Attachment Flashcards
What is Lorenz’s procedure and findings?
Lorenz 1935
1. He split a group of grey lag geese eggs into 2.
2. One condition was that the geese saw him as the first moving object and the other was that they saw their mother as the first moving object.
Findings:
1. The goslings that saw him first, imprinted on him as he was the first moving thing and later performed mating rituals towards him and ignored other geese.
2. The goslings that saw their mother first imprinted on her but later performed mating rituals to other geese.
3. Lorenz proposed that the critical period for geese was 13-16 hours.
4. He said that imprinting was an irreversible and unchangeable process.
What is the evaluation about support for Lorenz?
There are many other studies demonstrating imprinting in animals.
For example, Guitton 1966 demonstrated that leghorn chicks, when exposed to a yellow rubber glove while being fed in their first few weeks, became imprinted on the rubber glove. This supports the view that young animals probably aren’t born with the predisposition to imprint on a specific type of object, but rather any moving thing that is present during the critical period. He also found that the male chicks later tried to mate with the rubber glove, just like Lorenz’s geese did with him. Suggesting that early imprinting may in fact be linked to later reproductive behaviours.
Therefore, Guitton’s findings provide clear support for Lorenz’s original research and conclusions.
What is the evaluation about characteristics of imprinting for Lorenz?
There has been 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 somehow became permanently stamped on the nervous system. However, it is now understood that imprinting is a more ‘plastic and forgiving mechanism’- Hoffling 1996. For example, Guitton found that he could reverse the imprinting in the chickens who had attempted to mate with the rubber glove. He found that after they had spent some 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 that different from other types of learning as learning also takes place rapidly, with little conscious effort and is fairly reversible.
What is the procedure and findings of Harlow’s research?
Harlow 1959
1. He used Rhesus monkeys that had been separated from their mothers since birth and exposed them to 2 conditions.
2. One was having a cloth covered mother with milk and a wire mother without. Or a wire mother with milk and a cloth covered mother without.
3. They were put in a scary situation, a new situation or just a plain cage.
Findings:
1. The monkeys preferred the cloth covered mother no matter what which demonstrates that contact comfort is more important than food.
2. They would only go to the wire mother for food and then go straight back to the cloth mother.
3. In the scary situation they jumped straight onto the cloth covered mother and in the new situation, they used the cloth covered mother as a safe base to explore the world from and were much more curious and confident. Whereas the monkeys with the wire mother didn’t really explore and preferred a soft blanket in the room for comfort over the wire mother.
What is the evaluation about the 2 heads being confounding variable for Harlow?
One criticism of Harlow’s research is that the two stimulus objects differed in more ways than just being cloth covered or not.
The two heads were also different, which acted as a confounding variable as it varied systematically from the independent variable (being cloth covered or not). This means that it is possible that the reason the monkeys preferred one mother to the other was because the cloth covered mother had a more attractive head.
Therefore, the results of Harlow’s study lack internal validity and therefore generalisability.
What is the evaluation about the aim of animal studies is to generalise for 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 of their behaviour is governed by conscious decisions. Nevertheless, a number of studies have found that the observations made of animal attachment behaviours are mirrored in studies with humans. For example, Harlow’s research is support by Scaffer and Emmerson’s findings that infants are in fact not most attached to the person that brings them food.
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 done with actual humans.
What is the evaluation about the harms of Harlow’s research?
A study such as Harlow’s could not have been done with humans, but this raises the question as to whether it should have even been done with monkeys.
The study created lasting emotional harm as the monkeys later found it difficult to form relationships with their peers and children. For example, some of the monkeys who later became mothers were found to smash their children’s heads into the ground. On the other hand, this experiment could be justified in terms of the significant effect it has had on our understanding of processes of attachment. Furthermore, research derived from this study has had real world applications and has been used to offer greater care to our human and primate infants.
Therefore, it can be argued that the benefits may outweigh the cost to the animals involved in the study. Such criticisms do not challenge the findings of the research but are important in monitoring what we consider as good science.
What is the definition of reciprocity?
Where mother and infant respond to each others signals which elicits a response from the other. It is a 2 way mutual processes involving turn taking. E.g mother tickles baby and baby giggles
What does the 1970’s research say about reciprocity and Bra Elton?
The 1970’s research suggests that when a baby co-ordinates their actions to their caregivers, it can be described as a non-verbal conversation.
Since birth, babies move in rhythms when interacting with adults.
Bra Elton 1979, an important precursor to later communication, suggests that sensitivity to infant behaviour lays the foundations for later attachment.
What is interactional synchrony?
Where a mother and infant reflect both emotions and actions of each other in a co-ordinated and synchronised manner. E.g mother smiles so baby smiles back.
Who was the study for interactional synchrony and what was it?
Meltzoff and Moore 1977
- Used 6 babies aged 12-27 days and 12 babies aged 16-21 days.
- Used an adult to display 1/3 facial expressions or hand movements where the fingers moved in a sequence.
- Dummy was placed in infants’ mouth during initial display to prevent a response.
- Dummy removed afterwards and child’s expression was filmed.
Findings:
1. An association was found between the infant’s behaviour and the adults.
2. The babies aged even 16-21 days were able to imitate facial and manual gestures.
3. Meltzoff et al argue that the ability to imitate serves as an important building block for later social and cognitive development.
What does Jean Piaget 1962 say about pseudo or real interaction?
Jean Piaget 1962 proposed the idea that perhaps these interactions were a kind of ‘response training’ and that true interaction only begins developing towards the end of the first year.
What is the study that opposes Jean Piaget and supports reciprocity?
Murray and Trevarthen 1985
- They used 2 month old infants
- They allowed the infants to interact with their mothers over a monitor in real time
- They then showed them a pre-recorded video of the mother so that she couldn’t actively respond to the infants’ facial and body movements.
Findings:
1. Because this caused acute distress, it shows that the infants were actively eliciting a response rather than just displaying a response that had been rewarded.
2. This further supports the idea that behaviour is innate rather than learnt.
What is the evaluation about doubting findings of testing infant behaviour about caregiver-infant interactions.
There is reason to have some about findings of testing infant behaviour as they are unable to report their feelings. So it is very difficult to reliably test and make certain observations from their point of view.
For example, infant’s mouths are in fairly constant motion and the expressions that are tested occur pretty frequently e.g tongue sticking out, yawning, smiling. This means that it is very difficult to distinguish between general activity and specific imitative behaviours. To overcome this problem, Meltzoff and Moore measured infants responses by recording them and asking an observer who had no idea which behaviour was being imitated to judge the infants expressions in the video.
This research highlights the difficulties of testing infant behaviour but also suggests one way to improve internal validity of the data. Therefore, we can not be certain of the behaviour’s specific meaning.
What is the evaluation about failure to replicate for caregiver-infant interactions?
Other studies have failed to replicate the findings of research into infant-caregiver interactions.
For example, Koepke et al 1983 failed to replicate the findings of Meltzoff and Moore; who counterargued that the only reason Koepke failed to replicate was because their study was less carefully controlled. Additionally, Marian et al 1996 replicated a study by Murray and Trevarthen and found that the infants could not distinguish between live and video recorded interactions with their mothers which suggests that they are not actually responding to the adults. Marian et al acknowledge that their failure to replicate may lie with the procedure.
Therefore, the earlier studies’ findings were not replicated within later research, although differences in methodology may account for this.
What is the evaluation about the importance of imitative behaviour in caregiver-infant interactions?
The importance of this imitative behaviour is that it forms the basis for social development.
Meltzoff 2005 proposed the ‘like me’ hypothesis of infant development based on his research into interactional synchrony. He proposed that firstly, there’s the connection between what the infant sees and their imitation of this. Secondly, the infant associates their own acts and their own underling mental state. Thirdly, infants begin projecting their own internal experiences onto others performing similar acts. As a result, they begin to acquire an understanding of what other people are thinking and feeling; a so called ‘theory of mind’ which is fundamental for conducting social relationships.
Therefore, a strength of this research is that it provides an explanation for how children begin to understand what others think and feel and thus how they are able to conduct relationships.
What are the 4 stages of attachment and who proposed them?
- Indiscriminate
- Beginnings of attachment
- Discriminate
- Multiple attachments
Schaffer and Emmerson 1964
What are the first and second stages of attachment?
- Indiscriminate attachment
- 0-2 months
- Very young infants are asocial in that many kinds of stimuli provoke a favourable response e.g smiling
- Reciprocity and Interactional synchrony play a big part in forming relationships in this stage.
- Attention seeking behaviours are not directed at anyone in particular which suggests that attachments can be formed with anyone - Beginnings of attachment
- 6 weeks-7 months
- Infants indiscriminately enjoy human company rather than inanimate objects
- They get upset when someone ceases to interact with them
- They are easily comforted by their regular caregiver
- They display no stranger anxiety
- They can distinguish between familiar and unfamiliar people
What are the third and fourth stages of attachment?
- Discriminate attachment
- 7-9 months
- Expresses protest when separated from one particular person (separation anxiety)
- Shows especial joy when reunited and comforted most by this person
- Said to have formed their first specific attachment, also known as the primary attachment.
- begin to display stranger anxiety - Multiple attachments
- 10 months +
- Begin to form attachments to others and display separation anxiety from them
- By 18 months, the majority of infants have formed multiple attachments
What is the study for stages of attachment?
Schaffer and Emmerson 1964
1. To find at what age attachment begins and how intense they are.
2. Used an observational and longitudinal study (continuous and repeated methods)
3. Used 60 infants from Glasgow aged 5-23 weeks and mostly from working class families.
4. Babies and mothers were visited every month for a year and then again at 18 months
5. Measures separation anxiety by asking mothers questions about their child’s behaviour during everyday separations.
6. If anxiety or distress was displayed, the attachment had formed.
7. Measured stranger anxiety by questioning mothers about their child’s anxiety response to unfamiliar adults.
Findings:
1. Within one month of first becoming attached, 29% had formed multiple attachments and rose to 78% within 6 months.
2. 65% had their mother as their primary attachment and 30% had her as their first joint object of attachment
3. 3% had their father as their primary attachment and 27% had him as their first joint object of attachment
4. 39% of primary attachments were not always the person who spent the most time with the child so concluded that quality of relationship was more important than quantity in forming attachments.
5. They observed that intensely attached infants had mothers who responded quickly and sensitively to their signals and gave them the most interaction whereas loosely attached infants had mothers who failed to respond.
6. By 1 years old, the majority of infants had multiple attachments and 1/3 had 5 or more secondary attachments to people like grandparents, siblings and fathers.
What is the evaluation about Schaffer and Emmerson’s study sample being biased?
One criticism of Schaffer and Emmerson’s research is that their sample may be biased in a number of ways.
Firstly, the sample consisted of mainly working class families and so the results may therefore only apply to that social group and not others. Secondly, the sample was formed i the 1960’s, and childcare has changed drastically since then. For example, many more mothers go out to work now, meaning that more children are cared for outside the home or fathers stay at home and become the primary caregiver. Research by Cohn et al 2014 demonstrates how the number of fathers who choose to stay at home and care for their children has quadrupled in the last 25 years.
Therefore, this suggests that if a study such as Schaffer and Emmerson’s was conducted today, the results would be drastically different. Also suggesting that their results may lack temporal validity.
What is the evaluation about the issue with stage theories for development of attachment?
One issue with stage theories is that they suggest that development is inflexible.
For example, this theory offers 4 stages to describe a fixed order of attachment developments. It states that the primary attachment must come before multiple attachments. However, in some situations and cultures multiple attachments may come first. For example, in individualist cultures like the US and the UK, each person in the society is primarily concerned with their own needs and the needs of their immediate family first. In contrast, collectivist cultures are more concerned with the needs of their group rather than individuals, with people sharing many things like possessions and childcare. There is research support for this. For example, Sagi et al 1994, compared attachments of infants raised in communal environments like Israeli Kibbutzim, with infants raised in family based sleeping arrangements. In the Kibbutz, children spent most of their time in a communal children’s home being cared for by a metapelet even in the nighttime. They found that closeness of infant attachments with mothers was 2 times more common in family based arrangements than in communal environments.
Therefore, the use of stage theories may be problematic if they become the standard by which families are judged and lead to them being classed as abnormal.
What is the evaluation about central discussion of multiple attachments?
One of the central discussions relating to multiple attachments is whether all attachments are equivalent or whether one or two have some special significance.
Bowlby’s view was that infants form one special emotional relationship. Subsidiary to this are many other secondary attachments which are important as an emotional safety net and meeting other needs. For example, the father may provide a special type or care and relationships with siblings are important in learning how to negotiate with peers. By contrast, Rutter 1995 argued that all attachments ARE equivalent, where all attachments are integrated to produce the infants attachment type.
Therefore, Bowlby may have been wrong about the idea of a hierarchy of attachments.
What did Schaffer and Emmerson find about the father’s role as primary figure? And what did Lamb et al argue?
Schaffer and Emmerson found that mothers were far more likely than fathers to be the primary attachment figure. They argued that the father is more likely to be involved in physical play and risk taking whereas the mother is more likely to engage in comfort and support for the baby.
Lamb et al argued that a father’s role in his involvement could be assessed by 3 factors:
1. Interaction
2. Accessibility -how physically and emotionally accessible he is
3. Responsibility- the extent to which he takes on the caretaking tasks.
He reported that studies showed little relationships between father accessibility and infant attachment.
