Attachment Flashcards
caregiver-infant interaction in humans (A01)
attachment - an emotional tie or bond between 2 people
reciprocity - turn taking form of interaction. Actions of one persons elicits a response from another
interactional synchrony - simultaneous interaction between infant and caregiver e.g. move their body in sync
caregiver-infant interactions in humans (A03)
✔️Meltzoff & Moore: experimenter displayed facial gestures such as sticking out tongue in 20 day infants, found infants had ability to observer reciprocate and imitate
❌intentionality: was it on purpose? babies tend to make random moves, behaviour could happen by chance
❌individual differences: ISABELLA found that it was more likely for securely attached infants to engage in interactional synchrony
stages of attachment identified by Schaffer (A01)
stage 1: asocial; 0-6wks: display innate behaviour such as crying, no preferred caregiver
stage 2: indiscriminate; 6wks-7mon, prefers human company rather than non human
stage 3: specific; 7-12mon, preference for one caregiver, stranger and separation anxiety develop
stage 4 multiple; 12mon-onwards, attachment with other caregivers, stranger anxiety decreases
stages of attachment identified by Schaffer: (A03)
✔️Shaffer and Emerson: longitudinal study, 60 WC babies from Glasgow, found separation anxiety occurred in most babies by 25-32 wks, stranger anxiety occurred one month later. After 18 mon, 87% develop multiple attachment
✔️high external validity, conducted at home, apply to to other similar demographics
❌social desirability bias
❌population validity
Role of the father (A01)
Shaffer found that at 18months, 75% formed an attachment with their father, showing separation anxiety
role of father has changed, they used to be the provider but now some have adopted both nurturing roles as well
researchers say men are not biologically equipped to form attachment, lack oestrogen
playmate role;encourages risk taking behaviour
role of father (A03)
✔️research support: GEIGER: playmate, found fathers play interactions were more exciting in comparison mother’s play interactions were more nurturing
✔️research support: HRDY: biological, fathers less equipped to detect infant distress. lack of oestrogen - not innately equipped to form attachment
✔️research support: BELSKY: intimate marriage: if father is in an intimate marriage they are able to form attachment in comparison to fathers with low marital initmacy
explanations of attachment: learning theory (A01)
Dollard and Miller: cupboard love theory: infants becomes attached to a caregiver that feeds them
classical conditioning: food is UCS pleasure is the UCR. when mother is present every-time baby is present, mother becomes associated with the pleasure of being fed. Mother changes from NS to CS
operant conditioning: positive reinforcement: when baby feeds crying baby, baby likely to repeat crying behaviour to get fed - parent’s feeding behaviour is negatively reinforced by the baby stopping its crying when fed
explanations of attachment: learning theory (A03)
❌contradicting research by Lorenz: imprinting geese followed first large moving object, not mother, innate (no time to learn imprinting behaviour)
❌contradicting research for cupboard love theory: monkeys became attached to the cloth mother with no milk, they would hold onto them even when getting milk from other mother
❌methodological issues: Pavlov relied on dogs, can’t generalise to human , low external validity
explanations of attachment: Bowlby’s monotropic theory (A01)
evolutionary explanation for attachment. Children born with an innate tendency to form attachment with parents to increase survival chances
Adaptive: if a baby has an attachment, they’re more likely to be kept safe, warm and fed
Monotropy: One special attachment with one caregiver to be formed before critical period (2.5yrs) lack of monotropy results in consequences
Social releasers: unlocks innate tendency in caregivers to care for baby; doe eyes, button nose
Critical period: attachment to be formed before 2.5yrs (difficult after this) or child will be damages socially, emotionally and intellectually
Internal working model: monotropic attachment forms schemas and expectations for future relationships
explanations for attachment: Bowlby’s monotropic theory (A03)
✔️supporting evidence for critical period: LORENZ: goslings followed researcher as he was the first large moving thing they saw during a 12-17 hour critical period - geese are born with behaviour which help them to survive
✔️supporting evidence for the internal working model: HAZEN AND SHAVER ‘love quiz’ found positive correlation between attachment types and adult relationships - suggests early childhood experiences effect adult RS
❌mixed evidence for monotropy - Schaffer and Emerson say infants can form multiple attachments and not only one. Some infants are different, individual differences
Ainsworth’s types of attachment (A01)
insecure avoidant: infants explore freely, not using their mother as a safe base, low stranger and separation anxiety
secure: infants use mother as a safe base, moderate separation and stranger anxiety
insecure resistant: infants are clingy and have high separation and stranger anxiety
Ainsworth’s strange situation (A01)
observation, (controlled EV’s)
8 stages, where mother would leave and stranger entered room
behaviour that indicated attachment strength were recorded (exploration, separation anxiety, stranger anxiety, reunion behaviour)
FINDINGS
found evidence for the 3 attachment types
66% = secure 22% = insecure avoidant 12% = insecure resistant
Ainsworth’s types of attachment & strange situation (A03)
✔️highly controlled, EV’s controlled, behavioural categories, standardised, replicate, high internal validity
❌low ecological validity, artificial environment, may act different at home, lowers external validity
❌type of observation was overt: parents knew they were being observed - may show demand characteristics - become overly affectionate because that’s what they thought they wanted of them
cultural variation is attachment (A01)
Van Ijzendoorn and Kroonenberg
meta analysis of 2000 infants from 8 different countries
FINDINGS
secure attachment most common in all cultures, insecure resistant was the least common
avoidant more common in western individualistic cultures, resistant more common in collectivist cultures
West Germany had highest insecure avoidant infants (35%)
Israel had the most insecure resistant infants
cultural variation is attachment (A03)
❌lacks temporal validity, found there are more secure and avoidant infants in modern day Italy due to the changing nature of family life
✔️meta analysis used a large sample of 200 infants, more representative, increasing external validity
❌they may have been comparing countries instead of cultures, within a country there are many subcultures with their own way of taking care of their children. Researchers found there’s more variance within countries rather than in-between countries
Bowlby’s theory of maternal deprivation (A01)
if monotropic attachment is not formed before the critical period, will result to deprivation and irreversible consequences
Social development: delinquent behaviour
Emotional development: affectionless psychopathy - children unable to show caring behaviour to others
Intellectual development - low IQ
Bowlby’s theory of maternal deprivation (A03)
❌Bowlby’s research is correlational; deprivation may not be the only factor causing delinquency, may be a 3rd factor such as poverty
✔️Bowlby’s study led to real life application, led to changed is child welfare policy. Changed the way children are looked after
