attachment content Flashcards

You may prefer our related Brainscape-certified flashcards:
1
Q

what is reciprocity?

A

a two-way process mutual interaction, baby and mother both actively contribute, responding to each others actions
e.g., mother laughs, baby laughs
back

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
2
Q

what is interactional synchrony?

A

simultaneous interaction, mother and baby mirror each others behaviour e.g both smiling at the same time

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
3
Q

outline the method and results of Meltzoff and Moore’s study on caregiver infant interactions

A
  • 40 babies younger than 3 days
  • Controls: Sat on mother’s lap, controlled when baby last fed, dummy in mouth
  • Stranger models 3 facial expressions ( tongue protrusion, opening mouth, termination of mouth)
  • Slow motion camera recorded enables accuracy of expression mirrored
  • 16/40 frequently mirroring behaviour (IS)
    1/40 did not mirror

Results:
• when forming an attachment babies show interactional synchrony

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
4
Q

outline the strengths and limitations of Meltzoff and Moores study

A

scientific, controlled procedure, but lacks ecological validity (i own home, may pay less attention to caregivers - toys etc)

unscientific as making inferences (cannot ask babies why they behave that way) unclear if attachment or just imitation (stranger, no attachment)

cultural bias - Kenyan mothers have little
physical interactions or physical
contact with their infants; however,
the infants go on to have secure
attachments (IS not universal) - but only based off one culture in Kenya

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
5
Q

outline the procedure and results of Schaffer and Emerson’s stages of attachments study

A
  • 60 infants from Glasgow
  • Visited monthly for 1st year, and again at 18 months

Collected data on:
• Separation Anxiety
• Stranger Distress

  • results:
    65% of the main attachment was with the mother
    3% of the main attachment was with the father

However, 75% of infants formed an attachment with the father by 18 months old.

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
6
Q

describe schaffer and Emerson’s stages of attachment

A

Asocial (0-6 weeks) - Cannot recognise the difference between objects and
faces

Indiscriminate (6 weeks – 6 months)- Recognise the difference between objects and faces, but no separation or stranger anxiety. No attachment.

Specific (7 months onwards) - Demonstrate separation anxiety and stranger distress. Now formed an attachment.

Multiple (10/11 months+) - Develop multiple attachments to others, e.g.
grandparents.

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
7
Q

outline the evaluation of Schaffer and Emerson’s study

A

highly scientific and controlled (controlled observation, clear behavioural categories, same procedure to test separation/stranger anxiety)
strong causation (suggests attachment is biologically innate)

large sample bias - middle-class infants from Glasgow

ethical issues - infants put under mild stress (unable to directly give informed consent) could have been effected by this stress, affecting future development
but parental consent + mild stress

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
8
Q

give research for fathers having a role in attachment

A

Grossman: father fulfils a different role from mother (play vs emotional support) – important to developing child’s confidence.

Schaffer and Emerson - 75% of infants studied formed attachment with father at 18 months

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
9
Q

give research against fathers having a role in attachment

A

biological differences: female hormone oestrogen underlines caring/ nurturing behaviour - men don’t have it but have testosterone (linked to aggression)

schaffer and Emerson - 65% of main attachment was to mother, 3% to father.

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
10
Q

outline the economic implications of fathers having a role in attachment

A

more fathers remain at home and therefore contribute less to the economy (e.g., taxes, impact on nurseries and nursery fees).

more mothers may return to work and
contribute to the economy (e.g., increase
likelihood of higher female salary, taxes).

Gender pay gap may be reduced if
parental roles are regarded as more
equal, or change laws on paternity leave.

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
11
Q

state the two animal studies in attachment

A

Lorenz - geese
Harlow - monkeys

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
12
Q

describe Lorenz’s study on attachment

A
  • IV1: Hatched and first saw biological mother (goose) – control group
  • IV2: Hatched and first saw Lorenz – experimental group
  • Incubated and controlled who the goslings hatched and saw.
    • Observed how the goslings responded
    • Observed goslings when he mixed the experimental group (Lorenz’s) with the control group

Results:
- Experimental Group = goslings followed and imitated Lorenz within the first 24hrs (critical period)
- Control Group – goslings followed and imitated Goose.

Goslings imprinted on the first thing they see (within the first 24 hours)

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
13
Q

describe Harlow’s study on attachment

A
  • 8 Rhesus monkeys placed in cage from birth for 165 days in 1/2 conditions
  • Cloth no bottle monkey and wire bottle monkey
  • Cloth bottle monkey & wire no bottle monkey

Procedure:
• Observed the rhesus monkeys proximity to & time spent on the cloth or wire monkey
• Introduced novel stimuli to provoke stress (similar to stranger anxiety) in the monkeys, e.g. a toy bear.

Results
• Found that in both conditions, rhesus monkeys stayed closer and spent more time on the cloth than wire monkey, irrespective of whether it had a bottle of milk.
• They were also fearful of other rhesus monkeys, had socialisation issues (aggressive behaviour).

Conclusion
• Monkeys attachment occurred because of comfort rather than food.
• This was a long term effect, which could not be reversed.

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
14
Q

what are the 2 explanations of attachment?

A

learning theory

Bowlby’s monotropic theory

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
15
Q

describe the learning theory as an explanation of attachment

A

two process model: classical conditioning creates attachment, operant maintains/ strengthens it.

classical conditioning:
- Learnt through association by repeated pairings of UCS & NS.
• UCS = UCR (Food = love)
• UCS + NS = UCR (Food + caregiver = love)
• CS = CR
(Caregiver = love)

operant conditioning
- Learnt through consequence

  • Positive reinforcement = pleasure from the food (primary reinforcer) increases attachment to the caregiver providing food (secondary reinforcer).
  • Negative reinforcement = food removes the hunger drive; thus increasing the attachment to the caregiver (secondary reinforcer) providing the negative reinforcement.
    (negative reinforcement for baby - removal of hunger drive, for mother, removal of crying)
How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
16
Q

outline evaluation of learning theory

A

.

17
Q

describe Bowlby’s monotropic theory in explaining attachment

A
  • Attachment is innate, evolution due to social releasers (big eyes, small nose, smiling)
  • The monotrophy figure (one main maternal caregiver) creates a…
  • Secure base from which the child feels safe to explore the world.
  • This occurs in the sensitive/critical period, 0-18 months.
  • During this period the infants internal working model forms, a template for future relationships whereby they feel loved and can trust others.
  • This then continues into adulthood and passed on through generations, known as the continuity hypothesis.
18
Q

outline evaluation for bowlby’s monotropic theory

A
19
Q

describe Ainsworth’s strange situation

A

Controlled observation of mother and infant
4 behavioural categories:
• Proximity to caregiver
• Separation anxiety
• Stranger anxiety
• Reunion behaviour

Video recorded using a 9x9 grid on the camera to measure proximity.

The room had 2 chairs and a toy box.

• Used a ‘strange situation’
1. Mothers and infant enter the room. Mother sits on a chair and reads a magazine. Child is placed on the floor and is free to explore the environment.
2. A stranger enters, sits on the other chair and briefly talks with the mother.
3. Stranger approaches the infant and attempts to interact and play with them.
4. Mother leaves the room so the infant is alone with the stranger. The stranger comforts the infant if they are upset and offers to play with them.
5. The mother returns and the stranger leaves.
6. The mother leaves so that the infant is briefly alone in the room.
7. The stranger returns to be with the infant, offer comfort and play with the infant.
8. The mother returns to the room again and the stranger leaves.

20
Q

describe the results of Ainsworth’s study

A

securely attached - 66%, high stranger anxiety, some separation anxiety, but easy to soothe, enthusiastic behaviour at reunion, high willingness to explore

insecure avoidant - 22%, low stranger anxiety, indifferent when separated, high willingness to explore avoid contact at reunion.

insecure resistant - 12%, high stranger anxiety, distressed at separation, behaviour at reunion: seeks and rejects, low willingness to explore.

21
Q

what were the control’s in Ainsworth’s study?

A

Camera, procedure of comings and
goings, same room & materials,
objective measure of proximity (9x9
grid).

22
Q

outline evaluation points for ainsworth’s strange situation

A

Strength – highly controlled observation & high inter-rater reliability - strong causality

Criticism – strange situation is unethical - The infants were put under mild stress, through separation and stranger anxiety.

**Strength **– provided support for Bowlby’s monotrophy theory

23
Q

describe the procedure of Van Izjendoorn and Kroonenburg’s (VIK) study on cultural variation in attachment

A

Meta-analysis of 32 studies in 8 countries that used the strange situation.

Individualistic = UK, USA, Sweden, Netherlands, West Germany

Collectivist = Japan, Israel, China

24
Q

describe the results of VIK’s study

A

Secure = universal (ranged from 50% to 75%) similar to Ainsworth’s 66%.

Insecure avoidant – highest within an individualistic culture (West Germany 35%)
compared to Ainsworth’s 22%

Insecure resistant – highest in collectivist cultures (Japan 27%; Israel 29%) compared to Ainsworth’s 12%

China = anomaly had a 50/50 split of insecure avoidant and resistant attachment type

25
Q

outline evaluation points for VIK

A

strength: There is universality in
attachment (no cultural variations) in secure attachments (secure attachments were the highest % across all 8 countries
- ranged from 50-75% - similar to Ainsworth’s 66%)

criticism: There are cultural variations
between cultures in insecure attachments (individualistic most common = IA; whereas collectivist = IR (Japan 27% - similar to Ainsworth’s IA rate of 22%)

criticism: However, there were also within cultural variations in insecure
attachments in individualistic cultures
(Germany = high IA 35%, compared to range of 21-26% in all other individualist cultures)

26
Q

describe the procedure of Bowlby’s maternal deprivation study

A

To see if separation caused ‘affectionless psychopathy’.

Method: 88 children (5 – 16 years) from a Child Guidance Clinic.

44 were thieves and interviewed for ‘affectionless psychopathy’.

14/44 were then classed as ‘affectionless psychopaths’.

44 had not committed any crimes (control group).

27
Q

outline the results of Bowlby’s maternal deprivation study

A

(12/14) of the thieves had early and prolonged separation

(5/30) of the other thieves had early and prolonged separation

4% control group had early and prolonged separation

Disruption of attachment causes later social and emotional problems (long term effects = anti-social behaviour and psychopathy

28
Q

outline the evaluation points for Bowlby’s maternal deprivation study

A

Criticism – the studies methodology is
correlational, self report and
retrospective bias (based on self report from parents and the adolescent)

Strength – research support for effects
of maternal deprivation (Harlow’s monkeys had socialisation issues)

Criticism – social sensitivity of the
research findings - states that role of the maternal figure is the most important for preventing psychopathy, and anti-social behaviour (blames women)

29
Q

outline the procedure of the romanian orphans study

A

Quasi experiment

Romanian Orphans adopted in the UK (privation), compared to UK adopted
in UK.

3 conditions
• <6 months (early adoptees)
• 6 months – 2years
• 2-4 years (late adoptees)

30
Q

explain the results of the Romanian Orphan study’s by 6 years of age

A

<6 months = 8.9% Disinhibited attachment, IQ = 106

> 2 yrs = 26.1% disinhibited attachment; IQ = 77

UK adoptees = 3.8% disinhibited attachment

31
Q

outline the results of the romanian orphan study by 11 years of age

A

Long term effects more evident in late adoptees

Disinhibited Attachment (attention-seeking, inappropriately friendly)

low IQ, language skills, Aggression/bullying behaviour, mental health
problems.

32
Q

outline the conclusion of the romanian orphan studies

A

Longer in institution (>2yrs) more long term effects.

Longer time spent with adoptive family reversing any effects.

33
Q

describe the method of Hazan and Shaver’s study on the influence of early attachment on childhood and adult relationships

A

Sample: 620 replies to an advertisement in a newspaper.

Correlation, comparing early attachment to adulthood attachment

Used the ‘love quiz’ – 3 sections:
• Assessing respondents’ current or most significant relationship
• General love experiences
• Assessing attachment type by responding to one of three statements

34
Q

describe the results of Hazan and Shaver’s study

A

56% of respondents classified themselves as secure
• 25% avoidant
• 19% resistant

Love experience and attitudes towards love (internal working model) were related to attachment type

Those who were securely attached: believed love is enduring, had mutual trust and were less likely to get
divorced

Those who were insecurely attached: felt love was rare, fell in and out of love easily, found relationships less
easy, were more likely to be divorced