Attachment Explanations Flashcards
Learning theory of attachment
Idea that attachment behaviour learned rather than innate or inherited
Classical conditioning attachment
food unconditioned stimulus pleasure unconditioned response
provider a neutral stimulus but over time associated with pleasure from food
person becomes conditioned stimulus with pleasure conditioned response
hence attachment bond develops and why children are happy in caregiver presence
Operant conditioning
baby gets positive reinforcement for crying when hungry which leads to being fed
caregiver gets negative reinforcement for feeding baby as crying stops
LT for attachment eval
+plausible and scientific as established theory with applications in other fields eg phobias
- Harlow (1959) separated monkeys from mothers and put in cages - milk provided by either wire mesh or comfy cloth surrogate mother - monkeys clung to soft cloth mother esp when scared by stimulus even when the wire mesh gave milk - comfort over food
- Schaffer et al found 39% babies attach to those who play with them rather than mother who feeds
- How attachments form but not why they form - perhaps better explained by Bowlbys theories
- Environmentally reductionist as oversimplifies complex relationships eg 3 types of attachment, different interactions
+ Though easy to understand
- Environmentally deterministic as states that early learning determines later attachment behaviours
Why attachments form Bowlby
idea that attachment evolves as increases chance of babies survival and parents passing on genes - so adaptive
Bowlbys monotropic theory
Innate drive to be attached - critical period or never will happen - 2 years
Could be driven by caregiver sensitivity - responsiveness, co-operativeness
Social releases important to elicit caregiving e.g crying when hungry or smiling when fed
One special emotional bond - monotropy (usually bio mum) and secondary attachments which are also important safety nets for development
Attachment consequences
monotropic bond used to form. mental view of all relationships - internal working model
secure leads to positive iwm so secure relationships with peers, partners etc
vice versa - e.g lack or commitment, intimacy, socialisation
no monotropic bond - maternal deprivation so inadequate iwm so emotional problems
continuity hypothesis - secure attachment infancy continues to be social and emotionally competent and vice versa
Monotropic theory eval
-Schafer et al (1964) found multiple attachments more common - at 18 months only 13% had one only
- Feminists like Erica Burden say socially sensitive - burdens and blames mothers, and father can also be caregivers so sexist - gender bias and temporal validity
- Tizard and hodges (1989) found adoptives after 4 years can still form attachments with parents despite missing crit period
- Cannot be tested to show if attachment persisted in evolutionary history - unscientific
- Kegan (1984) suggested caregiver sensitivity and innate temperament of child more important. Rovine (1987) found those with behavioural issues in 1-3 days more likely to insecurely attach
Maternal deprivation theory
Poor psych development due to prolonged/ accumulated separation from mother figure
Lack of IWM, affectionless psychopathy, emotional and intelligence problems, dlinquency, bad parents, continuity hypothesis
Negative impact occurs if separation before 2.5 years crit period, but risk up to 5 - sensitive period if no mother figure
Bowlby 44 thieves
88 Case histories in London Child guidance clinic - 44 caught stealing and 44 control
14 thieves diagnosed as affectionless psychopaths - of which 12/14 had frequent separation from mum before 2 years compared to 5/30 in the other thieves
only 2/44 of the control had frequent separation
Maternal deprivation eval
+ Encouraged hospitals to start allowing visits from parents to reduce damaging effects
+ Spitz (1945) examined a poor South america orphanage with undertrained staff and little affection - leading to anaclitic depression (loss of appetite, sadness, sleepness)
+ Skodak and skeeles (1949) - children in only physical care institutions did bad on intelligence tests, but when moved to a institution with both cares, IQ scores improved by almost 30 points
- Effects of maternal deprivation can be reversed - adoptives after 4 able to attach to new parents (Tizard et al 1989)
- Needs to distinguish between deprivation (when attachment figure is lost) and privation (no attachment figure formed) - the latter seems to be a main cause for major negative effects in studies
Rutter et al (2011) Institutional care
Living arrangements outside family in institutions - can adopt norms of institution and lead to deindividuation
Investigated through romanian orphan studies
ROS background
abortion/ contraception banned under communist regime then children abandoned by parents who could not support them, placed in very poor quality orphanages
ROS procedure
165 children who spent early life in orphanages then adopted - tested at 4, 6, 11, 15 and 22-25 to test emotional, social, physical development.
Controlled to control group of 52 british children adopted before 6 months old
ROS findings
at adoption time romanians lagged behind on all measures - half were still intellectually delayed at 4
At 11 those adopted after 6 months displayed severe effects like quasi-autism, disinhibited attachment etc
but long term consequences are less severe effects if before 6 months and if sensitive parenting received
Effects of institutionalisation
Delayed intellectual development - low IQ, concentration problems, language struggles
Disinhibited attachment - overly affectionate/ attention seeking, inappropriate behaviour to strangers
Emotional development - difficulty managing anger
Lack of IWM - difficulty forming relationships with peers and as adults/ parents
Quasi-autism - misunderstand social contexts, less pretend play or empathy
Delayed physical development - physically small, research shows lack of emotional care rather than nourishment leads to deprivation dwarfism
ROS eval
+Encouraged starting key workers in institutions for emotional care of children
+ Changes in adoption process - within first week (and defo before 6 months) rather than being encouraged to breastfeed as long as possible then give for adoption
- Generalising findings difficult as Romanian orphanages had multiple severe risk factors and long term damage probably more likely in the multiple factors case
- Negative effects can be reduced by sensitive parenting. Le mare and audet (2006) longitudinal study of 36 orphans adopted to Canada families - physically smaller and psychological less health at age 4 but by 10 this had disappeared
- not random - participant variables - characteristics like sociability/ resilience increase adoption chance so are naturally more likely to recover from long term effects
