Attachment essay plans Flashcards
Infant-caregiver interactions
Meltzoff n Moore 1977
Support is No demand characteristics cos baby dk being observed n replicable
counter w can’t establish meaning to beb actions
support that w mixed research evidence from Koepke n other evidence showing beb can’t distinguish bw vid n irl so challenges innate
support that w Isobella et al individual differences n secure attached respond more n shows nurture has effect
Stages of attachment
Schaffer n Emerson 1964
•Strength is method means parents n beb behave natural cos researcher not there
•counter w social desirability bias n that they coulda exaggerate or not report
•n then add mixed research evidence from Bushnell 1989 that 24hr old bebs stare at mum longer than other ladies so challenges that attachment is learnt n suggests innate
Role of father
Schaffer n Emerson 1964 75% form bond w dad at 18m n that it was shown by protests when dad left
Grossman 2002 longitudinal study w teens n linked to attachments n dads for play n mums for nurturing
counter that w Field 1978 primary dads hold beb longer etc n smile compared to secondary n suggest the gender thing
•Strength is irl app eco benefits n lesbo couples
•counter w nature n that oestrogen support that w **Hrdy1999* distress signals n then Geiger1996
•counter w nurture n talk about gender socialisation n refer back to Field
n counter that w McCallum2004 kids without a dad grew up no diff from kids w one so suggests dads role not important
animal studies
Harlow1959 monkeys
•strength is theoretical value to human n refer to understanding neglecting infants has long term effects n social workers can intervene at good times
•counter w extent to which can generalise limited cos human more complex than monkeys etc
•relate that to ethics n say however if can say similar then shoulda acknowledge that the monkeys face similar consequences to humans
Lorenz 1935 geese
•strength is theoretical value to human n refer to hospital n taken from mum etc
n Guiton 1966 rubber gloves n chicken n reversible
•counter w extent can generalise limited cos birds not like mammals n not as nurturing n we complex etc
• talk about ethics n they suffered courtship struggle n then say justified by
learning theory
Classical condition
operant condition (**Dollard n miller 1950)
•Support is some evidence that classical involved in human development. Provision of comfort n association w caregiver part of what builds attachment n can say has some value in explaining attachment
•hella emphasis on food n ample
evidence to contrary n talk about Schaffer Emerson n Harlow monkey n say too simplistic n behaviour complex
•then say env reductionist cos on only focus on nurture debate n no regard to emotion or natural instincts. Assumes we learn from simple learning by assocation we more complex etc
Bowlby monotropic theory
Innate adaptive evo Advantage
Social releasers
critical period
Montropic idea
IWM
•support is Bailey et al2007 99mum n 1yo kid study found mums w poor rs w parents likely have poor w own kids
supports idea IWM passed thru families n shows importance of early attachment
•counter fails to acknowledge individual differnce Kagan1984 temperament hypothesis n talk about some kids more difficult n can affect n all blame can’t be on mum etc
• add social sensitive n feminists criticise cos sexist to mum cos they usually primary
n sexist to dad
SSC
Ainsworth 1970
lab observation assess security of child attachment to caregivevr. 2way mirror used
event sample, 8 events 3min each to assess
Willingless to explore
Stranger anxiety
separation anxiety
reunion behaviour
•support is replicable, standardised n high inter observer
•counter w restrictive cosMain n soloman 1986 found type D attachment: mix of both insecures n while her categories used widely gotta be open to more attachment types
•support this further w cultural relativism cos western measure
Bowlby maternal deprivation
maternal deprivation hypothesis emotional care of mum lost for sig period. B said lead to emotional maladjustment n possible mental disorders n can affect intellectual development n cause retardation. It’ll be esp bad if separated in critical period (upto 5yrs)
Bowlby 1994 44 thieves study
88 maladjusted kids age 5-16 case history analysed n 44 were caught stealing
14 deduced affectionless psychos from interviews
control grp only 2 experienced maternal dep so concluded maternal dep linked to affectionless psycho, criminal behaviour,
•Support from Bifulco 1992 assessed women w maternal dep n later found 25% had mental disorders n this 10% higher than those didn’t have maternal dep.
•counter w Lewis1944 larger sample of same thing n no link n then B own study only correlation etc
• counter w irl app eg alloedd to stay at hospitals
Cultural variations
Ijzendoorn n Kroonenberg 1988
meta analysis of 32 studies w nearly 2k infants to assess effects of culture on attachment using Ainsworth’s SSC. studies from 8 countries used n studies w 35+ infants used
•strength is Grossman n Grossman2002 german culture
•despite this hella criticisms
eg Imposed etic cos SSC western measure n could
make other cultures seem “neg” n then dampens conclusions made
•n then say arguable diff cultures no studied rather diff countries were. w/i countries hella cultures n only few were studied so conclusions about countries futile
• n then individual 27/32
Effects of institutionalisation
Rutter et al 2011
orphanages lack of love care
romanian policy so kids in orphanages n rutter studies effects of this
•longitudinal study 165 romanian orphans majority b4 2yo n rest b4 yo. Compared to control grp british adopted kids n assessed on psychical mental cog development.
• found b4 6m catchup to counterparts
after 6m sig development impairments eg difficulty forming rs w peers, disinhibited attachment, n lower IQ 15yo. shows seriousness of consequences of institutionalisation n effects can be reduced if adopted earlier
•support is longitudinal so can c affects of short n long term effects n can reduce risk factors in both terms
•counter w only focuses on neg effects of institutionalisation n doesn’t mention risk factors that may have made it worse. eg lack of intellectual stimulation, malnourished, so can affect it. By making such statements it suggests all cases are like this of orphan kids. instead of nomo take idio where look at risk factors involved of individual cases n conduct long term study on them n it’ll be creditworthy
•counter w irl app n cos of this changes have been made eg retain staff to stop disinhibited attachment
n adopt earlier n then support w Singer et al
Early attachment on later rs
continuity hypothesis based of IWM
Smith 1998 bullying n support w Bailey et al 99mum study where mums rs w kids affected by mums rs w her parents
Hazan n shaver 1987
620 responses love quiz
pos correlation bw attachment n experience in later rs:
-secure: happy loving rs n love mutual
-avoidant: cautious n hard to form bonds cos fear
-resistant: difficult forming rs n prone to love quick
both insecure likely to divorce n skeptical
•strength supports continuity hypothesis n importance of early attachment
•criticise w reductionist support w Rutter1999 insecure got good rs
Hamilton1994 secure had hard rs cos life events
say criticises IWM n that early attachment doesn’t got permanent consequences n perhaps a link bw later rs n that n ultimately free will n this negates effects of childhood attachment
•support w maybe link bw attachment n later rs not cause effect cos other factors in play eg individual diffs n influence of others
