Attachments L1 - 4 Flashcards
Attachment:
An affectional tie that one person or animal forms between himself and another specific one, binding them together in space and over time
Indicative behaviours of an attachment:
1) Seeking proximity
2) Distress on separation
3) Joy on reunion
4) General orientation towards each other
Infancy:
Period of a child’s life before speech begins (1st/2nd yr)
2 main types of caregiver-infant interactions:
1) Reciprocity
2) Interactional synchrony
Reciprocity:
An interaction where each person responds to the other and elicits a response from them
What did Feldman and Eidelman (2007) research show?
Mothers typically pick up on and respond to infant alertness around 2/3 of the time
What is infant alertness?
Babies have periodic ‘alert phases’ and signal they are ready for interaction
From around how many months does this interaction become increasingly frequent, what does it involve and who researched this?
- Around 3 months
- Close attention to each other’s verbal signals and facial expressions
- Feldman 2007
Give an example of a reciprocated interaction
A baby smiles and their caregiver also smiles
What research demonstrated reciprocity and how did it do this?
Research in 1970s showed infants to coordinate their actions w/ caregivers, as if they were taking turns
What did Brazelton et al (1975) describe this reciprocity as and why?
As a dance as each person responds to each other’s moves
What did Brazelton (1979) suggest?
- Basic rhythm is an important precursor to later communications
- Regularity of an infant’s signals allows caregiver to anticipate their behaviour
- Sensitivity to infant behaviour is foundation for later attachment between them
Interactional synchrony:
- Temporal coordination of micro-level social behaviour
- Reflection of what the other is doing
Who investigated interactional synchrony?
Meltzoff and Moore (1977)
Procedure of Meltzoff and Moore (1977) study:
Controlled observation of infants’ behaviour:
1) Adult model displayed 4 diff stimuli (3 diff faces + hand gesture) where fingers move in a sequence
2) Dummy placed in infant’s mouth to prevent response during display
3) Dummy removed after display w/ child’s expression filmed on vid
4) Observers watched videotapes of infant’s behaviour in real time, slow motion and frame by frame if needed
5) Then judged by independent observers who had no knowledge of what infant had seen
6) Had to record behaviour under categories of mouth protrusion, termination of mouth protrusion, tongue protrusion and termination of tongue protrusion
7) Each observer scored tapes twice (to calculate intra and inter-observer reliability)
Findings of Meltzoff and Moore study:
- Association between infant behaviour and adult model’s behaviour
- All scores of both the intra-observer and inter-observer reliability were greater than 0.92
- Infants as young as 2 or 3 weeks imitated special facial gestures
What results were found in a later study following Meltzoff and Moore and what conclusion can be made from this?
- Same synchrony was shown w/ infants only 3 days old
- Interactional synchrony is likely to be innate rather (inborn) than learned
Give one study evaluating interactional synchrony:
- Piaget (1962)
- Argued infants cannot imitate intentionally and are rather doing pseudo-imitation
- True imitation only happens after the child was a year old
Pseudo-imitation:
Copying because there’s a reward
Explain features of each behavioural category in Meltzoff and Moore study:
- Mouth protrusion: Abrupt jaw drop
- Termination of mouth protrusion: Return of mouth to closed resting position
- Tongue protrusion: Forward thrust
- Termination of tongue protrusion: Retraction of tip of tongue
What study supported Meltzoff and Moore’s study?
Murray and Trevarthen (1985)
Procedure of Murray and Trevarthen (1985) study:
- 2 month old infants interacted via video monitor w/ mother in real time
- Video monitor played tape of mother so that image on screen was not responding to infants’ facial and bodily gestures
Results and conclusion of Murray and Trevaethen (1985) study:
- Acute distress
- Turned away, showing infant is eliciting a response rather than doing it for a reward (disproving pseudo-imitation)
Strengths and weaknesses of caregiver-infant interactions through reciprocity and interactional synchrony:
+ Value of research
- Problems with testing infant behaviour
- Conflicting research evidence
- Is behaviour intentional or just imitation?
- Individual differences
What are the problems with testing infant behaviour and how were these issues overcome?
- Unreliable as infant mouths are in fairly constant motion + expressions that are tested occur frequently
- Meltzoff and Moore asked an independent judge to view babies tapes without knowing what infant had seen, increasing internal validity
Which studies failed to replicate the study done by Meltzoff and Moore?
- Koepke et al (1985)
- Marian et Al (1986)
What did Meltzoff argue about Koepke’s study?
Said it was not controlled carefully enough
How did Marian’s study fail to replicate and what criticism is there of this?
- Infants could not distinguish live interactions from the videotapes of the mother
- Marian argued the problem may lie w/ procedure rather than baby’s ability to imitate
What study aimed to show the intentions of infants?
Abravenal and DeYoung (1991)
Procedure, results and conclusion of Abraneval and DeYoung (1991) study:
- Observed infant behaviour when interacting w/ 2 inanimate objects and same behavioural categories
- Found infants between 5 and 12 weeks made little response
- Shows babies don’t just imitate what they see and rather it is a social response
Which studies shows individual differences in infant behaviour?
- Isabella et al (1989)
- Heimann (1989)
Results of Isabella et al (1989) study:
More strongly attached infant-caregiver pairs showed greater interactional synchrony
Results of Heimann (1989) study (+ evaluation) :
- Infants demonstrating a lot of imitation found to have better quality relationships at 3 months
- Cause and effect issue: Does imitation cause interactional synchrony or are other factors involved?
How does research into these caregiver-infant interactions have value?
- ‘Like me’ hypothesis (Meltzoff 2005) : Baby associates imitation w/ feelings + thoughts of others, which leads them to understand how others think and feel (Theory of Mind) and thus are able to construct relationships
- Shows how it forms basis of social development
Give an example of a synchronised interaction
Baby moves its head in rhythm w/ mother
Who studied how an attachment develops, in what year and what did they come up with?
- Schaffer and Emerson (1964)
- 4 specific stages of attachment
Procedure of Schaffer and Emerson (1964):
- 60 (31 male, 29 female) Glasgow babies born into skilled working class families, ranging between 5 and 23 weeks of age
- Visited in homes every 4 weeks in first year and again in 18 months
- Overt observations, interviews conducted and mother keeps diary of child’s behaviour
- Each mother reported infant’s response to separation in 7 everyday condition
What are the 7 everyday conditions?
- Left alone in room
- Left w/ other people
- Left in pram outside house
- Left in pram outside shops
- Left in cot at night
- Put down after being held by adult
- Passed by while sitting on cot/chair
In what ways did separation have to be described by mothers and what attachment behaviours did this help measure?
- Intensity of protest on a 4 point scale
- Who protest was directed at
Attachment behaviours:
1) Separation anxiety
2) Stranger anxiety
Separation anxiety:
Distress shown by infant when separated from their caregiver
Stranger anxiety:
Distress shown by infant when approached by someone unfamiliar
Results of Schaffer and Emerson (1964) study:
Stats:
- For 65% of babies, mother was first specific primary attachment
- For 30%, jointly attached to mother and one other figure
- 27% of these, jointly attached to mother and father
- 3% were attached to father
- By 18 months, 75% of babies had formed an attachment w/ father (multiple attachments)
Observations:
- Intensely attached infants had mothers who responded quickly and sensitively (vice versa)
Conclusion of Schaffer and Emerson (1964) study:
Quality of the relationship, not quantity, that mattered most in formation of an attachment
Give stat to show that the primary attachment figure is not always formed w/ physical carer:
In almost 40% of cases, person who was physical carer was not their first attachment figure
What are the 4 specific stages of attachment and how old are infants in each?
1) Pre-attachment phase –> Birth to 3 months
2) Indiscriminate attachments –> 3 to 6 months
3) Discriminate attachments –> 7 to 8 months
4) Multiple attachments –> 9 months onwards
Pre-attachment phase:
- Between 0-6 weeks –> asocial stage ( similar behaviour to both humans and inanimate objects)
- From 6 weeks –> Attracted to humans, feel happier in their presence, prefer familiar to unfamiliar
Indiscriminate attachments:
- Much more social
- Does not show separation/stranger anxiety
- Recognise and prefer familiar adults
Discriminate attachments:
- Formation of attachment w/ primary figure
- Separation and stranger anxiety shown
Multiple attachments:
- Develops depending on how many consistent relationships the infant has
- Within 1st month –> 30% have secondary attachments
- Within 6 months –> 78% have these
What issue is debated in attachments and give two different beliefs:
- Relative importance of different attachment figures
- John Bowlby –> attachments were hierarchical in nature w/ primary attachment figure at top and secondary attachments following afterwards
- Ritter (1995) –> proposed model of multiple attachments showing all attachments to be of equal importance, combining to form a child’s internal working model
What is one reason for suggesting attachments are of equal importance?
Multiple attachments are formed to different people for different purposes so they cannot be compared
Strengths and weaknesses of Schaffer and Emerson (1964) study:
+ Good external validity
+ Longitudinal design
+ No ethical issues
- Methodological issues
- Biased sample
- Measuring multiple attachments
- Conflicting evidence on multiple attachments
- Stage theories
How does Schaffer and Emerson (1964) study have good external validity?
- Carried out in families’ own homes & most observations done by parents so no demand characteristics
- Has mundane realism and ecological validity
Why is the use of a longitudinal design rather than a cross-sectional design a strength?
- Same babies and mothers observed regularly over a longer period of time
- Better internal validity as there are fewer confounding variables when pps are checked regularly
What methodological issues do Schaffer and Emerson’s study have (+examples) ?
- Both observations and self-reports are prone to bias
Examples: - parents may have shown social desirability bias during self-reports to show good relationship w/ their infants
- Bias when interpreting their baby’s behaviour
In what ways was the sample used in Schaffer and Emerson’s study biased?
- From a working-class population, lacking population validity
- Sample was from 1960s and society has changed much since then
Give results from one study to show society has changed a lot since 1960s:
Cohn et al (2014) found number of fathers choosing to stay at home has quadrupled over past 25 yrs
How is the measurement of multiple attachments a weakness in this study( +study)?
- Defining the difference between an attachment and just a playmate is challenging
- Bowlby (1969) found babies also get distressed when their playmates leave room not just for attachment figures
What is the conflicting evidence on multiple attachments?
- Research indicates multiple attachments ,now can only be formed if baby is attached to a primary figure first
- However, cross-cultural research done by Tronick et al (1992) and Fox (1977) show having multiple attachments then single attachments is the norm
How are stage theories a weakness of the study conducted by Schaffer and Emerson?
- Developmental psychologists develop inflexible stage theories describing how children’s behaviour change w/ age
- However, Schaffer and Emerson’s study contradicts the research found about development of infants cross-culturally (flexible)
Who does the father refer to in psychology research?
Child’s closest male caregiver, not biological parent
Give stats from a previous study that shows fathers are much less likely to become a baby’s first attachment fig:
Schaffer and Emerson’s study (1964):
- 27% of cases infant was jointly attached to mother and father
- Only 3% of cases was father the first attachments fig
- By 18 months, 75% of babies had formed an attachment w/ father (multiple attachments)
What research was carried out studying babies’ attachments until they were in their teens and what type of study was it?
- Grossman et al (2002)
- Longitudinal study
What did Grossman et al’s study look at, what did it find and what conclusion can be made?
- Parents’ behaviour and quality of their relationship w/ children
Findings: - Quality of relationship w/ mothers only (not fathers) related to attachments in adolescence
- Attachments to fathers much less important than attachments to mothers
However, what other findings were found that showed the importance of fathers’ play and what conclusion can be drawn from this?
Finding:
- Quality of fathers’ play related to quality of adolescent attachment
Conclusion:
- Fathers have a diff role (play and stimulation) compared to mothers (emotional development)
Primary attachment:
- First attachment that an infant forms w/ caregiver happening around 7 months
- Characterised by separation/stranger anxiety
What research showed that fathers adopt the emotional role of a mother when they are a primary attachment fig?
Field (1978)
Procedure of Field (1978) study:
Filmed 4 month old babies’ interactions w/ primary caregiver mothers, primary caregiver fathers and secondary caregiver fathers
Findings of Field (1978) study:
Primary caregiver fathers spent more time smiling, imitating and holding their babies (reciprocity and interactional synchrony) compared to secondary caregiver fathers
Conclusion of Field (1978) study:
Fathers can be the primary attachment fig like the mother
Strengths and weaknesses of role of father:
+ Real-world application
- Confusion over research qs
- Conflicting research evidence
- Does not reason as to why fathers generally don’t become primary attachments
How can research into the role of the father be applied to real life?
- Used to offer advice and reassurance to parents concerned about who should take on primary caregiver role eg. Field, 1978 (fighting stereotypes)
- Lesbian parents can be informed not having a father will not affect child’s development eg. MacCallum and Golombrook, 2004
How is confusion over research qs a weakness in research into the role of the father?
- Different researchers are interested in finding out about different questions
- Brings difficulty in answering what the role of the father actually is?
What is the conflicting research evidence about the role of the father?
- Grossman found fathers had an important role in children’s development (play and stimulation)
- However, MacCallum and Golombok (2004) found children w/ single mothers/same-sex parents did not develop any differently, so the father is not important
- Bowlby (an influential psychologist) argued role of the father was mainly economic and unimportant in nurturing infants
What are some possible reasons why fathers don’t generally become primary attachments?
- Traditional gender roles –> Women are expected to be more caring than men so fathers don’t act like that
- Hormones eg. oestrogen –> Creates higher levels of nurturing, so they are pre-disposed to be primary attachment fig
- Bowlby’s influential research from back in the day
What are the 2 key animal studies and what did both of these studies explore?
- Lorenz
- Harlow
- Explored formation of early bonds between non-human parents and their offspring
What did the ethologist Lorenz observe in 1930s?
Observed most animals will form attachments very soon after birth
What is imprinting, when does it occur and what happens if it is not formed in this time?
- When a new born baby attaches to first living thing they see
- Soon after birth within a critical period
- Probably never be able to form an attachment if it is not formed in this period
Aim of Lorenz’ study:
Investigate mechanisms of imprinting where the youngster follows and forms an attachment to first living thing they see
Procedure of Lorenz’ study:
- Split large clutch of greylag goose eggs into 2: one hatched naturally by mother (primary fig = mum), other hatched in incubator (primary fig (first person they see) = Lorenz)
- Marked each to tell what grp they’re from
- Placed under upturned box
- Removed box and recorded behaviour
Findings of Lorenz’ study:
- Naturally hatched baby goslings followed mother
- Incubated ones went to Lorenz
- Bonds appeared to be irreversible
- Imprinting only occurred within 4 and 25 hrs after hatching (critical period) or would not happen at all
What other relationship did Lorenz (1952) investigate and what did he find?
- Relationship between imprinting and adult mate preferences
Findings: - Birds that imprinted on a human displayed courtship behaviour later on
- Irreversible and long-lasting
- Described how one of the geese who imprinted on him (Martina) used to sleep on his bed every night and presumably tried to mate w/ him
Strengths and weaknesses of Lorenz’ research:
+ Research support for both types of imprinting
- Disputes over characteristics of imprinting
- Issue w/ generalised birds to humans
What research support is there for imprinting and what were the findings?
- Guiton (1966)
- Leghorn chicks became imprinted onto the yellow rubber gloves that fed them during their first few weeks
- Male chickens later tried to mate w/ glove
What research support is there for sexual imprinting and what were the findings?
- Lorenz (1952)
- First moving objects a peacock (reared in the reptile house of a zoo) saw were giant tortoises
- As an adult, peacock directed courtship behaviour towards them (sexual imprinting)
What are the disputes present over the characteristics of imprinting?
- Original concept was that imprinting is irreversible and long-lasting
- Now, it is more of a ‘plastic and forgiving mechanism’ (Hoffman, 1966)
- Reversible, as Guiton (1966) found chicken’s behaviour towards mating w/ yellow gloves can be reversed after spending time w/ own species
What is the problem w/ generalising from birds to humans (give example)?
Mammalian attachment system is diff to birds eg. they show more emotional attachment to youngsters than birds, can form attachments at any time rather than a critical period
Aim of Harlow (1959) study:
Test Learning Theory by comparing attachment behaviour in baby monkeys
Procedure of Harlow (1959) study:
- 16 baby rhesus monkeys (4 in each condition)
- 2 types of surrogate mothers constructed: a harsh wire mother + a soft towelling mother
Conditions:
1) Wire mother producing milk, Towelling mother producing no milk
2) Wire mother producing milk, Towelling mother producing milk
3) Wire mother producing milk
4) Towelling mother producing milk - Amount of time spent w/ each mother & feeding time recorded
- Frightened w/ loud noise to test mother preference during stress
- Larger cage used to test monkeys’ degree of exploration
Learning Theory:
Attachments primarily formed through food
Findings of Harlow (1959) study:
- When available –> Monkeys preferred contact w/ towelling mother, regardless of production of milk (sometimes stretched across wire to feed whilst clinging to towelling mother)
- Only wire mother –> Monkey had diarrhoea (sign of distress)
- Frightened by loud noise –> Clung to towelling mother (if available)
- Larger cage –> Monkeys w/ towelling mothers explored more + visited mother more often
Conclusion of Harlow (1959) study:
- Rhesus monkeys have innate need for contact comfort, showing attachment concerns emotional security more than food
- Contact comfort is associated to lower levels of stress + willingness to explore
What other study did Harlow et al (1965) do, when and what were the findings?
- Raised newborn monkeys in total isolation from other living beings for 3, 6, 12 or 24 months
Findings: - Displayed signs of psychological disturbance (hugging their own bodies, rocking repetitively)
What happened when the monkeys were placed with other monkey?
- Attacked other monkeys due to fear and lacked social interaction
- Harmed themselves (bit arms and legs, pulled out their hair)
- No ability to engage in sexual courtship
What did the degree of damage correlate positively with?
Degree of damage correlates positively w/ total amount of isolation endured by a monkey
What did Harlow do to see how the monkeys would cope as parents, what did he find and what was the conclusion?
- Devised a ‘rape rack’, where female monkeys raised in isolation would be forcibly mated
Findings: - Abused and neglected their babies (1 chewed off baby’s feet, another crushed baby’s head)
Conclusion: - Social interactions are required for normal social and emotional development
What study showed the effects of total isolation to be reversible?
Harlow and Suomi (1972)
Procedure of Harlow and Suomi (1972):
- Raised 4 newborn male monkeys in total isolation for 6 months
- Placed each w/ normally raised 3 month old female monkey for 2 -3 hrs 3x a week
Results of Harlow and Suomi (1972):
- After 12 months –> Almost normal behaviour
- By 3 yrs –> Total recovery
Strengths and weaknesses of Harlow’s research:
+ Theoretical value
+ Practical value
- Ethical issues
- Problems of generalisation of animal studies to humans
What is the theoretical value of Harlow’s research on understanding human-infant interaction?
Showed the importance of:
- Contact comfort
- Quality of early relationships for later social development & parenting
What is the practical value of Harlow’s research?
- Helped social workers understand risk factors in child neglect and abuse so they can intervene (Howe, 1998)
- Important in care of captive monkeys in zoos and breeding programmes –> shows need for attachment
What ethical issues are there in Harlow’s research?
- Created lasting psychological damage in monkeys –> many of the monkeys died
- Sackett (2002), a student of Harlow, believed that Harlow’s research was so unethical that the American animal Liberation movement was born out of it
Why is it possible that results from animal studies cannot be generalised to humans, but what study has shown that it can?
- We do not know how animals make their decisions & human behaviour is governed by conscious decisions
- Schaffer and Emerson’s study also showed animals/humans do not bond w/ person who feeds them
