ATTACHMENT Flashcards
strengths of caregiver-infant interactions
x2
uses well-controlled procedures:
mother-infant interactions are usually filmed and from various angles so very fine details can be recorded and analysed later. aslo babies don’t know they’re being observed so behaviour doesn’t change in response to observation. good validity
vaue to society:
identification of interactional synchrony as an important foundation in formation of high-quality attachments could have practical applications. Crotwell et al. found that a 10 minute Parent-Child Interaction Therapy improved interactional synchrony in 20 low-income mothers and their pre-school infancts compared to a control group. research on IS could lead to valuable methods for improvng and developing mother-infant attachments
limitations of caregiver-infant interactions
x2
hard to know what is happening when observing infants:
many studies of mother-infant interactions have shown the same patterns of behaviour (Gratier) but merely hand movements or changes in expression. difficult to know what’s taking place from the infant’s perspective and if the imitation of adult signals is deliberate. can’t be certain that mother-infant interactions have a special meaning
research is socially sensitive:
suggests that children may be disadvantaged by certain child-rearing practices. specifically mothers who return to work shortly after the child is born hence restricting the opportunities for achieving interactional synchrony. suggests that mothers should not return to work so soon, having obvious socially sensitive implications
strength of role of the father
important economic implications:
mothers may feel pressured to stay at home due to research that says mothers are vital for healthy emotional development (e.g research into interacional synchrony and quality of mother-infant attachment). insome families this may not be economically the best solution e.g mother has higher paying job. research may be of comfort to mothers who feel they cannot return to work quickly
limitations of the role of the father
x3
researchers are interested in different research questions:
some psychologists want to understand the role of fathers as secondary attachment figures and others more concerned with fathers as primary attachment figures. former tends to see fathers as behaving differently to mothers and having a distinct role and latter find fathers take on a more ‘maternal’ role. can’t answer the simple question of what is the role of the father
evidence undermines idea of fathers having a distinct role:
Grossman found that fathers as secondary attchment figures had a distinctive role in their child’s development, involving play and stimulation. McCallum & Golombok found that children gorwing up in single or same-sex parent families don’t develop differently from those in 2 parent families. father’s role as a secondary attchment figure is not important
research fails to provide a clear answer about fathers and primary attachments:
anwer could be related to traditional gender roles in which women are expectedto be more nurturing than men therefore fathers don’t feel they should act in a nurturing way. or could be that female hormones e.g oestrogen create higher levels of nurtuing so women are predisposed to be primary attachment figures
strengths of Schaffer and Emerson’s stages of attachment
x2
external validity:
most of the observations were made by parentsduring ordinary acivities then reported to researchers. behaviour of babies was unlikely to be affected by the presence of observers. so higly likely that the ppts behaved naturally while being observed
longitudinal study:
same children were followed up and observed regularly. quicker alternative would have been to observe different chdilren at each age (cross-sectional design). longitudinal studies have better internal validity as don’t have the confouding varibale of individual differences between ppts
limitations of Schaffer & Emerson’s stages of attachment
x2
problem with how multiple attachments are assessed:
just because a baby gets distressed when someone leaves the room doesn’t necessarily mean the individual is a ‘true’ attachment figure. Bowlby pointed out that children may be distressed when a playmate leaves the room but this doesn’t signify attachment to them. Schaffer & Emerson’s view of stages doesn’t distinguish between behaviour shown towards secondary attachment figures and playmates
problem in studying the asoscial stage:
describe the first few weeks as the ‘asocial’ stage even thought important interactions take place. but young babies have poor coordination and are fairly immobile, making it diifcult to make judgements based on observations of their behaviour. it may be that babies are actually quite social but because of flawed methods they appear to be asocial
strengths of animal studies of attachment
x2
support for the concept of imprinting:
Guiton found that chicks could be imprinted on yellow washing up gloves and woul try to mate with them as adults. suggests that young animals are born with an innate mechanism to imprint on a moving object in the critical window of development. strengthens concept
Harlow’s research has practical applications:
helped social works understand risk factors in child abuse and so intervene to prevent it (Howe). also now understand the importance of attachment figures for baby monkeys in zoos and breeding programmes in the wild. usefulness increases value
limitations of animal studies of attachment
x2
Lorenz’s research not generalisable to humans:
mammalian attachment system is quite different from that in birds e.g mammalian mothers show more emotional attachment to their young. not appropriate to generalise Lorenz’s findings and conclusions from birds to humans.
severe ethical criticisms of Harlow’s research:
Rhesus monkeys are similar enough to humans to generalise findings, so presumably their uffering was equally humn-like. Harlow himself was aware of the suffering he caused e.g referred to the wire mothers as ‘iron maidens’ named after a medieval torture device. also observed damage caused to mother-deprived monkeys e.g aggressive. hard to be sure whether the importance of the research justifies the damage causd to the monkeys
limitations of learning theory as an explanation for attachment:
x4
animal studies provide evidence against food as the basis of attachment:
Lorenz’s imprinted geese maintained imprinted attachment regardless of who fed them and Harlow found monkeys attached to soft mother even though wire mother provided milk. both studies attachment didn’t develop asa result of feeding. same must be true for humans as learning theorists believe that human and non-human animals are equivalent.
human research shows feeding isn’t an important factor:
Schaffer & Emerson found that for many babies their primary attachment wasn’t with the person who fed them. suggests feeding isn’t a key element in attachment so there is no unconditioned stimulus or primary drive. other factors are more important than food
ignores other factors linked with attachment:
research shows developing attachment is linked with good levels of interactional synchrony and reciprocity. also, best quality attachments are with sensitive caregivers who pick up infant’s signals and respond appropriately. hard to reconcile (make 1 account consistent with the other) these findings with the idea that attachment develops primarily through feeding
newer learning explanation based on social learning theory:
Hay & Vespo suggest parents teach children to love them by modelling attachment behaviours e.g hugging them and other family members. also by rewarding them when they display their own attachment behaviours e.g ‘that’s a lovely smile’. babies have learned attachment behaviours as a result of their interactions, which fits with research on importance of interactional synchrony and reciprocity
strengths of Bowlby’s theory as an eplanation for attachment
x2
clear evidence to support the existence and value of social releasers:
Brazleton et al. istructed the primary attachment figure to ignore babies’ social releasers. previosly shown to be normally responsive babies showed some distess and eventually curled up in a ball and lay motionless. supports Bowlby’s ideas about significance of infant soical behaviour eliciting caregiving from adults and role of soical releasers in initiating social interaction
support for idea of internal working model:
idea of internal working model predicts patterns of attachment will be passeddown from one generation to the next. Bailey et al. studied 99 mothers and found that those with poor attachment to parents were more likely to have 1 year old who were poorly attached. supports Bowlby’s idea of IWM as it’s being passed down through families
limitations of Bowlby’s theory as an explanation for attachment
x2
monotropy is socially sensitive:
law of accumulated separation states having substantial time away from primary attachment figure risks a poor quality attachment that will disadvatage the child in a range of ways. feminists argue that mothers are blamed for anything that goes wrong in a child’s life and Bowlby’s theory pushes mothers into making lifestyle choices e.g not returning to work. not Bowlby’s intention as saw himself as boosting status of mothers by emphasising their importance
Bowlby may have overestimated the role of attachment in explaining later social behaviour:
alternative explanation is that temperament is important in the development of soical behaviour. temperament researchers suggest that some babies are more anxious and some are more sociable than others as a result of their genetic make-up. temperamental differences rather than quality of attachment can explain later social behaviour
strengths of the strange situation
x2
good predictive validity:
attachment type predicts later development e.g secure typically do well in schoool and have longer lasting relationships. insecure-resistant associated with the worst outcomes e.g bullying and formation of mental health issues. evidence for the validity of the concept as it can explain future outcomes
good inter-rater reliability:
Bick et al. found that in one group 94% agreed on attachment type given by Ainsworth to the original children. may be because the Strange Situation takes place under controlled conditions and because the behavioural categories are easy to observe. attachment type of an infant in the strange situation doesn’t depend on who is observing them
limitations of the strange situation
x2
may be a culture-bound test:
test might not have the same meaning in countries outside Western Europe and the USA. cultural differences in children’s experiences mean they respond differently and also caregivers from different cultures behave differently. Takahashi notes that Japanese mothers are rarely separated from infants thus the infants show high levels of separation anxiety
may be other attachment types:
ainsworth identified 3 attachment types. Main & Solomon pointed out that some children displayed atypical attachments that don’t fit type A, B or C. this is disorganised attachment, a mix between avoidant and resistant behaviours. challeneges initial notion of attachment types and questions whether the SS is a useful method to identify these types
strengths of studies into cultural variations in attachment
x2
strength of meta-analysis is that you end up with very large samples:
in van Ijzendoorn & Kroonenberg’s meta-analysis, nearly a total of 2000 infants and primary attachment figures were studied. Simonelli et al.’s study had large comparison groups from previous research. large samples increase internal validity by reducing the impact of biased methodology or unusual ppts
provide an alternative explanatin for similarities between cultures:
Bowlby’s theory suggested that similarites between cultures was due to attachment being innate and universal so producing the same kind of behaviour all over the world. Van Ijzendoorn & Kroonenberg proposed an alternative posibility, that only small cross-cultural differences may reflect the effect of mass media. books and TV programmes broadcast around the world and create parenting norms so similarities in child-rearing have become more common
limitations of studies into cultural variations in attachment
x2
samples used may not be representative of cultures:
meta-analysis made comparisons between countries, not cultures. within any country there are different cultures each with different child-rearing practices. e.g va Ijzendoorn & Sagi found attachment types in urban Tokyo in similar proportions to western studies but a more rural sample over-represnted insecure-resistant individuals. comparisons between countries may have little meaning. the particular cultural characteristics of the sample need to be specified
strange situation method may be biased towards american/british culture:
designed by an american researcher based on a british theory (Bowlby) so this theory and assessment may not be applicable to other cultures. trying to apply a technique deisnged for one culture to another is an imposed etic which disregards the ntion of cultural emic (uniqueness). idea that lack of pleasure on reunion indicates insecure attachment is an imposed etic as in Germany this behaviour is seen to be more as independence than avoidance and not a sign of insecurity
