Attachment Flashcards
Reciprocity
A description of how two people interact
Mother – infant interaction is reciprocal in that both infant and mother respond to each other’s signals and each elicits a response from the other
Interactional synchrony
Mother and infant reflect both the actions and emotions of the other and do this in a coordinated way
What is an attachment
A close two-way emotional bond between two individuals in which each individual sees the other as essential for their own emotional security
Name researchers that looked into caregiver – infant interactions
Interactions synchrony
Meltzoff and Moore
Meltzoff and Moore study procedure
Caregiver – infant interactions
Aim: to see if infants imitate the facial expressions and hand gestures of an adult
Covert, controlled
Selected 4 different stimuli and observed the behaviour of infants in response
To record observations an observer watched videotapes of the infants behaviour
Video was then judged by independent observers who had no knowledge of what infant had just seen
Each observer asked to note down all instances of tongue protrusions and head movements
Meltzoff and Moore study findings
Infant copies what the adult did e.g. stuck out tongue when adults stuck out tongue
Each observer scored tapes twice so intraobserver and interobserver reliability could be calculated
All scores were greater than 92
Infants imitated the facial expressions and hand gestures of an adult matter
Name two caregiver – infant interactions
Reciprocity
Interactional synchrony
Who studied reciprocity
Feldman and Eidelman
Evaluate research into caregiver – infant interactions
Some researchers suggest the behaviour seen in caregiver – infant interactions are just imitations and the infant is not consciously and deliberately attempting to communicate in a social way
However the still face research studies suggest these interactions are deliberate. The fact that the infants work so hard to attract the caregivers attention and become so distressed when they don’t react to them clearly supports the idea that the infant is actively involved in the communications
Babies mouths are in fairly constant motion and therefore tend to display behaviours like opening their mouth or sticking out the tongue quite regularly. In M and M research, researchers could’ve been seeing accidental rather than intentional behaviours
Researchers can only really make educated guesses as to what the communications actually mean from the babies perspective. They cannot know for certain that they have any special meanings for them because the baby cannot tell them
Why is research into caregiver – infant interactions socially sensitive
Because it suggests that children may be disadvantaged by particular child rearing practices
For example mothers who return to work shortly after a child is born, restricts the opportunities for achieving interactional synchrony, which Isabella et al showed to be important in the developing of infant – caregiver attachment
Consequently, this can be distressing to mothers who returned to work soon after their child was born who read the research
Tronick et al
Still face experiment
The study emphasises the importance of early parent – infant interaction in attachment and the negative effects of non-responsiveness on the part of the mother – i.e. a lack of reciprocity
Isabella et al
Shows positive correlations between levels of synchrony and the quality of caregiver – infant attachment in their study of 30 mothers and infants
Secure attachment
These children explore more happily but regularly go back to their caregiver (Proximity seeking and secure base behaviour)
They usually show moderate separation distress and moderate stranger anxiety
Securely attached children require and accept comfort from the caregiver in the reunion stage
Insecure avoidant attachment
These children explore freely but do not seek proximity or show secure base behaviour
They show little or no reaction when their caregiver leaves and they make little effort to make contact when the caregiver returns
They also show little stranger anxiety
They do not require comfort at the reunion stage
Insecure resistant attachment
These children seek greater proximity than others and so explore less
They show huge stranger and separation distress but they resist comfort when reunited with their carer
Schaffer and Emerson study method
This study involves 60 babies – 31 male, 29 female
All from Glasgow and the majority were from skilled working-class families
The babies and the mothers were visited at home every month for the first year and again at 18 months
The researchers asked the mothers questions about the kind of protest the baby showed in seven every day separations e.g. adult leaving the room
This was designed to measure the infants attachment. The research also assessed stranger anxiety
Schaffer and Emerson study findings
Between 25 and 32 weeks of age about 50% of the babies showed signs of separation anxiety towards a particular adult, usually the mother (this is called specific attachment)
Attachment tended to be to the caregiver who was most interactive and sensitive to infant signals and facial expressions (i.e. reciprocity) this was not necessarily the person with whom infant spent most time
By the age of 40 weeks 80% of the babies had a specific attachment and almost 30% displayed multiple attachments
Stages of attachment identified by Schaffer
Asocial stage
Indiscriminate attachment
Specific attachment
Multiple attachments
Asocial stage of attachment
Stage one
First few weeks
The baby is recognising and forming bonds with its carers
However, the babies behaviour towards nonhuman objects and humans is quite similar
Babies show some preference for familiar adults in that those individuals find it easier to calm them
Babies are also happier when in the presence of other humans
Indiscriminate stage of attachment
Stage two
From 2 to 7 months babies displaying more observable social behaviour
They show a preference for people rather than inanimate objects, and recognise and prefer familiar adults
At this stage babies usually accept cuddles and comfort from any adult, and they do not usually show separation anxiety or stranger anxiety
Their attachment behaviour is therefore said to be indiscriminate because it is not different towards any one person
Specific stage of attachment
Stage three
From around seven months the majority of babies start to display anxiety towards strangers and to become anxious when separated from one particular adult
At this point the baby is said to have formed a specific attachment
This adult is termed the primary attachment figure
This person is not necessarily the person the baby spends most time with but the one who offers the most interaction and responds to the baby signals with the most skill
Multiple stage of attachment
Stage 4
Shortly after babies start to show attachment behaviour towards one adult they usually extend this attachment behaviour to multiple attachments with other adults with whom they regularly spend time
These relationships are called secondary attachments
Evaluation of Schaffer and Emerson study
Good external Validity- carried out in families’ own homes. Most observations done by parents during ordinary activities Longitudinal design- Same children were followed up and observed regularly. High internal validity Limited sample characteristics- families all from same district and social class in the same city over 50 years ago. Child rearing practices vary from one culture to another and one historical period to another. Not generalisable
Problem with studying asocial stage of attachment
Difficult to study
Babies are pretty much immobile and have poor co ordination
Difficult to make judgements based on observations of behaviour
Conflicting evidence on multiple attachments
Multiple attachment stage is difficult to assess through observations
This was criticised by Bowlby who emphasised that children can have attachment figures and playmates
They can become distressed when a playmate leaves the room, but this doesn’t mean they are attached to them
Measuring multiple attachment
Not clear when the stage occurs
In cultures where multiple caregivers are the norm, it’s believed babies form multiple attachments from the outset (Van Ijzendoorn et al)
Ainsworth’s study
The strange situation
SS procedure
Controlled observation designed to measure the security of attachment a child displays towards a caregiver
Takes place in room with quite controlled conditions with a two way mirror through which psychologists can observe infants behaviour
Behaviours used to judge attachment included:
– proximity seeking
– exploration and secure base behaviour
– stranger anxiety
– separation anxiety
– response to reunion
The procedure has seven episodes, each of which lasts three minutes
Seven episodes in the strange situation
The child is encouraged to explore – tests exploration and secure base
Stranger comes in and tries to interact with the child – test stranger anxiety
The caregiver leaves the child and stranger alone – test separation and stranger anxiety
The caregiver returns and the stranger leaves – tests reunion behaviour and exploration/secure base
The caregiver leaves the child alone – test separation anxiety
The stranger returns – tests stranger anxiety
The caregiver returns and is re-united with the child – tests reunion behaviour
The strange situation findings
Ainsworth et al found that there were distinct patterns in the way the infants behaved. She identified three main types of attachment:
– secure attachment
– insecure – avoidant attachment
– insecure – resistant attachment
Strange situation evaluation
High validity
Good reliability
The test maybe culture bound
There is at least one more attachment type
Support for validity evaluation the strange situation
Attachment types as defined by strange situation is strongly predictive of later development
Babies assessed as secure typically go on to have better outcomes in many areas, ranging from success at school to romantic relationships and friendships in adulthood
This is evidence for the validity of the concept because it can explain subsequent outcomes
Good reliability evaluation the strange situation
SS shows very good interrater reliability. In other words different observers watching the same children in the strange situation generally agree on what attachment type to classify them with
This may be because the strange situation takes place under controlled conditions and because the behavioural categories are easy to observe
This means we can be confident that the attachment types of an infant identified in the strange situation does not just depend on who is observing them
The test maybe culture bound evaluation strange situation
There is some doubt about whether the strange situation is a culture bound test i.e. it does not have the same meaning in countries outside Western Europe and USA
This is for two reasons, first, cultural differences in childhood experiences are likely to mean that children respond differently to the strange situation
Second, caregivers from different cultures behave differently in the strange situation
For example, the test doesn’t work in Japan because Japanese mothers are so rarely separated from their babies that as we would expect, there are very high levels of separation anxiety. Also in the reunion stage Japanese mothers rushed to their baby and scooped them up, meaning the child’s response was hard to observe
What does the strange situation measure evaluation SS
Measures a child’s response to the anxiety produced by being in an unfamiliar environment. That is not in doubt
However, what is more controversial is whether the main influence on this anxiety is attachment as Ainsworth assumed
Others have suggested that temperament, the genetically influenced personality of the child, is the more important influence on the behaviour in the SS than attachment
It means that temperament may be a confounding variable
There is at least one more attachment type evaluation SS
Ainsworth conceived of three attachment types
However someone else pointed out that a minority of children displayed atypical attachments that do not fall within types A, B or C behaviour
This atypical attachment is commonly known as disorganised attachment
Disorganised children display an odd mix of resistance and avoidant behaviours
What is the fourth attachment type
Disorganised attachment
How have cross cultural variations in in attachment been researched?
Van Ijzendoorn and Kroonenberg study
Van Ijzendoorn and kroonenberg study procedure
they located 32 studies of attachment where the strange situation Had been used to investigate the proportions of infants with different attachment types
These 32 studies were conducted in 8 countries
15 in USA.
Overall the studies yielded 1990 children
Data from these studies wer meta analysed
Van Ijzendoorn and kroonenberg study findings
In all countries, secure attachment was the most common classification
Insecure resistant was overall the least common, highest in Israel
Insecure avoidant most common in Germany, least in japan
Variations between results of studies within the same country were 150% greater than those between countries
Van Ijzendoorn and kroonenberg study evaluation
Large samples- increases internal validity by reducing impact of anomalous results
Samples tend to be unrepresentative of culture- comparisons were actually made between countries not cultures
Method of assessment is biased- based on American values. Imposed etic.
Lorenz’s research on imprinting procedure
Experiment
He randomly divided a clutch of goose eggs
Half the eggs were hatched with the mother goose in their natural environment
Other half were hatched in an incubator where the first moving object they saw was Lorenz
Lorenz’s research on imprinting findings
The incubator group followed Lorenz everywhere whereas the control group followed their mother
When the two groups were mixed up, control group continued to follow mother, experimental group followed Lorenz
Lorenz identified a critical period in which imprinting needs to take place
Depending on the species this can be as brief as a few hours after hatching or birth
If imprinting doesn’t occur within that time Lorenz found that chicks do not attach themselves to a mother figure
Lorenz’s research on sexual imprinting
He observed that birds that imprinted on a human would often later display courtship behaviour towards humans
Lorenz’s research evaluation
Generalisability to humans- can’t generalise finding on birds to humans
Some of his observations have been questioned- another researcher found that chicken imprinted on yellow washing up gloves would try to mate with them as adults, but that with experiences they eventually learned to prefer mating with other chickens
Meaning impact of imprinting on mating behaviour isn’t permanent
Harlow’s research on the importance of contact comfort procedure
He tested the idea that a soft object serves some of the functions of a mother
He reared 16 baby monkeys with two wire model mothers
In one condition milk was dispensed by the plain wire mother whereas in a second condition the milk was dispensed by the cloth mother
Harlow’s research on the importance of contact comfort findings
It was found that the baby monkey’s cuddled with the soft object in preference to the wire one and sought comfort from the cloth one when frightened regardless of which dispensed milk
This showed that contact comfort was of more importance to the monkeys than food when it came to attachment behaviour
Harlow’s research on maternally deprived monkeys as adults
He followed the monkeys that had been deprived of a real mother into adulthood to see if this early maternal deprivation had a permanent effect
Monkeys were more aggressive and less sociable than normal monkeys and bred less often, being unskilled at mating
As mothers, some of the deprived monkeys neglected their young and others attacked their children, even killing them in some cases
Harlow’s research on the critical period for normal development
He concluded that there was a critical period for thud behaviour
A mother figure had to be introduced to an infant monkey within 90 days for an attachment to form
After this time attachment was impossible and the damage done by early deprivation became irreversible
Harlow’s research evaluation
Theoretical value- many findings of great value
Practical value- findings helped social workers understand risk factors in child neglect and abuse and so intervene to prevent it
Ethical issues- monkeys suffered greatly.
Can’t definitely be generalised to humans- monkeys are similar to humans but not the same
classical conditioning
involves learning to associate two stimuli together so that we begin to respond to one in the same way as we already respond to the other
unconditioned stimulus, unconditioned response, neutral stimulus, conditioned stimulus and conditioned response
operant conditioning
involves learning to repeat behaviour, or not, depending its consequences. if a behaviour produces a pleasant consequence, that behaviour is likely to be repeated
the behaviour has been reinforced
classical conditioning example - attachment
food serves as an US
being fed gives us pleasure, we don’t have to learn that, it is an UR
a caregiver starts as a neutral stimulus
when the same person provides the food over time they become associated with food
when the baby sees this person there is an immediate expectation of food
the neutral stimulus has become a CS
once conditioning has taken place the sight of the caregiver produces a CR of pleasure
operant conditioning example - attachment
operant conditioning can explain why babies cry for comfort
crying leads to a response from the caregivere.g. feeding
as long as the caregiver provides the correct response, crying is reinforced
the baby then directs crying for comfort towards the caregiver who responds with comforting social suppressor behaviour
learning theory
a set of theories from the behaviourist approach to psychology, that emphasise the role of learning in the acquisition of behaviour
explanation for learning of behaviour include classical and operant conditioning
monotropic
term sometimes used to describe bowlby’s theory. indicates that one specific attachment is different from all others and of central importance to the childs development
internal working models
the mental representations we all carry with us of our attachment to our primary caregiver
they are important in affecting our future relationships because they carry our perception of what relationships are like
bowlby’s monotropic theory
explains that attachment was an innate system that gave a survival advantage
imprinting and attachment evolved because they ensure that young animals stay close to their caregivers and this protects them from hazards
bowlby’s monotropic theory- monotropy
theory is described as montoropic because he placed great emphasis on a child’s attachment one particular caregiver, and he believed that the child’s attachment this one caregiver is different and more important than others
Bowlby believed that the more time the baby spent with this mother figure – or primary attachment figure as we usually call them now – the better
He put forward two principles to clarify this:
The law of continuity
The law of accumulated separation
Bowlby’s monotropic theory – social releases
Bobby suggested that babies are born with a set of innate cute behaviours like smiling, cooing and gripping that encourage attention from adults
He called these social releasers because the purpose is to activate the adult attachment system i.e. make an adult feel love towards the baby
Bowlby recognised that attachment was a reciprocal process. Both mother and baby have an innate predisposition to become attached and social releases trigger a response in the caregivers
Bowlby’s monotropic theory – the critical period
The interplay between infants and adults attachment systems gradually builds the relationship between infant and caregiver, beginning in the early weeks of life. Bowlby proposed that there is a critical period around two years when the infant attachment system is active. In fact Bowlby viewed this as more of a sensitive period. A child is maximally sensitive at the age of two but, if an attachment is not formed in this time, the child will find it much harder to form one later
Bowlbys monotropic theory – internal working model
Bowlby proposed that a child forms a mental representation of the relationship with the primary caregiver. This is called an internal working model because it serves as a model for what relationships are like. It therefore has a powerful effect on the nature of the child’s future relationships.
Most importantly the internal working model affects the Childs later ability to be a parent them selves. People tend to base their parenting behaviour on their own experiences of being parented. This explains why children from functional families tend to have similar families themselves
Evaluation of Bowlby’s monotropic theory
Mixed evidence for monotropy-Some babies form multiple attachments without a primary attachment. Seus et al, other attachments may contribute as much as a primary one
Support for social releasers- Brazleton et al, when social releasers ignore babies were upset
Support for internal working models- Bailey et al, quality of attachments is passed on through generations in families
Monotropy is a socially sensitive idea
Temperament may be as important as attachment
Maternal deprivation
The emotional and intellectual consequences of separation between a child and the mother or mother substitute
Bowlby proposed that continuous care from a mother is essential for normal psychological development, and that prolonged separation from this adult causes serious damage to emotional and intellectual development
Bowlby‘s theory of maternal deprivation- separation versus deprivation
There is an important distinction to be made between separation and deprivation. Separation simply means the child not being in the presence of the primary attachment figure. This only becomes an issue for development if the child is deprived i.e. they lose an element of the care. brief separations, particularly when the child is with a substitute caregiver, and not significant for development but extended separations can lead to deprivation, which by definition causes harm
Bobby‘s theory of maternal deprivation – the critical period
Bowlby saw the first 30 months of life as a critical period for psychological development. If the child is separated from their mother in the absence of suitable substitute care and so deprived of her emotional care for an extended period during this critical period then psychological damage was inevitable
Bowlby’s theory of maternal deprivation – effects on intellectual development
Bowlby believed that if children were deprived of maternal care for too long during the critical period they would suffer mental retardation, characterised by abnormally low IQ. This has been demonstrated in studies of adoption
E.g. Goldfarb found lower IQ in children that had remained in institutions as opposed to those who were fostered and thus had a higher standard of emotional care
Bowlby‘s theory of maternal deprivation – effects on emotional development
Bowlby identified affection less psychopathy as the inability to experience guilt or strong emotions for others. This prevents the person developing normal relationships and is associated with criminality
Affectionless psychopaths cannot appreciate the feelings of victims and so lack remorse for their actions
Bowlby’s 44 thieves study procedure
The sample in this study consisted of 44 criminal teenagers accused of stealing
All thieves were interviewed for signs of affectionless psychopathy: characterised by a lack of affection, lack of guilt about their actions and lack of empathy for their victims
Their families were also interviewed in order to establish whether the thieves had prolonged early separations from their mothers
A control group of non criminal but emotionally disturbed young people was set up to see how often separation/deprivation occurred in the children who were not thieves
Bowlby’s 44 thieves study findings
Bowlby found that 14 of the 44 thieves could be described as affectionless psychopaths
Of this 14, 12 had experienced prolonged separation from their mothers in the first two years of their lives
In contrast only 5 of the remaining 30 thieves had experienced separations
Of the control group only 2 out of the 44 had experienced long separations
It was concluded that prolonged early separation/deprivation caused effectionless psychopathy
Bowlby’s theory of maternal deprivation evaluation
Evidence may be poor- orphans have experienced other traumas. Bowlby may have been a biased observer
Counter-evidence- Lewis: sample of 500, no link between early separation and later criminality
A sensitive period- Bowlby exaggerated the importance of the critical period
Animal studies show effects of maternal deprivation on social development
Failure to distinguish deprivation from privation
Institutionalisation
A term for the effects of living in an institutional setting. E.g. hospital or orphanage. In such places there is often very little emotional care provided
In attachment research we are interested in the effects of institutional care on children’s attachments and subsequent development
Effects of institutionalisation
Disinhibited attachment
Delayed intellectual development
Disinhibited attachment - institutionalisation
Children don’t discriminate between people they choose as attachment figures
Overfriendly towards strangers, may be attention seeking and clingy. Unusual as most children show stranger anxiety in their second year
Adapted to show this behaviour because of multiple caregivers in an institution- no consistent figure to learn so seek attachment from anyone
Delayed intellectual development - institutionalisation
Cognitive development (IQ) is also affected by emotional deprivation But can be reversed if adopted before 6 months as going into specific attachment at 7-9 months, so children who are adopted before 6 months can still make primary attachment + therefore reverse negative effects
Name the two Romanian orphan studies
Rutter et al
Zeanah et al The Bucharest Early Intervention project
Zeanah et al The Bucharest Early Intervention project procedure
Assessed the attachment type in 95 Romanian children aged between 12-31 months who had spent an average of 90% of their life in an institution and compared them to a control group who spent their life in a normal family
The attachment type was measured using the Strange Situation
Zeanah et al The Bucharest Early Intervention project findings
74% of the control group was found to be securely attached but only 19% of the institutionalised group. 65% of this group were classified as showing disorganised attachment
The description of disinhibited attachment applied to 44% of institutionalised children as opposed to less that 20% of the controls
Zeanah et al The Bucharest Early Intervention project conclusion
When in the strange situation with the carter, children from institutions are less likely to show secure attachment, suggesting that being institutionalised has effected them emotionally
Rutter et al study of Romanian orphans procedure
Natural experiment with naturally occurring IV being age of adoption
Over 100 Romanian orphans previously in institutions adopted by uk families, some were adopted before the age of 6 months and some adopted later
Random sample
Control group of 52 uk children adopted before 6 months
Adoptees tested at regular points (age 4, 6, 11 and 15 years) to measure their physical, cognitive and social development
Info also gained through interviews with parents and teachers
Romanian adoptees development was compared with gb control group
Rutter et al study of Romanian orphans findings
Romanian orphans who had been adopted later than 6 months are most likely to show disinhibited attachments
As age of adoption increased IQ decreased
Orphans were more likely to have low IQ and show disinhibited attachment if they were adopted after 6 months
Romanian orphans studies evaluation
Real life application- both institutional care and adoption practice have been improved using lessons from Romanian orphans
Fewer extraneous variables- Romanian orphans had fewer negative influences before institutionalisation than e.g. war orphans
Romanian orphanages not typical- conditions were so bad that results may not generalise to better institutions
Ethical issues, especially Bucharest early interventions project
Practical applications to adoption and institutional care practice
