Attachment Flashcards
What was Harlow’s animal study on importance of contact comfort?
- Worked with rhesus monkey
- Harlow observed- newborns kept in bare cage often died but usually survived if given something soft like cloth to cuddle
- Procedure: Find out role soft objects serve in mother functions, one condition milk dispensed by plain wire mother wheras milk dispensed by cloth covered monkey in other condition.
- Findings: Monkeys attached to surrogate cloth-covered monkey instead of the wired one regardless of which one had food.
Maternally deprived monkeys as adults
- monkeys deprived of ‘real’ mother had severe consequences in adulthood
- More agressive, less sociable, bred less often (unskilled at mating)
- When became mothers some neglected their young and others attacked them.
Lorenz Imprinting (1958)
- Procedure: Classic experiment- randomly divided a large clutch of goose eggs, half the eggs hatched in natural env with mother goose and other half in an incubator with Lorenz being the 1st moving object they saw.
-
Findings: Incubator group followed Lorenz everywhere wheras control group followed mother everywhere.
This is imprinting- Bird species that are mobile from birth attach to the 1st moving object they see.
Critical period of only a few hrs.
Evaluating Harlow’s research
+Real-world value: For example helped social workers and clinical psychologists understand that a lack of bonding experience may be a risk factor in child development, allowing them to intervene to prevent poor outcomes (Howe 1998). Also helps understand attachment figures importance for baby monkeys.
-Generalisability to humans: Although Rhesus monkeys are much more similar to humans and share common attachment behs, the human brain and beh is still more complex than monkeys. So therefore still not appropriate to apply Harlows findings to humans.
-Ethical issues: His research lead to severe long term distress to monkeys.
Evaluating Lorenz’s research
+Research support for imprinting concept: Regolin & Vallortigara (1995)- Chicks were exposed to simple shape combinations that moved (e.g. triangle, rectangle). Shape combinations then moved infront of them and they followed the original most closely.
-Generalisability to humans: Hard to generalise from birds to humans. Mammalian attachment system different and more complex than birds as it is a 2-way process as mothers also show emotional attachment to their young.
What is reciprocity?
When each person responds to each other and elicits a response from them (turn-taking).
What the alert phase in caregiver-infant interactions?
Babies signal (e.g. eye contact) their ready for a spell of interaction.
Feldman & Eidelman- mothers respond to this alertness around 2/3 of the time. Although this vary depending on Mothers skill and alertness (Finegodd et al).
Fledman- this Interaction becomes more frequent from 2 months onwards.
What is active involvment- caregiver-infant interactions?
Both caregiver and infant take turns in initiating interactions.
Brazelton described this as a ‘dance’
What is interactional synchrony?
Caregiver and baby reflect actions and emotions of each other. They do this in coordinated/synchronised way.
Meltzoff & Moore- babies expressions and gestures were more likely to mirror those of adults than chance would predict.
Isabella et al- high quality of mother-baby attachment associated with high levels of synchrony.
Caregiver-infant interactions evaluation?
+Filmed observations: Usually in a lab. Films mean observations can be recorded and analysed later which can establish IR reliability. Babies don’t know they’re being observed so dont represent demand characteristics. **High validity and reliability. **
-Difficulty observing babies: Behaviour hard to interpret as young babies lack coordination and are practically immobile (E.g. whether baby is smiling or passing wind). Babys perspective may be different.
-Observations don’t tell us devlopmental importance: Fledman- These observations not particularly useful in understanding child development as we dont know the purpose of these interactions. Can’t tell if caregiver-infant interactions are important for child development.
+However: Isabella et al found interactional synchrony achievement predicted development of a good quality attachment.
Schaffer & Emerson stages of attachment
- Asocial stage
- Indiscriminate attachment
- Specific attachment
- Multiple attachments
Stages of attachment evaluation
+good external validity: parents made most observations during ordinary activities and reported to researchers. Likely ppl behaved naturally during experiment.
-On the other hand: mothers may have been biased in terms of what they noticed and reported.
-Poor asocial stage evidence: babies have poor co-ordination so during the asocial stage they may have felt anxiety but displayed this in hard-to-observe ways. Lacks validity as they may appear asocial when there not.
+RWA: Starting day care in the asocial & indiscriminate stages is straightfoward but is problematic during the specific attachment stage.
Stage 1 of Schaffer’s attachment stages
Asocial: 0-6 weeks- same behaviour towards humans and objects
Stage 2 of Schaffer’s attachment stages
Indiscriminate attachment: 2-7 months- preferance being with other familiar humans. However show no stranger anxiety when caregivers leave (happy to accept comfort from any person)
Stage 3 of Schaffer’s attachment stages
Specific attachment: Around 7 months- One primary attachment figure created (person who offers most interaction and responds to baby’s signals w most skill). Represents stranger/seperation anxiety.
Stage 4 of Schaffer’s attachment stages
Multiple attachments: 9+ months- Multiple secondary attachments form w ppl who they regularly spend time with.
Schffer & Emerson
Babies attachment to fathers
Schaffer & Emerson found father to be first attachment figure in 3% of cases and joint first in 27% of cases.
However they did find in 75% of the babies form an attachment w their father by 18 months.
Grossman
Distinctive role of fathers
Grossman- longitudinal study showed attachment to Father’s not as important as attachment to mothers. Although he found quality of Father’s play w babies was related to quality of adolescents attachment.
Father’s role more to do w play and simulation.
Field
Father’s as primary caregiver
Evidence that when Fathers take on primary caregiver role they can adopt the more emotional role.
Field- Filmed 4 month old babies in FtF interactions w primary caregiver mother, primary caregiver father and secondary caregiver father. Primary caregiver fathers (like mothers) spent more time smiling, imitating and holding babies (attachment formation process) **than secondary caregiver father. **
Father may only express responsivness and be more emotion focused when given primary caregiver role.
Evaluation of the role of the Father
-Confusion over research question: Some researchers concerned w Father’s as secondary attachment figures (distinct role) wheras others look more into them as primary attachment figure (maternal role). Makes it difficult to provide simple answer.
-Conflicting evidence: Grossmans longitudinal study suggests father has distinct role in childrens development (play & simulation), however, we would therefore expect children growing up in single-mother/lesbian households to turn out diff from hetrosexual families. Studies show this is not the case (e.g. McCallum & Golombok) suggesting Father’s having distinctive role remains unanswered.
+Counterpoint: Single or lesbian parents can take Father’s role on.
+RWA Families can be advised about father’s attachment role so they can go with best economic decision. Same sex parents can be informed that Father’s can take primary attchment role or not having a father around doesn’t affect child development
Explanations of attachment: Learning theory and attachment
Dollard & Miller: Caregiver-infant attachment can be explained by learning theory, ‘cupboard love’ as it emphasises importance of attachment theory in providing food.
CC- Caregiver (NS) associated w food (UCS). Caregiver becomes conditioned stimilus.
OC- Crying behaviour reinforced positively for baby (comfort) and negatively for caregiver (crying stops).
Sears et al
Attachment as secondary drive
Hunger is a primary drive- (we eat to reduce hunger.)
Sears- Primary drive is related to caregivers as they provide food. So caregivers therefore become secondary drive learned through association w primary drives satisfaction and the caregiver.
Explanations of attachment evaluation: learning theories
-Counter-evidence from animal studies: Lorenz geese imprinting on first moving object they saw. Harlow’s monkeys show no support for importance of food. Humans more complex.
-Counter-evidence from studies on humans: Schaffer & Emerson- babies tend to form attachments to main caregiver regardless if they fed them or not. Isabella et al- high levels of interactional synchrony predicted attachment quality.
+Some conditioning may be involved: Food may not play central role in attachment but conditioning still might. (e.g. baby may associate feeling warm and comfort w particular caregiver), influencing choice of primary attachment figure.
-Counterpoint: Babies are more active in attchment than conditioning explanations suggest (Fledman & Eidelman)
Explanations of attachment: Bowlby’s monotropic theory
Evolutionary explanation- attachment is innate system that gives survival advantage.
Monotropy: Bowlby’s explanations of attachment
Bowlby put great emphasis on an attachment to one caregiver. He believed the more time spent w primary attachment figure the better.
2 principles clarify this:
1. Law of continuity: More predictable a childs care the better the attachment quality.
2. Law of accumulated seperation: Effects of every seperation from mother add up so best dose is ‘zero dose’.
Social releasers (Bowlby’s theory)
Innate cute behaviours (e.g. smiling, cooing and gripping) which encourage adult attention. Purpose to activate adult social interaction and make an adult attach to the baby.
Critical period: Bowlby’s theory
The time in which an attachment must form if it’s to form at all. Human babies have sensitive period and it is much harder to form attachments after this period.
Critical period: Up to 6 months, possibly extending to 2 years.
Internal working model: Bowlby’s theory
Mental relationship of primary attachment relationship is a template for future relationships.
If first experience for a child is a loving/reliable relationship they will bring these qualities in future relationships, wheras if first experience of relationships is poor they will treat others the same in the future.
Affects later parenting ability.
Evaluation of Bowlby’s monotropic approach as an explanation for attachment
-Validity of monotropy challenged: Schaffer & Emerson- significant amount also formed multiple attachments at same time. Primary attachment may be stronger but not diff in nature.
**+Support for IWM: **Quality of attachment passed on through generations. Baily Et al- assessed attachment between 99 mothers and their 1 yr old babies. Found mother’s w poor attachment to mothers more likely to have poorly attached babies.
-Counterpoint: Ignores other factors, like genetic (e.g.diffs in anxiety and sociability) in social behaviour and parenting. (Kornienko 2016)
+Support for social releasers: Brazelton et al- observed babies trigger interactions w adults using social releasers. When primary caregivers told to ignore babies social releasers they became increasingly distressed, (some curled up and became motionless). Suggests social releasers important in emotional and attachment development.
Ainsworth strange situation procedure and results
- Enter and baby encouraged to explore- (tests exploration and secure base)
- Stranger enters- (tests stranger & seperation anxiety)
- Caregiver leaves- (tests seperation & stranger anxiety)
- Caregiver returns & stranger leaves- (tests reunion bvr & exploration/secure base)
- Caregiver leaves baby alone- (tests seperation anxiety)
- Stranger returns- (tests stranger anxiety)
- Caregiver returns and reunited w baby- (tests reunion bvr)
Secure-70%
Avoidant-15%
Resistant-15%
Strange situation findings
Distinct patterns in the way babies behaved
* Secure attachment: Explore happily but regularly go back to caregiver (proximity-seeking & secure base bvr). Moderate stranger & seperation anxiety, accept comfort from caregiver in reunion stage. 60-75% in UK.
- Insecure-avoidant attachment: Explore freely not seeking proximity or secure-base bvr. Little/no stranger & seperation anxiety and don’t make much effort to make contact when caregiver returns. 20-25% in UK
- Insecure-resistant attachment: Seek proximity so explore less. Show high stranger and seperation anxiety and resist comfort when reunited w caregiver. Around 3% in UK.
Evaluation of Ainsworth’s strange situation
+Good predictive value in predicting later social bvr: Secure tends to have best outcome- better school achievement and less involved in bullying in childhood (McCormick et al (2016), Kokkinos (2007). Securly attached babies better mental health in adulthood (Ward et al). Type C and those that don’t fall into outcome have worst outcome. Therefore strange situation measure something meaningful.
-Counterpoint: Some psychologists don’t believe it is attachment associated w later development and it’s infact something else. Kagan suggested genetically-influenced anxiety levels could account for variations in attachment and later development. Strange situation may not acc measure attachment.
+Good IR reliability: Bick et al- found agreement on attachment type in **94% of cases **for strange situation. Can be confident attachment types not dependent on subjective jundgements.
-May be culture-bound: Its a Western measure. E.g. In Japan Takahashi (86) found babies displayed high seperation anxiety so more insecure-resistant. Takahashi suggested (1990) this was an anxiety response due to unusualness of mother-baby seperation in Japan rather than high attachment insecurity rates. Difficult to know what strange situation measures outside the west.
Cultural variations in attachment- Van Ijzendoorn + Kroonenberg’s research procedure
Meta-analysis of 32 studies where strange situation used to investigate proportion of babies w diff attachment type.
Conducted in 8 countries- 15 in US.
Yeilded results from 1190 children
Cultural variations in attachment- Van Ijzendoorn + Kroonenberg’s research findings
- Secure most common in all countries
- Proportion in secure varied from 75% in UK to 50% in China
- In individualist cultures insecure-resistant similar to Ainsworths findings,
- However, in collectivist samples (China, Japan, Israel) rates were **above 25% **and insecure -avoidant was reduced.
- Variations within country (USA) were 150% greater than those between countries.
Italian study of cultural variation
Simonelli et al (14)- Study in Italy to see if proportions of diff attachments still matched those found in previous studies.
76 babies (aged 12 months) assessed using strange situation.
50% secure w 36% insecure-avoidant
In line w cultural change as increasing number of mothers w very young children work long hrs and use professional healthcare.
