Attachment Influence Flashcards
Harlow (1959) procedure
8 infant rhesus monkeys separated at birth for 165 days and two wire mothers one soft cloth and one exposed - observations of closeness and reactions made
Harlow findings
All monkeys spent most time with soft mother even if other one gave milk, when frightened by monkey or when in a new environment they sought soft mother for comfort - comfort over food
Harlow long term effects
Abnormal development - freeze/ flight when approached by other monkeys, abnormal mating behaviours and didnt cradle own babies
Can recover with inter-monkey socialisation but only before 3 months
Harlow eval
+ Implications for attachment theories - food importance contradicts learning theory
+ Highlights implications of neglect and poor attachment fits with maternal deprivation
+ Schaffer et al (1964) found 39% attachment rate with those who played with baby rather than fed them
- Unethical - removed from mothers, deliberately scared, long term harm - animals so no consent/ withdrawal
- hard to link animal and human findings - physiological differences, influences like society, peers, upbringing, more complex attachment eg 3 types
Lorenz procedure
Investigate imprinting - attachment to first moving thing after birth. Took a clutch of goose eggs and half hatched with natural mother and half in an incubator to see Lorenz first. incubator hatchlings marked then placed back into the group
Lorenz findings
quickly divided following either mother or lorenz - Lorenz geese didnt recognise their mother
imprinting restricted to critical period of two days, similar to attachment special relationships, Lorenz taught goslings to swim and would return to him when called
Lorenz long term effects
irreversible and long lasting e.g one goose martina slept on his bed every night, also found had an effect on later mating preferences - sexual imprinting to the same kind of object as initial imprint
Lorenz eval geese
+ Imprinting supports critical period on maternal deprivation - window which if missed has negative long term consequences
+ Gutton (1966) demonstrated that chickens imprinted to yellow rubber gloves in feeding
- Imprinting may be reversible - the chickens with yellow rubber gloves initially tried to mate with them but after some time with own species were able to have normal sexual behaviour with other chickens
- unethical as separated from mothers so perhaps not as well cared for
- hard to link animal and human findings - physiological differences, influences like society, peers, upbringing, more complex attachment eg 3 types, Harlow may be more generalisable as monkeys are more similar to humans
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
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
Influence of attachment of childhood/ adult relationships
IWM - secure attachment makes this positive so better at forming and maintaining relationships i.e partners and friends
Insecure attachments lead to negative IWM so less able to
No attachment in critical period means lack of IWM so inability to interact and relate to others - evident from age 5 caused by neglect/ changing caregivers
Influence of childhood relationships eval
+ Myron-Wilson and Smith (1998) got 196 7-11 age from primary school grouped in attachment types with separation anxiety and parenting style questionnaire, then involvement bullying in participant roles scales to identify peers as victim, culprit or uninvolved. Secure children very unlikely to be bullied, avoidant likely to be victims and resistant likely to be bullies
+Simpson et al (2007) longitudinal assessed attachment at 1 (strange situation) then followups until 20-23 - secure childhood attachments lead to higher social competence as time passed
- Zimmerman et al (2000) longitudinal studies found secure attachment at childhood can change over time especially due to traumatic events like a loss, divorce, death, illness etc
Hazan and Shaver (1987) Procedure
Love Quiz in rocky mountain news, asking questions about parent relationships (for infant attachment style), attitudes to love (for IWM) and current relationship experiences (for adult attachment style) - analysed 620 responses (205 men 415 women) from fair cross section of population
Hazan and Shaver (1987) findings
56% secure, 25% avoidant and 19% resistant somewhat similar to child proportions - positive IWM tends to be securely attached adults - and secure attached adults are more happy and trusting in love relationships - accepting despite faults with average relationship 10 years, but 6 for avoidant and 5 for resistant
Hazan and Shaver eval
- Unreliable several other studies failed to find a strong correlation. Fraley (2002) reviewed 27 samples of early to late assessment with correlations as low as 0.1-0.5
- Correlational not experimental so cannot establish cause or effect, or maybe third variables exist e.g innate temperament
- relies on participant memories of early experiences - flawed recollections invalid
- Options given may not be fully accurate to experiences causing forced answers
+- Subject to the same weaknesses and strength as IWM and attachment type theory, but established theories
