Attachment Flashcards
Caregiver-infant interactions
Reciprocity
Babies signal when they are ready for interaction. Mothers respond to infant alertness 2/3 of the time.
From 3 months interaction becomes more frequent. A key element of this is reciprocity where mother and infant respond to the other and elict a response.
Mother or child can initiate interactions and take turns doing so.
Caregiver-infant interactions
Interactional synchrony
Mother and infant reflect the actions and emotions of the other and do this in a co-ordinated way.
Meltzoff and Moore- Adult displayed an expression or gesture. Child’s response was filmed and identified by independent observers. An association as found between the action of the mother and response of the child.
Isabella et al- interactional synchrony important for development of attachment. Observed 30 mothers and infants and assessed the degree of synchrony. Also assessed the quality of attachment. High levels of synchrony associated with better quality mother-infant attachment.
Caregiver-infant interactions
strengths
Controlled observations capture fine detail.
Well controlled procedures filmed from multiple angles. Babies don’t know they’re being watched so behaviour won’t change. Increases validity.
Caregiver-infant interactions
weaknesses
Hard to know what’s happening when observing infants.
Same patterns of interaction often shown but only hand movements/expressions are being observed. Hard to tell what is going on from child’s perspective. Can’t tell if imitation is conscious and deliberate.
Synchrony just means behaviours occur at the same time, it doesn’t tell us their purpose.
Attachment figures
Parent-infant interaction (schaffer and emerson)
Majority of babies attach to mothers first then secondary attachments soon after. Attachment formed with father after 18 months by 75%. Determined by protest as father walks away.
Role of the father (grossman)
Longitudinal study found quality of infant attachment with mother but not father related to attachment in adolescence. Suggests fathers attachment less important. Quality of father’s play related to adolescent attachments- fathers role stimulation not nurturing.
Fathers as primary carers
Fathers can adopt behaviours typical of mothers. Babies filmed in ftf interactions. Primary caregiver fathers, like mothers, spent more time smiling and imitating than secondary caregiver fathers. fathers can be nurturing attachment figure.
Attachment figures
evaluation
Inconsistent findings on fathers.
If fathers have a distinct role why aren’t children without fathers different.
Schaffer and emerson
Investigate formation of early attachment. Babies visited at home once a month for first year then after 18 months. Asked mothers questions of how babies responded to everyday separation.
30 weeks- 50% separation anxiety
40 weeks- 80% specific attachment, 30% multiple.
Stages of attachment (based on schaffer and emerson)
Asocial (first few weeks)- similar behaviour to humans and objects. Begin to prefer familiar humans.
Indiscriminate (2-7 months)- prefer people, recognise familiar adults. Accept comfort from anyone, no stranger/separation anxiety.
Specific (from 7 months)- Separation/stranger anxiety. Primary attachment formed with who offers most interaction and responds most accurately to signals.
Multiple- attachment behaviour extends. 29% within month of primary.
Schaffer and emerson
Evaluation
Good external validity
observations by parents in own home. Babies’ behaviour not likely to be effected by observer.
Longitudinal design
better internal validity because no confounding variable of participant variables (would be problem if different children used for each stage).
Limited sample characteristics
Same social class, city, time. Hard to generalise.
Stages of attachment (based on schaffer and emerson)
Evaluation
Conflicting evidence on multiple attachments.
Bowlby- babies form a specific attachment before they can form multiple attachments.
Psychologists working in cultural contexts state multiple attachments can be made from the outset.
Problem with how multiple attachment is assessed.
Baby getting distressed when individual leaves doesn’t mean they’re an attachment figure. Babies also have playmates and get distressed when they leave. Schaffer and emerson observations don’t distinguish between behaviour shown to secondary attachment figures and playmates.
Animal studies
Lorenz
Half geese hatched with him (first moving thing they saw), half with mother. Geese imprinted on him- followed him around. When all mixed up the geese hatched with mother would return to her and the others return to Lorenz. Identified critical period- if imprinting didn’t occur within this time it never would.
Animal studies
Lorenz evaluation
Problem generalising to humans. Attachment system of mammals different to birds. mammals show more emotional attachment and can form attachments at any age (but much easier in infancy).
Lorenz’s conclusions have been questioned. Studies suggest imprinting isn’t as permanent as he stated. Chicken imprinted on gloves, but learned with experience to prefer other chickens.
Animal studies
Harlow
Wire and cloth monkey. For half monkeys wire mother had milk, for other half cloth monkey had milk. Cloth provided contact comfort so was preferred. Only went to wire mother for food, then returned.
Also investigated whether this maternal deprivation had a permanent effect. Monkeys reared with wire mother most dysfunctional. More aggressive, less social, mated less.
Concluded there is a critical period. Mother must be introduced to infant monkey in 90 days for an attachment to form. After this damage may be irreversible.
Animal studies
Harlow Evaluation
Increases psychologists’ understanding of human mother-infant interactions. Showed attachment doesn’t develop due to being fed by mother but as a result of contact comfort. Also shows importance of early attachments on later development.
Ethical issues
Monkeys suffered greatly. Species similar enough to be generalised to human, so suffering human like. Counter argument-research important enough to justify effects
Learning theory
Dollars and Miller
Classical conditioning- learning by association. Food UCS>pleasure UCR. Caregiver NS. Caregiver associated with food. NS becomes CS and leads to CR of pleasure.
Operant conditioning- learning through consequence (reinforcement/punishment). Mother responding to baby crying positively reinforces baby to cry and negatively reinforces mother to repeat behaviour. Mutual reinforcement strengthens attachment.
Learning theory evaluation
Counter evidence from animal research
Show animals don’t attach to who feeds them(Lorenz/Harlow). Food doesn’t create attachment bond
Counter evidence from human research
Babies develop primary attachment to biological mother even if someone else feeds them (Schaffer and Emerson). Shows feeding isn’t key element of attachment. No UCS or primary drive involved.
Ignores other factors involved in developing attachment (reciprocity/interactional synchrony). Best quality attachments with those who respond accurately. Aren’t demonstrated through learning theory. If attachment developed only through food there would be no need for these complex interactions.
Bowlby’s monotropic theory
Rejected learning theory and developed evolutionary approach based on Lorenz and Harlow. Attachment is an innate system which gives a survival advantage. Imprinting/attachment ensure child stays close to parent.
Bowlby’s monotropic theory
Monotropy
Emphasis on child’s attachment to one caregiver. Different and more important than others.
Bowlby’s monotropic theory
Social releasers and critical period
Babies born with innate ‘cute’ features which attract attention from adults (social releasers). The mother and child’s innate disposition to become attached is triggered by these.
Critical period when attachment system is active (around 2 yrs). If attachment isn’t formed in this time will be much harder to form one later.
Bowlby’s monotropic theory
Internal working model
A child’s mental representation of their primary attachment which forms the basis of how they see all future relationships should be. Affects a child’s later ability to be a parent as people treat their children how they were treated.
Bowlby’s monotropic theory
Strengths
Support for social releasers.
Primary attachment figures ignored babies signals (to ignore social releasers). Initially showed distress but when continued to be ignored began to curl up and lie motionless. Supports idea that infant behaviour can elicit caregiving.
Support for internal working models.
The idea is testable as it predicts patterns of attachment will be passed on through generations. They assessed mothers attachment to their own mothers using a standard interview. They also assessed the infants attachment to the mothers by observation. Mothers reporting poor attachments to their own parents were more likely to have children classified as poor according to observations.
Bowlby’s monotropic theory
Weaknesses
Mixed evidence for monotropy. Schaffer and Emerson state we do initially make a primary attachment however this behaviour quickly spreads and we develop multiple attachments. It is also unclear what’s special about the first attachment. Could just mean it’s stronger, not better in quality.
Ainsworth’s strange situation
Controlled observation to measure attachment quality. Child encouraged to explore- tests exploration and secure base. Stranger enters- tests stranger anxiety. Caregiver leaves- tests separation anxiety. Caregiver returns- tests reunion behaviour. Identified 3 attachment types.
Ainsworth’s strange situation
Attachment types
Secure (B) 70%
Explore but regularly return to carer. Moderate separation/stranger anxiety. Require and accept comfort on reunion.
Insecure avoidant (A) 25% explore but don't show secure base behaviour. Little to no separation/stranger anxiety. Make little to no effort to make contact on reunion.
Insecure resistant (C) less than 5% Seek greater proximity so explore less. Huge stranger/separation anxiety. Resist comfort on reunion.
Ainsworth’s strange situation
Strengths
Validity
Attachment type predicts later development. Babies assessed as secure have better outcomes in many areas. Insecure related to bullying and mental health problems. Evidence for validity as it can explain subsequent outcomes.
Reliability
IRR 94%. controlled conditions and use if behavioural categories. Confident attachment type doesn’t depend on observers interpretations.
Ainsworth’s strange situation
Weaknesses
Culture bound. Cultural differences in childhood experiences mean children are likely to respond differently. Caregivers from different cultures also behave differently in SS. Eg Japanese mothers so rarely separated from their children that there are very high levels of separation anxiety. At reunion mothers rushed up so response was hard to observe.
Cultural variation in attachment
Van ijzendoorn
Ijzendoorn and kroonenberg studied proportions of attachment types across countries. Secure always most common. Insecure resistant least common. Secure \+Britain -China Resistant \+Israel -Britain Avoidant \+Germany -Japan
Cultural variation in attachment
Strengths
Large sample. Increases validity by reducing the impact of anomalous results (eg. Caused by bad methodology/unusual participants).
Cultural variation in attachment
Weaknesses
Samples unrepresentative of cultures. Ijzendoorn compares countries not cultures. May be many cultures within a country with different child rearing practices. Comparisons of countries may have little meaning (particular cultural characteristics and caregiving styles need to be specified).
Method of assessment biased. SS designed by American researcher based on British theory. Demonstrates an imposed etic as a theory designed for one culture is being applied to another. Eg. In Germany separation may be seen as independence not avoidance and so not a sign of insecurity.
Bowlby’s theory of maternal deprivation
Nurture is essential for development.
Separation vs deprivation
Separation- not in presence of primary attachment figure. Only becomes a problem if child deprived. Brief separations aren’t significant for development but deprivation causes harm.
Critical period
First 30 months critical for psychological development. If child separated with absence of substitute care during this period bowlby predicted psychological damage was inevitable.
Bowlby’s theory of maternal deprivation
Effects on development
Intellectual development
If mother absent for too long suffer mental retardation characterised by abnormally low IQ. E.g. Goldfarb found lower IQ in children who remained in institutions that who were fostered (so had higher standard of emotional care).
Emotional development
Bowlby- affectionless psychopathy is the inability to experience guilt or emotion to others. Prevents normal relationships developing and associates with criminality. Can’t appreciate feelings of victims so lack remorse.
Bowlby’s theory of maternal deprivation
44 thieves study
Thieves interviewed for signs of affectionless psychopathy. Families interviewed to find whether they had prolonged separation from mothers.
14/44 described as affectionless psychopaths. 12 experienced prolonged separation from mother in first 2 years. Only 5 of the remaining thieves had prolonged separations. Prolonged early separation leads to affectionless psychopathy.
Bowlby’s theory of maternal deprivation
Evaluation
Evidence may be poor. Bowlby used a number of sources as evidence for maternal deprivation including orphans of WW2. War orphans often traumatised and had poor after care. These may be the cause of later development problems not separation. Also children in orphanages such as his study different many deprivations not just maternal care.
Study also has design flaws (bias). Bowlby carried out assessments himself, knowing what he hoped to find.
Counter evidence.
Study replicated on larger scale. History of early prolonged separation didn’t predict criminality or difficult forming relationships. Suggests other factors may affect the outcome of early maternal deprivation.
Romanian orphan studies: effects of institutionalisation
Rutter
Followed romanian orphans adopted in britain. physical, cognitive and emotional development assessed at several ages. By age 11 adopted children showed different development rates depending on the age of adoption. Before 6 months IQ=102, under 2 yrs IQ=86, over 2 yrs IQ=77. Adopted after 6 months also showed disinhibited attachment (symptoms- attention seeking, behaviour directed to all adults). Children adopted before 6 months rarely displayed this.
Romanian orphan studies: effects of institutionalisation
Bucharest early intervention project
Attachments of children who spent most of their lives in institutional care assessed using SS. Compared to control who never been institutionalised. Carers asked if they saw any signs of disinhibited attachment. 75% of control group securely attached, only 20% of institutional group. 44% vs 20% disinhibited attachment.
Romanian orphan studies: effects of institutionalisation
strengths
real life application.
studying orphans increased understanding of impact of institutionalisation. improvements in how children treated in institutions eg. avoid having large numbers of carers for each child. 1 or 2 play key role for the child (key worker). Gives chance to develop normal attachment and avoid disinhibited attachment.
Romanian orphan studies: effects of institutionalisation
weaknesses
Romanian orphanages weren’t typical
useful data came out of the studies however conditions may have been so bad that results can’t be applied to understanding the impact of better quality institutional care. e.g.. particularly poor care standards, especially when forming relationships with children, low intellectual stimulation.
Unusual situational variables so study may lack generalisability.
Influence of early attachment on later relationships
Internal working model
Bowl by suggested children form a mental representation which acts as a template for future relationships based on their primary attachment. The quality of this attachment affects future relationships. First experience- loving relationship with reliable caregiver- assumes this is how should be. Seek functional relationships, not too uninvolved/emotionally close. bad experience as first attachment- struggle to form relationships/ behave inappropriately when in them.
Influence of early attachment on later relationships
attachment type associated with quality of peer relationships in children.securely attached form best childhood friendships, insecure have more friendship difficulties. Bullying predicted by attachment type. Study assessed bullying involvement and attachment type using questionnaires. secure- very unlikely to be involved. Avoidant- most likely to be victims. Resistant- most likely to be bullies.
Influence of early attachment on later relationships
Relationships in adulthood with romantic partners
Study of attachment and relationships: secure- best adult friendships and romantic relationships. Resistant- problems maintaining relationships. Avoidant- struggled with intimacy in romantic relationships.
Hazan and shaver’s love quiz. printed in magazines. assesses attachment type and general love experiences. Secure described relationships as happy/trusting. Avoidant- worry partner didn’t love them and obsession. Resistant feared intimacy, said don’t need love to be happy. suggests patterns of attachment reflected in romantic relationships.
Influence of early attachment on later relationships
Relationships in adulthood as a parent
IWM also affects child’s ability to parent their own children.base parenting style on IWM so attachment type often passed on.
Influence of early attachment on later relationships
Evaluation
Hazan and shaver- quiz not representative as certain type of people will respond. Easy to lie.
Correlation not causation
Studies of infant attachment type being associated with later relationships state attachment type causes this. other possible explanations for the continuity between infant and later relationships. 3rd factor such as parenting style may affect attachment or child’s ability to form relationships. Child’s temperament may influence infant attachment an later relationship quality. Counter to Bowlby’s view that IWM causes these later outcomes.
