Attachment Flashcards
Definition of Attachment
A close, emotional bond between two persons characterised by mutual affection and a desire to maintain proximity.
Features of Caregiver-Infant Interaction
Reciprocity - when babies and carers mutually respond to each other’s behaviour. Responsive and sensitive.
Interactional Synchrony - detailed mimicry and mirroring between carer and baby, forms early basis of communication. Can be movement or vocal.
Study for Interactional Synchrony
Meltzoff and Moore (1977, 1983)
Infants (young as 3 days) can imitate facial expressions.
Asked adult models to show one of three expressions to baby in controlled conditions and videoed the baby’s face.
Baby’s expression coded by an independent observer who didn’t know what expression the baby had seen.
What does a baby show when developed an attachment with carer?
Separation distress
Proximity seeking
Stranger anxiety
What are the stages of attachment?
Describe them
Pre-discriminate - 0-2months: show little diff in response to humans compared to objects. Start to show preference human faces.
Indiscriminate attachment - 2-7months: little diff in response to stranger, soon shows preference to familiar people.
Discriminate attachment - 7-9 months: clear attachment to 1/2 people, shows SA and joy when person returns.
Multiple attachments - 9+ months: clear attachments to other people. Bit less wary of strangers.
Study for stages of attachments?
Schaffer and Emerson (1964)
Longitudinal study (first 2 years of life)
60 babies - working class, Glasgow
Observed every 4 weeks until 1yr then again at 18 months
Results:
Mother was attachment in 95%
39% of babies not primarily attached to those who fed them
Show more SA as get older
87%bhad multiple attachments by 18 months
Evaluation of Schaffer and Emerson (1964)
-Limited temporal val (long time ago)
-Low pop val (cultures vary upbringing)
-Limited sample (evidence from interviews and observations may be biased and unreliable)
+longitudinal study (greater internal val)
+ implications for our theories (contradicts learning theory)
Role of fathers
Geiger (1996)
Fathers engage in more exciting play games than mothers
Less able to detect low levels of infant distress than mothers
Maybe due to biological differences or fathers spend less time
Strange Situation by who?
Ainsworth et al (1978)
Summary of strange situation
Child alone with carer (child explores room)
Carer leaves room
Stranger is present (tries to talk to child)
Carer returns
Attachment types
Secure
Insecure-resistant
Insecure-avoidant
What behaviours does a secure child show in a strange situation?
Child alone with carer- explores room
Carer leaves - moderate distress, cry a bit, try to follow carer
Stranger - moderate stranger anxiety (SA)
Reunion - easily comforted, stops crying quickly, pleased to see carer
What behaviours does a insecure-avoidant child show in a strange situation?
Child with carer - not attempt to interact with carer
Carer leaves - little distress
Stranger - low SA
Reunion - may not notice return, if carer holds - tries to pull away/avoid eye contact
What behaviours does a insecure-resistant child show in a strange situation?
Child alone with carer - doesn’t explore, clings to carer
Carer leaves - severe distress
Stranger - high SA
Reunion - hard to comfort, continues to cry
Results of Strange Situation?
66% secure
22% avoidant
12% resistant
Evaluation of Strange Situation
+ gives figure we can compare with other cultures
+ same procedure - controls extraneous variables
- ethical: child under unnecessary stress
- ethical: carer worried if insecure (but help offered if so)
- demand characteristics by carer
- low ecological val
- low temporal val (children in nurseries -seem insecure but not as used to separation)
Attachments in different cultures study
Van Ijzendoorn and Kroonenberg (1988) META-ANALYSIS 32 studies, 8 countries Assessed in a strange situation Results: Secure most common (GB: 75% China: 50%) - supports innate Avoidant (Japan: 5% Germany: 35%) There was variation even in same country (diff in cultures as well as between) - supports nurture
Evaluation of Van Ijzendoorn and Kroonenberg (1988)
+ size of sample (2,000 children) increases validity
- some countries only a small sample e.g. China 25 children - cautious of drawing conclusions of Chinese children
Takahashi (1990)
- 60 middle class babies under 1yr Results:
- 68% secure USA: 66
- 0% avoidant (rude to ignore an adult in Japan) USA: 22
- 32% resistant USA: 12
- and v similar to Ainsworth, so valid comparisons
- Ainsworth was 20 years before
Bowlby: internal working models
Mental representations of the world and relationships which affect the way we behave and feel.
Bowlby’s Continuity Hypothesis
Early attachments create internal working models about relationships which continue to affect later relationships.
Evidence for influence of early attachment on childhood relationships?
Quinton (1984)
50 women who had been raised in institutions compared with 50 women raised at home : problems with parenting
Ex-care women had more problems than control group - supports continuity hypothesis
BUT 31% ex-care still good parents (contradicts continuity)
Evidence for influence of early attachment on adult relationships?
Hazan and Shaver (1987)
“Love quiz”
200 men, 400 women
Attitudes toward love assessed to measure how positive or negative IWM were.
Childhood assessment by asking people to complete an adjective checklist about childhood relationship with parents.
Results:those secure in childhood, secure in adult, positive IWM
- based on people’s memory (often inaccurate, cautious of val of conclusions)
Study of attachment formation in goslings
Lorenz (1935)
Imprinting (innate tendency to develop strong bond with mother in first few hours of life)
Half goslings with mother, half in incubator
Put together then released, went to who they hatched with
Results:
Followed lorenz and sexual with him
Critical period between 4-25 hours, after found it hard to form bond
Conclusions:
Innate and supports bowlby’s critical period
Comfort is important in attachment
Harlow (1959)
16 newborn monkeys in cage with cloth mother and wire mother with food
Results:
Clung to cloth mother, but food from wire
Conclusions:
Attachment not just from learning with food, comfort is important
Harlow and Zimmerman (1959)
Same as before, but this time with a scary stimulus to see where monkey would go - food or comfort
Monkeys chose comfort, contradicts learning theory
Harlow (1965)
Monkeys in isolation from other monkeys for 3,6,12 or 24 months
Results: disturbed as adults, aggressive, socially impaired, hurt themselves, rocked repetitively, abnormal sexual behaviour
Those in isolation for only 6 months could recover by 3yrs
Evaluation of Harlow
+ controlled (normal monkeys and knew it - no brain damage)
+ not abused - clear idea of children with social isolation
+ strong practical implications - social workers understand neglect
+ help us understand how to care for captive monkeys
+ can generalise: common ancestor
- fake mothers differed in face (cloth more monkey-like)
- distress and suffering caused
- wouldn’t do this to humans
- low ecological validity
- can’t generalise: many differences habitat, biological, mental
Explanations for attachment
Learning theory - attachments are learned through interaction with caregivers who provide food, warmth, comfort
Evolutionary theory - desire to form attachments has evolved as it helps the infant to survive
Learning theory
- Classic conditioning - learning associations (parent with pleasure of being fed)
Mum(neutral stimulus)+Milk(unconditioned stimulus=pleasure(UCR)
Mum (conditioned stimulus) = pleasure (conditioned response) - Operant conditioning - food is rewarding (primary reinforcer), person feeding (secondary reinforcer) then person source of reward even when not feeding - bond formed
Evaluation of the learning theory
+ not born with an immediate emotional attachment - interaction of nurture and nature
- Harlow contradicts idea that feeding is most important
- Schaffer and Emerson showed 39% attached to other than feeder
- evidence for importance of sensitivity and responsiveness
- can’t explain persistence of bond as older as not always fed by parent
- minimises complexity of emotional relationships
Bowlby’s Monotropic theory
Is an evolutionary theory
Argues:
1. Innately programmed
2. Monotropy (most important with mother)
3. Continuity to influence later relationships
4. Critical period
Evidence for Bowlby’s ideas
Innate - Lorenz, Meltzoff and Moore, oxytocin (evolution is impossible to prove as takes millions of years)
Continuity - Hazan and Shaver, Harlow
Critical period - Lorenz, Harlow,
Monotropy - Schaffer and Emerson, Rutter rejects, makes mothers feel guilty as mothers should stay home not work
Practical Implications of Bowlby’s evolutionary theory
Attempt to foster children as early as possible
New born babies encouraged to have skin to skin contact whenever possible for initial bonding
Parents can stay with child when they’re in hospital
Maternal Deprivation Hypothesis
Disruption of attachment bond with mother (or sub) leads to serious, permanent damage to emotional and intellectual development.
Separation
Short term, temporary separation from an attachment figure (e.g. Left in nursery)
Disruption of attachment
When an attachment has been formed between the caregiver and child - but the attachment has been broken either temporarily or on a more permanent basis.
Privation
When a child has been prevented from forming any kind of attachment in their early years.
Institutional care
Residential (24hour) care in an orphanage, children’s home or other unit with other children and paid members of staff.
Institutionalisation
The negative effects on children of being placed in an institution, these effects may be on the child’s cognitive, emotional or social development.
Maternal deprivation hypothesis links to…
Critical period (first 2 and a half years of life need a mother figure) Continuity hypothesis (early attachment forms an internal working model for later relationships)
Negative effects of MDH
Emotional problems - depression Personality problems - affectionless psychopathy (lacks empathy, remorse) Intellectual problems Relationship problems Poor physical development
Phases of separation distress
Protest - crying, screaming
Despair - stops struggling, not engaging with others, comforts self
Detachment - starts to respond to others, but in a fake/unemotional way, may not be interested in carer on reunion
Study for disruption of attachment?
Robertson and Robertson (1971)
Filming of 5 children whose mother was in hospital and needed care, wanted to see if type of care affected child’s reaction to separation.
Looked after 4 in own home - some distress, generally well and slept well, did not reject mother on reunion.
John in care for nine days, nurses caring but busy, wanted attention but didn’t get it, went through 3 phases.
Conclusion:
Short-term separation bad for John (possible permanent damage with mother)
Evaluation of Robertson and Robertson (1971)
+ good ecological val
+ rich qualitative data
- ethical: no confidentiality (but informed consent)
- small sample
- biased? Got to know children, changed or not truthful results
Disruption of attachment due to divorce study
Hetherington et al (1979)
Longitudinal
Children assessed immediately after divorce(around4yrsold, 2 yrs and 4 yrs after) they were living with their mother
Results:
Negative consequences imm.after (less mature, aggressive)
2+4 years after girls same as control group, boys more negative, but less extreme than immediate (more aggressive, less socially skilled)
Conclusions:
Challenges Bowlby’s maternalDH
Gender differences
Practical Implications of research of disruption of attachment
If separation is unavoidable, effects can be reduced if child has someone to offer emotional care
Society now encourages both parents to stay involved
Contact centres exist where child can see a parent if hostile between parents.
Good advice can be given to divorced couples for children.
Institutionalisation study
Rutter (2007)
Investigate effects of poor quality care and privation on children’s social, emotional and physical development.
165 romanian children (in care from v young 1-2weeks) receive poor emotional and physical care due to shortage of staff. All adopted before 3 and a half years old. Compared with UK control group - all adopted before 6months age.
Results:
Physical effects - stunted growth, under weight, stress affected production of growth hormones, small head circumference.
Children (4yrs) adopted before 6months caught up well - privation not long term effects if in loving home for long enough.
Adopted after 6months - poorer emotional dev. 6yrs 26% disinhibited attachment compared to 9% of early adoptions. Show quasi-autistic like behaviour.
Institutionalisation study conclusions and evaluation
Rutter (2007)
There’s negative effects of poor institutional care on physical and emotional development.
Possible for recovery from early privation. Even some adopted after 2yrs functioned normally.
+ challenges critical period - sensitive period
+ natural opportunity
+ detailed measures (accurate picture of impact of institutionalisation)
+ used a control group
- limited sample - not same results for good quality care
- know little of medical/psychological history of children before adopted
Effects of Institutionalisation and privation study
Tizard and Hodges (1989)
Investigate effects of good quality physical care, bad emotional
65 children 4months-4yrs
Longitudinal
High staff turn over - can’t form stable attachments
Compared with control group - all lives in own family - closely matched
Some returned to natural parents, some adopted, some stay in care
Assessed at 8, 16 yrs and parents/teachers/peers interviewed.
Results:
If adopted to loving homes 81% show close attachment at 16yrs and 56% with biological mother.
Effects of Institutionalisation and privation study conclusion and evaluation
Supports critical period but sensitive period better
+ practical implications (adopted as early as possible, minimise staff turn over, sufficient staff)
+ schools funding to support ex-care children
- don’t know if long term problems due to before care
