Attachment Lessons 05 - 08 Flashcards
Learning Theory of Attachment
All behaviour is learned rather than being innate or inherited from parents
People learn behaviour through
- Classical conditioning
- Operant conditioning
Classical Conditioning
An infant is born with certain reflex responses, the stimulus of food = UNCONDITIONED STIMULUS and it produces the reflex of pleasure = UNCONDITIONED RESPONSE. The person providing food = NEUTRAL STIMULUS but over time they become associated with the pleasure gained from food. The person becomes a CONDITIONED STIMULUS that produces pleasure as a CONDITIONED RESPONSE.
This is how the attachment bond develops and is the reason children feel pleasure in their caregiver’s presence.
Operant Conditioning
Strengthens attachment
The baby receives POSITIVE REINFORCEMENT (when behaviour produces a pleasant consequence) for crying when they are hungry as the caregiver feeds them. The caregiver receives NEGATIVE REINFORCEMENT (when behaviour removes something unpleasant) for feeding their baby when they cry - feeding stops crying.
Evaluation of Learning Theory
(+) Plausible and scientific - founded in established theory. It is likely that association between needs and the person proving that can lead to strong attachment
(-) Harlow (1959) separated infant Rhesus monkeys from their mothers and put them in cages. Milk was provided either by a wire mesh ‘surrogate mother’ or one made of comfortable soft cloth. The monkeys clung to the soft cloth ‘mother’, especially when scared even if it did not provide milk - comfort is more important than food in determining whom a baby will attach to.
(-) Schaffer and Emerson (1964) - babies are attached to the person who plays with them. In 39% of cases, even though the mother fed them, the baby was more attached to someone else
(-) Does not explain why attachments form - Bowlby said infants form an attachment to ensure they are protected
(-) Environmentally reductionist - explains a complicated behaviour in an overly simplistic way. There are many types of attachment, so it is unlikely that attachment is merely the result of providing food. Learning Theory is environmentally deterministic, states that early learning determines later attachment behaviours
Bowlby’s Monotropic Theory
Why attachments form
Attachment is an instinct that has evolved because it increased the chances of both the baby’s survival and the parents’ genes being passed on
It is ADAPTIVE.
Well attached baby = stay close = well protected = will survive
Well attached parents = ensure baby is well cared for = baby will survive = genes passed on successfully
Bowlby’s Monotropic Theory
How attachments form
Infants have an INNATE (biologically programmed) drive to be attached. Behaviours have a CRITICAL PERIOD in which they must occur or they never will - usually 2 years of age. Babies with no attachment in critical period = difficulty forming attachments later on
Attachment determined by caregiver’s SENSITIVITY. Caregiver who is responsive, co-operative, accessible = strong attachment
SOCIAL RELEASERS important - include smiling and crying - behaviours that illicit care (infants ask caregivers to look after them)
Infants have one special emotional bond (MONOTROPY). Infants also form SECONDARY ATTACHMENTS that provide an emotional safety net and are vital for healthy psychological and social development
The Consequences of Attachment
With monotropy, the infant uses the relationship to form a mental view of all relationships called an INTERNAL WORKING MODEL. Secure relationships in childhood = positive working model = current and future relationships will be positive
The CONTINUITY HYPOTHESIS says that securely attached infants will continue to be socially and emotionally competent throughout their life (because of a positive internal working model)
Evaluation of Bowlby’s Monotropic Theory
(-) Schaffer and Emerson (1964) suggest that multiple attachments are more common in babies than monotropy - by 18 months, only 13% of babies has only one person they were attached to.
(-) Feminists (e.g. Erica Burman) said that monotropy is socially sensitive - it puts a huge burden of responsibility on mothers, setting them up to take the blame if anything goes wrong, pressuring them to stay at home. Bowlby underestimated the role of the father (as primarily economic) - SEXIST - nowadays both parents are equally responsible for childcare
(-) Tizard and Hodges (1989) found that children who never formed attachments by 4 years old, and were then adopted formed attachments to their new adoptive parents (contradicts the idea of a critical period)
(-) Impossible to test Bowlby’s argument that attachment has persisted in the same form throughout evolution (UNSCIENTIFIC)
(-) Kegan (1984) disagreed with the idea that caregiver sensitivity determines attachment - he said some infants were better suited to forming attachments (due to innate characteristics). Rovine (1987) found that infants who had been judged to have signs of behavioural instability between 1-3 days old were later more likely to have an insecure attachment.
Maternal Deprivation
Bowlby (1953) said that children who suffer from prolonged emotional DEPRIVATION (caused by absence of PAF) will have long-term intellectual (low IQ), social (delinquency) and emotional (AFFECTIONLESS PSYCHOPATHY) difficulties, and even mental health issues (depression).
According to the CONTINUITY HYPOTHESIS, these effects are irreversible, and will continue into adulthood (due to a lack of an INTERNAL WORKING MODEL)
Negative impact of maternal deprivation could occur if the separation happens before 2 and a half years (CRITICAL PERIOD), although there is a risk up to 5 years old (SENSITIVE PERIOD), and there is no substitute mother-figure available
Thieves study (Maternal Deprivation)
He studied 88 emotionally maladjusted children from the Child Guidance Clinic in London. 44 of them had been caught stealing, the other 44 were a control group. 14/44 of the thieves were affectionless psychopaths (AP) - lacked affection, shame and responsibility for their actions.
These people has experienced frequent early separations from their mothers (foster care, time in hospital etc.). 12/14 APs had frequent separations, compared to 5/30 thieves who were not classed as AP. Almost none of the control group has experiences separations from their mothers
Evaluation of Bowlby’s Theory of Maternal Deprivation
+ Before the theory, hospitals would not allow parents to visit children during stays in hospitals (or they’d have infrequent visits) - had a profound and damaging effect. Nowadays, parents are encouraged to stay with their children.
+ Spitz (1945) examined children raised in a poor quality orphanage in South America. Staff were overworked, under trained, rarely gave children any affection. The children displayed ANACLITIC DEPRESSION (loss of appetite, sleeplessness, sadness)
+ Skodak and Skeeles (1949) found that children in institutions that only looked after them physically scored poorly on intelligence tests. When they were transferred to an institution that gave emotional care, the IQ scores improved by almost 30 points.
- Effects of maternal deprivation have been shown to be reversible. Children who never formed attachments but were adopted after four years were still able to form attachments (Tizard et al. 1989)
- Bowlby did not distinguish between deprivation (PAF is lost) and privation (when the child never formed an attachment). Privation could be the cause of extreme negative effects
Institutional Care
When a child’s living arrangements are outside of the family (e.g. children’s homes, hostels, hospitals etc.). Children raised in institutions adopt the roles and norms of it, which could impair functioning and lead to a loss of personal identity (DEINDIVIDUATION)
Romanian Orphans study - Rutter et al. (2010)
PROCEDURE
Involved 165 Romanian children who spent their early lives in Romanian orphanages, before being adopted. They suffered the effects of INSTITUTIONALISATION. They were tested at regular intervals (4, 6, 11, 15) to assess their physical, cognitive and social development. Their progress was compared to a control group (52 British children adopted in the UK before 6 months)
Romanian Orphans study - Rutter et al. (2010)
FINDINGS
At the time of adoption, the Romanian orphans were behind the British counterparts in ALL measures (physical, cognitive and social development)
By the age of 4, the Romanian children adopted BEFORE 6 months has caught up to their British counterparts
However, a signifying number of individuals adopted AFTER 6 months still had significant deficits at age 4
Romanian Orphans study - Rutter et al. (2010)
CONCLUSIONS
Long-term consequences of institutionalisation may be less severe than previously thought IF children are adopted BEFORE 6 months and receive sensitive parenting.
If the children are NOT adopted by 6 months, the consequences are likely to be severe
