, compliments, etc)
Bowlby’s monotropic theory
Law of continuity-should be constant and predictable
Law of accumulated separation-every separation adds up
Social releasers
Critical period (sensitive period) before being attached
Internal working model-child forms a mental representation of a ‘relationship’ and therefore affects later relationships with others
Bowlby’s monotropic theory-evaluation
Strengths:
-Brazleton et al-parents ignored interactional synchrony (social releasers)-babies responded strongly
-Baily et al-assessed 99 mothers w babies on quality of attachment to their mother and baby, pos correlation (supports Bowlby that it’s passed
Weaknesses:
-socially sensitive
-Schaffer and Emerson found that babies can form multiple attachments
-Temperament (child’s genetic personality) may play part as some babies are more sociable than others
Ainworth’s study
-Controlled observation, checked proximity seeking, exploration (secure based behaviour), stranger/separation anxiety, response to reunion
-Child and caregiver in a room and explored (exploration), stranger comes (stranger anxiety), caregiver leaves (separation/stranger anxiety), stranger leaves and caregiver returns (reunion behaviour and secure base), caregiver leaves (separation anxiety), stranger returns (stranger anxiety), caregiver returns (reunion behaviour)
FINDINGS
-Secure attachment (type B): explore but favours caregiver, moderate anxiety, seeks comfort in reunion (60%)
-Insecure avoidant (type A): explore but no secure base behaviour, no anxiety/comfort (20%)
-Insecure resistant (type C): explore less, big anxiety but refuse comfort in reunion (3%)
