Attachment Flashcards
Define attachment.
The strong emotional bond between an infant and it’s primary caregiver.
Define infant / infancy.
The period of a child’s life before speech begins - usually around 1 - 2 years old.
What is reciprocity?
A non verbal communication technique used by infants.
Action of one (caregiver or infant) causes a response from the other. Response does not have to be the same as the original action. Happens after original action.
Frequency of infants actions allow caregiver to anticipate movements and behaviours and what the infant needs and respond appropriately.
What is interactional synchrony?
A type of non verbal communication.
An imitation of the caregivers action (can be emotions also) e.g. caregiver cries, infant cries).
Happens at same time and response similar to original action and it’s an imitation.
What 4 behaviours does an infant show when they are securely attached to their caregiver?
1) Joy on reunion
2) Separation anxiety
3) General orientation of behaviour towards caregiver.
3) Desire to have a close proximity with caregiver
What was the aim of Meltzoff and Moores study into interactional synchrony?
To understand interactional synchrony in infants.
What was the procedure of Meltzoff and Moores study?
Used infants that were 2-3 weeks old.
An adult model displayed one of four stimuli - 3 different facial expressions or a hand gesture where fingers moved in a sequence.
Dummy placed in infants mouth during initial display to prevent a response.
Removed after and infants response recorded on video.
Watched by independent observers (real time, slow motion or frame by frame). Scored twice, had to note instances of head or tongue movements.
Found inter observer reliability of +0.94.
Findings of Meltzoff and Moores study?
Infants as young as 2 / 3 weeks old displayed interactional synchrony. They imitated specific hand or facial gestures.
Supporting evidence (A03) for Meltzoff and Moore, study on interactional synchrony?
Meltzoff and Moore demonstrated the same synchrony with infants only 3 days old. As this behaviour was being displayed in infants so you, it suggests imitation behaviour is innate and not learned.
Supporting evidence (A03) for Meltzoff and Moores study in interactional synchrony?
HINT: is imitation intentional?
Some suggest imitation isn’t intentional but there is evidence that there is.
2 psychologists conducted a study where 2 month old infants interacted via a video monitor with their mother in real time (con 1). In the next part the video monitor played a tape of the mother so she was not responding to the infants facial and bodily gestures. These infants became distressed as they tried to attract their mothers interest but failed.
Shows infant is actively trying to get response instead of displaying one that has been rewarded. Shows infant is an active and intentional partner.
Supporting evidence for Meltzoff and Moores study into interactional synchrony?
HINT: individual differences?
There are individual differences in IS.
More strongly attached infant caregiver pairs show greater IS.
Infants who demonstrate a lot of imitation from birth have better relationships at 3 months.
Suggests relationship between synchrony and strength of attachment - has important implications for parenting.
Criticism of Meltzoff and Moores study into IS?
HINT: what are the problems with testing infant behaviour?
Issues with validity.
Infants mouths are in fairly constant motion and the expressions which were tested occur frequently (tongue sticking out, yawning etc).
So difficult to distinguish between general activity and imitated behaviours.
To overcome this M&M asked independent observers to judge the infants behaviour from the video. The observers had no idea what behaviours were being imitated and still found inter observer reliability of 0.92 - increasing validity of data.
Criticism of Meltzoff and Moores study into IS?
HINT: replicate?
Other studies have dailies to relocate the findings of M&MS original study.
M&M said that the research failed because it was less carefully controlled.
What was the aim of Schaffer and Emersons study into the development of attachment?
To understand the development of attachments.
What was the procedure of Schaffer and Emersons study?
60 infants from working class homes in Glasgow, the infants ranged from 5/23 weeks and were studied till age 1.
Mothers visited every 4 weeks, mothers had to report infants response to 7 everyday situations e.g. being left in a room alone.
Had to describe intensity of any protest on a four point scale.
Mother asked to state who protest was directed at.
Infants respond to interviewer measured at each visit to assess stranger anxiety.
Describe stage 1 in the findings of attachment.
What is the stage called?
Indiscriminate attachment.
Birth to 2 months old infants produce similar response to all objects animate or inanimate. Towards the end they show a greater preference for social stimuli such as a smiling face and tend to be more content when they’re with people.
Reciprocity and IS are important in establishing infants relationships with others at this point.
Describe stage 2 of the stages of attachment.
What’s the stage called?
The beginnings of attachment.
Around the age of 4 months infants become more social. Prefer human company to inanimate objects. Can distinguish between familiar and unfamiliar faces but still easily comforted by anyone. Display general sociability
Describe stage 3 of the findings of attachment.
What’s it called?
Discriminate attachment.
Seven months old infants said to have formed specific attachment to one person. They show joy on reunion with this person, are easily comforted by them and show separation anxiety with them. They also begin to show stranger anxiety.
Here S&E found the primary attachments were formed with the person who was quick, sensitive and responsive to the infants needs, not necessarily who they spend the most time with.
Stage 3, findings of attachment.
What percentage of children made the first specific attachment to only their mother?
65%
What percentage of children made the first specific attachment to only their father?
3%
What percentage of children made their mothers the first joint object of attachment?
30%
What percentage of children made their father the first joint object of attachment?
27%
Describe stage 4.
What’s it called?
Multiple attachments.
After first attachment formed infants forms multiple attachments depending on how many consistent relationships each of them has.
These are called secondary attachments and the infant displays separation anxiety with these also.
1 month of becoming attached : 29% had MA.
6 months : 78%.
1 year : all of them. 1/3 had formed 5 or 6.
A03 of S&E development of attachment.
Criticism on unreliable data?
Based on mothers reports. Some mothers may have been less sensitive to their infants protests and less likely to report them. Others may give bis reports due to social desirability. Reduces internal validity.
A03 of S&E development of attachment.
Criticism of temporal validity?
Study carried out in 1960s when parental care was very different. More women go to work today and children are cared for outside the home or by their father - the number of dads who stay at home to care for their child has quadrupled over the last 25 years. If study was repeated today, findings likely to be different.
A03 of S&E development of attachment.
Criticism of biased / cultural sample?
Working class sample - may not generalise to other social classes.
Individualistic sample (from Britain), may not generalise to collectivist societies.
A03 of S&E development of attachment.
Criticism of are multiple attachments equivalent?
Central argument. Bowlbys view was that an infant forms one special emotional relationship (monotropy hypothesis). He said secondary attachments are important for different reasons e.g. fathers offer a different kind of care and siblings help infants learn how to negotiate with peers.
Rutter believed all attachments were equivalent.
Why is the father rarely attachment figure?
Biological and social factors.
May not be psychologically equipped to form an intense attachment as they lack the emotional sensitivity women offer.
Biological - females have the hormone oestrogen which underlies caring behaviour so they’re more orientated to interpersonal goals than men.
Social - sex stereotypes that affect male behaviour. It is thought to be a feminine feature to be sensitive to the needs of others.
Why did S&E believe fathers were unlikely to be the primary attachment figure?
What did lamb counter argue?
S&E believed it was because fathers spend less time on average with their infants.
Lamb said studies have shown little relationship between father accessibility and infant father attachment.
AO3 of role or the father.
HINT: Frodi
Evidence men are less sensitive to infant cues that mothers.
But, Frodi found no physiological difference in the response of men and women when shown video tapes of infants crying.
A03 of role of the father.
HINT: single parent families?
Men do form secure attachments e.g. in single parent families. Research has shown in two parent families where the father is the primary caregiver, both parents show the role of primary attachment figure.
Why is the father an important secondary attachment figure?
Fathers are more playful, physically active and better at providing challenging situations for their children. A father is an exciting playmate whereas mothers are more conventional and tend to read stories etc.
A03 of father as a secondary attachment figure.
Why is lack of sensitivity good in fathers?
If fosters problem solving by making greater commutative and cognitive demands on children
Aim of the strange situation?
To identify types of attachment in children.
Procedure of the strange situation?
100 middle class American infants and mothers 12-18 months old entered a room with comfy furniture and attractive toys. Controlled observation with 7 three min episodes.
Key behaviours recorded in the SS?
Separation anxiety
Infants willingness to explore
Stranger anxiety
Reunion behaviour
Findings of SS
TYPE A
Avoidant - 22%
Infants not concerned by mothers absence and avoids contact with her on return.
Does not prefer mother or stranger.
Findings of SS
TYPE B
Secure 66%
Infant explores room when mother is present. Separation anxiety and joy on reunion. Prefers mother to stranger.
Findings of SS
TYPE C
Resistant 12%
Infant explores very little when mother is present. Wary of stranger. Upset when mother leaves, angry when she returns - seeks and rejected contact
Conclusion of SS?
There are individual differences in attachment but most US children are securely attached.
Association between mothers behaviour and attachment type suggesting mothers behaviour determines attachment type.
Why did S&E believe fathers were unlikely to be the primary attachment figure?
What did lamb counter argue?
S&E believed it was because fathers spend less time on average with their infants.
Lamb said studies have shown little relationship between father accessibility and infant father attachment.
AO3 of role or the father.
HINT: Frodi
Evidence men are less sensitive to infant cues that mothers.
But, Frodi found no physiological difference in the response of men and women when shown video tapes of infants crying.
A03 of role of the father.
HINT: single parent families?
Men do form secure attachments e.g. in single parent families. Research has shown in two parent families where the father is the primary caregiver, both parents show the role of primary attachment figure.
Why is the father an important secondary attachment figure?
Fathers are more playful, physically active and better at providing challenging situations for their children. A father is an exciting playmate whereas mothers are more conventional and tend to read stories etc.
A03 of father as a secondary attachment figure.
Why is lack of sensitivity good in fathers?
If fosters problem solving by making greater commutative and cognitive demands on children
Aim of the strange situation?
To identify types of attachment in children.
Procedure of the strange situation?
100 middle class American infants and mothers 12-18 months old entered a room with comfy furniture and attractive toys. Controlled observation with 7 three min episodes.
Key behaviours recorded in the SS?
Separation anxiety
Infants willingness to explore
Stranger anxiety
Reunion behaviour
Findings of SS
TYPE A
Avoidant - 22%
Infants not concerned by mothers absence and avoids contact with her on return.
Does not prefer mother or stranger.
Findings of SS
TYPE B
Secure 66%
Infant explores room when mother is present. Separation anxiety and joy on reunion. Prefers mother to stranger.
Findings of SS
TYPE C
Resistant 12%
Infant explores very little when mother is present. Wary of stranger. Upset when mother leaves, angry when she returns - seeks and rejected contact
Conclusion of SS?
There are individual differences in attachment but most US children are securely attached.
Association between mothers behaviour and attachment type suggesting mothers behaviour determines attachment type.
A03 of the SS - supporting evidence
HINT: high test retest reliability?
It has high test retest reliability
When tested at a later date most babies remained in the same catergory. In Germany 78% of children were classed in the same catergory at one and six years.
The changes that did occur where due to changes in family structure
So attatchment type is consistent
A03 strength of the SS
HINT: predictive reliability?
But a problem with the …. is ?
Romantic types were linked to early attachment using a love quiz.
Printed in US newspaper
Secure - rated love experiences as happy, trusting and enduring.
Avoidant - feared infancy. Believed they did not need love to be happy
Resistant - rated love as including extreme jealousy, obsession and attraction. Highs and lows. Worried their partners would abandon them
BUT data was collected retrospectively, memory may not be accurate and biased from previous relationships
A03 of SS - criticism
HINT: internal validity?
Criticism of internal validity of SS is that it may be reflecting the temperament hypothesis.
Some infants may be born more independent and friendly whilst others may be born more vulnerable to stress.
So their behaviour may be down to innate personality characteristics.
This idea is supported by findings that newborns that show signs of behavioural instability e.g. tremors are less likely to become securely attached.
Criticism of SS A03
HINT: internal validity. Experience?
Behaviour in SS may reflect previous experience with separation from mother and whether the infant is used to strangers.
Supported by Japanese babies who appear more resistant as they rarely leave their mother. So may reflect child rearing practices
Criticism of SS A03
HINT: imposed etic
SS was designed for assessing attachment in American infants and may not be valid for assessing attachment in other cultures.
This is an imposed etic approach.
Problem as different cultures have different norms and there is the danger that the USA is considered normal and other cultures abnormal when really the tool is invalid.
Lacks cross cultural validity.
What was the aim of Van Ijzendoorn and Kroonenbergs study into cross cultural differences in attachment?
To investigate cross cultural variation in attachment
Procedure of Ijzendoorn and Kroonenbergs study into cross cultural variation?
Used a meta analysis to compare results of the SS for different cultures. Looked through various databases to find studies on attachment and only used ones that used the strange situation. Studies were excluded if they used twins or Down’s syndrome children.
They examined data from 2000 situations from 32 studies in 8 countries
Findings of jzendoorn and Kroonenbergs study?
West Germany - 35% avoidant
Israel - 29% resistant
Japan - 27% resistant
They found similarities between cultures with secure being the most common.
Found differences with Germany, Israel and Japan.
Found little variation in attachment between cultures but variation within a culture was 1.5x as much.
Conclusion of jzendoorn and Kroonenberg study?
Global patterns were similar to the USA, secure being the norm.
Supports idea secure attachment is important for healthy development.
Cross cultural similarities may be explained by the effects of mass media on parenting views.
A03 strength of jzendoorn and Kroonenbergs cross cultural differences research
HINT: different cultures
Meta analysis drew conclusions about different cultures but really they were comparing differences in countries not cultures.
Found that variation within countries is 1.5x greater than variation between countries.
Therefore danger of exaggerating differences between countries and minimising differences within countries.
Different countries are different to different cultures - e.g. The Israeli ps lived on a kibbutz which would be a different experience to living in Tel Aviv - the capital.
A03 criticism of cross cultural difference in attachment (jzendoorn and Kroonenberg)
HINT: imposed etic. German, Israel, Japan???
Principle behind SS relies on assumption that attachment is related to anxiety on desperation - US INTERPRETATION!!!!! So invalid measuring tool for other cultures - IMPOSED ETIC.
Danger US is considered the norm and other countries abnormal.
May lack cross cultural validity - support for this comes from…
Israel - high number of resistant children. Raised on kibbutz so used to being separated from mother but not used to strangers. So resistant behaviours likely due to stranger entering than mother leaving
Germany - high number of avoidant. German children are taught to be independent from a young age and are often separate from their mothers - reflects parenting techniques
Japan - high number of resistant. Japanese children are rarely separated from their mothers so resistant behaviour likely due to separation from mother not stranger entering.
A03 methodological problems of jzendoorn and Kroonenberg study into cross cultural variation in attachment
Half studies carried out in US. Results likely to be biased and not representative of all cultures.
Some countries sample size to small e.g. Only 36 Chinese infants observed when china has an extremely large population
Aim of Lorenz
To investigate imprinting
What is imprinting?
An innate readiness to develop a strong bond with the first moving object it sees. Takes place during the critical period (few hours after birth)
Procedure of Lorenz?
Took gosling eggs and divided them into two groups. One group left with biological mother and other group placed in incubator. When incubator eggs hatched the first thing they saw was Lorenz and they followed him around (they imprinted on him).
To test this further he marked the two groups to distinguish between them and placed them together.
Findings of Lorenz?
The goslings he liked after had imprinted on him despite their biological mother being present. No recognition for actual mother.
Imprinted limited by critical period (2 days). If animal does not form attachment in this time it never will.
Had an effect on mate preferences - sexual imprinting. Animals will chose to mate with the same object they imprinted on
Conclusion of Lorenz
Concluded imprinting was a special type of learning.
AO3 of Lorenz - criticism
HINT: humans??
Cannot generalise to humans as humans are capable of more complex thought processes. Humans are born more helpless and immature compared to birds so the bonding takes place over long periods of time.
But can be a useful pointer in understanding human behaviour but we should seek to relocate with humans when ethical.
A03 of Lorenz - supporting evidence
HINT: sexual imprinting
Guiton showed leghorn chicks exposed to yellow rubber gloves for feeding during first few weeks imprinted on them. Animals print on ANY moving object during critical period.
Later the male chicks tried to mate with the gloves. Shows early imprinting is linked to later sexual preferences.
A03 of Lorenz - criticism
HINT: flexible ?
Imprinting was seen as a process that was rigid and irreversible but now it’s seen as flexible.
Guiton could reverse imprinting in chicks who had tried to mate with rubber gloves. He found after spending time with their own species they could engage in normal sexual behaviour.
Aim of Harlow?
To investigate whether attachment is based on comfort or feeding
Procedure of Harlow?
Created 2 artificial mothers with different heads - one made with wire and one with cloth.
Both fed the monkey.
8 Rhesus monkeys studies for 165 days and placed in cage with wire and cloth mother.
Con 1 - bottle on wire monkey
Con 2 - bottle on cloth monkey
Amount of time spent with each mother recorded
What did Harlow find?
All 8 monkeys spent most time with cloth mother e.g. 17/18 hours a day vs under 1.
All monkeys kept one foot on cloth mother when playing with new toys for reassurance.
Quickly fed from wire monkey before returning to cloth monkey
When frightened by mechanical teddy bear all monkeys clung to cloth covered monkey
Conclusion of Harlow
Infants do not develop an attachment to who feeds them but to who offers them the most comfort
Long lasting effects of Harlow?
Motherless monkeys developed abnormally even when given comfort. Socially abnormal - froze or fled when approached by other monkeys.
Sexually abnormal - showed abnormal mating behaviour. Did not cradle their own babies. Critical period found for these effects-if motherless monkeys spent time with other monkeys before they were 3 months they recovered. After 6 months they couldn’t
A03 of Harlow - criticism
HINT : heads
Heads of mothers were very different so acted as confounding variable. Possible the reason the monkeys preferred cloth mother was because it had more attractive head. Lacks internal validity
A03 of Harlow criticism
HINT: ethical issues
Created long lasting emotional harm. Money’s found it difficult to form relationships with their peers. But can be justified to extent as it helped our understanding of the processes of attachment and how to provide better care for human infants
What is the learning theory also known as?
Behaviourism
What is classical conditioning?
Learning by association
What is operant conditioning?
Learning by reward
Define classical conditioning in terms of the learning theory.
A baby is born with reflexes. Food produces pleasure. The mother provides the food so becomes a conditioned stimulus. She becomes source of pleasure even if food is not available. So infant seeks to be close to her. Forms basis of bond
Define operant conditioning in terms of the learning theory
Rewarded behaviour is repeated. After feeding the hunger drive is reduced and this is rewarding. As the mother provides the food she becomes a secondary reinforcer. Therefore infant strives to be close to mother and becomes attached.
What is the learning theory? (Behaviourism)
EXPLANATION OF ATTACHMENT
Argues behaviour is not innate but learnt through classical and operant conditioning
A03 of learning theory - criticism
HINT: Harlow’s monkeys
Theory suggests attachment is based on feeding but not case with Harlow monkeys. He found monkeys went to cloth covered mum when frightened by teddy bear even when wire monkey fed them
Suggests core idea behind LT is flawed
A03 criticism of learning theory
Hint: kibbutz
Fox looked at children raised in a kibbutz and found despite the fact the nurse provided them with food, they were still more attached to their parents.
A03 of learning theory - criticism
Hint: abuse
States children who are punishment would decrease the chance of a behaviour occurring but children who are severely abused are still attached to their parents
A03 of learning theory - criticism
Hint- what is the LT?
Reductionist.
Reduces complex human behaviour down to learning through rewards and association.
Other explanations e.g. evolutionary theory
What is bowlbys evolutionary theory also known as?
Monotripic theory
A01 of bowlbys evolutionary (monotropic) theory
- based on ideas of imprinting.
- attachment in an innate process and evolved as it promotes survival.
- similar to Darwins theory that states any behaviour that increases successful reproduction will remain through genes
Promotes survival by:
-safety. Infant wants to remain close so ensures safety
- forms basis for emotional relationships. Bowlby suggested early relationships influence later relationships via an internal working model. Model generates expectations about other relationships based on primary attachment. Provides template
- provides secure base for exploration. Important for cognitive development
Suggests role of social realeasers e.g. crying smiling will encourage a response as other humans are innately programmed to respond to them.
Monotropy hypothesis - innate tendency to form strong attachment to one individual. Infant has hierarchy of attachments at top is central caregiver. They form basis of IWM
Criticsl period of 2.5 years or child would suffer long term damage
A03 supporting evidence for bowlbys evolutionary theory- the IWM
Hint: love quiz
Romantic types linked to early attachment using love quiz.
Secure - happy / trusting
Avoidant - feared intimacy
Resistant - jealous, obsession etc
Supports IWM
but retrospective data
Support for IWM in bowlbys evolutionary theory?
Hint - parenting styles
Women who spent most of early life in institutions found they interacted poorly with own children. Harlows monkeys who raised by wire monkey did not cradle their own babies
Evidence to support monotropy hypothesis of bowlbys evolutionary theory?
Efe tribe live in extended family groups. Infants looked after and breast fed by different women but sleep with their mother at night. 6 months they show preference for mother
Evidence to criticise monotropy idea of bowlbys evolutionary theory?
Some believe healthy psychological development is served best by having different attachments. E.g fathers are more physically stimulating and unpredictable whereas mothers hold, sooth and read infants stories
Criticism of critical period of bowlbys evolutionary theory?
Adopted children form attachments after critical period if extra effort is put in. So thought to be a sensitive period rather than a cut of point
Define deprivation
When a child has formed an important attachment but is then separated from them which causes bond disruption
A01 of bowlbys maternal deprivation theory
5 points
- believed emotional care was just as important as physical care
- child would have difficultly forming relationships and be at risk of developing behavioural disorders
- irreversible and permanent
- breaking maternal bond will have serious effects on infants intellectual, social and emotional development
- child denied maternal care would be emotionally disturbed if it happens before age 2.5. Continued risk up till 5
A03 supporting evidence of bowlbys MDH
Hint : 44 thieves
Conducted research with 88 clients ages 5-16 from the child guidance clinic he worked at. 44 children were thieves and 44 were not. 14 of the 44 thieves identified as affection less psychopaths (showed no remorse and had no social conscience). 86% of the 14 suffered from maternal deprivation. Only 17% of the 30 thieves had suffered it. None of the non thieves suffered it
Concluded early desperation effected later emotional development
Criticism of 44 thieves study?
Researcher bias - bowlby conducted all aspects himself and diagnosed children. Expectancy effects
Retrospective - had to think back when interviewed
A03 strength of bowlbys MDH
Important applications. Changed infant care as before physical care only considered important. Orphan care improved and parents could stay in hospital with young children and longer visiting hours
Criticism A03 of bowlbys MDH by rutter
Said he confused cause and effect with association. Said it may appear to be deprevation causing difficulties but it may be factors associated with it causing it e.g. stress surrounding divorce not the divorce itself.
ISLE OF WIGHT STUDY - over 2000 boys age 9-11 interviewed with families and found that
- if seperation was due to physical illness or death then no correlation with delinquency
- if due to psychiatric illness or discord in family then 4x more likely to be delinquent.
Suggests mainly family discord rather than maternal separation which caused problems
A03 criticism of bowlbys critical period
With extra effort children can recover. Now called a sensitive period
What is the conclusion of bowlbys maternal deprevation hypothesis?
Important to consider why some children recover. Rutter tried to change emphasis of Bowlby - argued maternal deprevation should be classed as a vulnerability rather than define sign of future problems
What is institutionalisation?
Children bought up in care homes eg orphanages. Unlikely to have contact with family
What is privation? What can it be caused by?
Failure to form attachments.
Institutionalisation causes this
Aim of Rutter study?
To investigate impact of institutionalisation
Procedure of rutters study?
Longitudinal study comparing Romanian orphans who were adopted by U.K. families with U.K. born adoptees adopted before 6 months.
3 conditions:
- 58 Romanian born adopted by U.K. before 6 months
- 59 Romanian born adopted by U.K. 6-24 months
- UK born adoptees adopted before 6 months
Romano orphans entered orphanages as small babies between 1-2 weeks old. Conditions poor. Suffered severe malnourishment and bottom third of population for weight and head size.
Followed up at ages 4, 6 and 11 using a range of measuring techniques e.g. interviews and reports
Findings of IQ at age 4 in rutters study?
When Romanian orphans arrived showed severe cognitive deficiency and were malnourished. Most of the Romanian children adopted before six months caught up with uk adoptees in size and cognitive ability by age 4. Those adopted after 6 months had on going problems
Findings of IQ at age 11 on rutter
Differences in IQ continued
Before 6 months - 102
After -86
These were the mean IQs
Attachment at age 6 in rutters study?
Difference between those adopted before and after 6 months. Found evidence of disinhibited attachment which was a pattern of attention seeking behaviours and lack of selectivity in social relationships. Children with this likely to go off with strangers and have inappropriate contact with them
U.K. Born - 3.1%
Romanian before 6 months - 8.9%
Romanian 6-24 months - 26.1%
Attachment at age 11 in rutters study?
Disinhibited behaviour patterns continued in the adoptees.
What was the conclusion of rutters study?
The effects of living in an institution and not forming an attachment within bowlbys critical period could be long term, particularly in late adoptees. But the effects can be decreased with extra effort and early adoption
A03 strength of rutters study
Hint: several assessment measures
Uses range of assessment methods to assess behaviour included interviews, observations and reports. Doing this provides both qualitative and quantitative data and using several research methods helps to overcome to weaknesses of others. This is called triangulation
A03 supporting evidence for Rutter study?
Hint: another study
Zeanah compared 136 Romanian children who had spent on average 90% of their live in an institution with Romanian children who had not been institutionalised. Children were 12 - 31 months old and assessed in SS.
Found institutionalised group treated strangers inappropriately and 44% were classed as having disinhibited attachment. Only 19% securely attached compared to 74% of controls who had never been institutionalised.
Weakness of Rutters study A03
Hint: longitudinal study
Study lasts for years so people likely to drop out - ATTRITION. Likely particular types will drop out, causing bias. Here more troubled children likely to drop out however this should have affected all groups and therefore not the findings
A03 criticism of rutters study
Hint: what type of experiment?
Natural experiment so cannot infer cause and effect. Institutionalisation alone cannot explain negative outcomes e.g. many children adopted after 6 months developed normal attachment.
Could be temperament hypothesis which explain individual differences. Supporting this rutter said children who smile more get more attention and therefore may have some early attachment experiences and so normal attachments as they get older
Conclusion of rutter?
Institutionalisation and therefore privation is a vulnerability factor and if effort if put in, the effects on child can be reduced
What is another term for the influence of early attachment on childhood and adult relationships?
Continuity hypothesis
A01 what is the continuity hypothesis (influence of early attachment of later relationships)
Bowlbys evolutionary explanation for attachment suggests early relationships provide basis for later relationships via the IWM - this is the continuity hypothesis.
The attachment styles we learn as kids become an IWM for what we believe relationships are like and how to behave in future relationships.
R
Bowlby suggests we develop an attachment style that consists of 2 attitudes (interpersonal trust and self esteeem). If our caregivers lead us to believe they are reliable and we are valued then we will have high self esteem and trust others, forming basis for secure attachment.
A01 continuity hypothesis continued
What three types of attachment did ainsworth identify by these differing interactions with caregivers?
Secure - caregivers are responsive to infants needs and infants trust caregiver and are not afraid of being abandoned
Insecure avoidant - caregivers are distant and do not want intimacy with infant.
Insecure resistant - caregivers and inconsistent and overbearing with affection. Infants anxious as don’t know how their caregivers will respond.
According to this theory, a child with a secure attachment style will have a positive IWM.
A03 support for continuity hypothesis
Hint : specifically for IWM
Love quiz.y
Asked questions about current attachment experiences and past ones to identity current and childhood attachment types. Assessed 620 response from cross section of population. Found distribution of catergories was similar to infancy
Secure - 56%
Avoidant - 24%
Resistant - 20%
A03 support for continuity hypothesis
Hint: waters et all
Waters retested adults at age 20 after being previously tested at age 1. High degree of stability - 72% of adults same classification
But use retrospective data so may not he accurate
Evaluation for childhood friendships for continuity hypothesis A03
Hint - Minnesota parent child study
Followed ps from infancy to late adolescence and found continuity. Securely attached people in infancy later rated high as more popular and empathetic
Evaluation for childhood relationships A03 continuity hypothesis
Hint : severe neglect
Lack of attachment in critical period results in lack of IWM, resulting in attachment disorder. Children with this have experienced severe neglect. Have no preferred attachment figure and cannot interact or relate to others. Evident by age 5
Evaluation for parenting skills A03 of continuity hypothesis
Mothers bought up in care interacted poorly with children and had no IWM to provide a template on how to look after them properly
A03 of continuity hypothesis / general evaluation points
2 of them
1) correlational can’t infer cause and effect. May not be early attachment but temperament hypothesis and divorce
2) deterministic. Implies future relationships only dependent on early experiences. But many children with insecure attachments experience happy adult relationships. Also socially sensitive as blames parents
