Attachments L5 - 8 Flashcards
Learning/Behavioural theory:
All behaviour is learned either through classical or operant conditioning rather than innate
Cupboard love theory of attachment:
Attachment is based on the provision of food alone
What is classical conditioning based on and which psychologist did an experiment on this?
- Learning through association
- Pavlov
Pavlov’s study:
Before conditioning:
1) Food (unconditioned stimulus) = Salivation (unconditioned response)
2) Bell = no response
Conditioning process:
Food (UCS) + Bell (NS) = Salivation (UCR) (association through repetition)
Now:
Bell (conditioned stimulus) = Salivation (conditioned response)
What is an unconditioned response?
An automatic, innate response
What is a neutral stimulus?
It has no response
How does this experiment correlate w/ attachments?
Before conditioning:
1) Milk (UCS) = Pleasure (UCR)
2) Caregiver = no response
Conditioning process:
Milk (UCS) + Caregiver (NS) = Pleasure (UCR) (association through repetition)
Now:
Caregiver (conditioned stimulus) = Pleasure (conditioned response)
What is operant conditioning based on, which psychologist conducted an experiment on this and what did he find?
- Learning through rewards and punishments (positive and negative reinforcements)
- Skinner
- Rats could learn to press a lever for a reward
What do operant conditioning theorists believe?
1) Behaviours which lead to rewards will be repeated
2) Behaviours which lead to punishments are less likely to be repeated
What is positive reinforcement?
Receiving smth positive for carrying out a behaviour
What is negative reinforcement?
Performing a behaviour in order to avoid smth unpleasant and therefore behaviour continues in future
Use operant conditioning to explain why babies cry for comfort:
- Crying leads to response from caregiver
- If caregiver gives right response, crying is positively reinforced
- Caregiver receives negative reinforcement as crying (displeasure) stops
Primary drive w/ example:
- Innate biological motivator
- Hunger
Secondary drive w/ example:
- Learnt by association
- Often exists to achieve primary drive
- Attachment
Strengths and weaknesses of Learning Theory as an explanation of attachments:
+ Plausible –> some elements of conditioning can be involved in attachments
+ Social Learning Theory fits better w/ other research
- Based on animal studies
- Conflicting research evidence
- Reductionist
- Attachments are innate and complex
What animals were used in various studies and how is learning theory being largely based on them a weakness (w/arguments against)?
- Skinner used pigeons and rats, Pavlov used dogs
- Some argue animal behaviour cannot be generalised to humans
Arguments against: - Behaviourists eg. Pavlov + Skinner believe human learning behaviour is very similar to animals
- Our behaviour patterns are constructed from the same sensory register so it is legitimate to generalise
What research support has shown attachment not to be based on food?
- Lorenz –> baby goslings imprinted despite not feeding them
- Harlow –> baby monkeys attached to towelling mother despite it not providing milk
- Schaffer and Emerson –> 40% of babies did not have first primary attachment w/ physical carer
In what way is the learning theory reductionist?
- Heavy focus on factors like food and pleasure
- Ignores factors like interactional synchrony and reciprocity, which are also important for forming attachments
- Studies have shown best quality attachments are formed w/ sensitive carers who respond to infant signals
What evidence shows that the learning theory can still be involved in forming attachments?
- Does give a reason why attachments happen (food)
- Many attachment behaviours do give positive reinforcement (pleasure)
- Most babies form attachments w/ caregivers who feed them most
What is the Social Learning Theory?
- Further development of Learning Theory by Albert Bandura, Dale Hay and Jo Vespa (1988)
- Suggested modelling can be used to explain attachment behaviours
- Children observe parents’ affectionate behaviour and imitate this
- Parents instruct children how to behave in return for positive reinforcement eg. hugs
- Baby attaches as they may see other significant others attached
Why did Bowlby reject learning theory as an explanation for attachment?
He said, “if it were true, an infant of a year or two should readily take to whomever feeds him and this is clearly not the case” (1988)
How is Social Learning Theory a better explanation for the formation of attachments?
- Based on a two way interaction between baby and adult
- Fits better w/ reciprocity research
What does the evolutionary theory argued by Bowlby say?
- Attachments are innate and have evolved as they aid survival
- Infants who stuck close to mother were more likely to survive
- This genetic trait was passed on thru generations
What is modelling?
Imitating the behaviour of role models
What are the nature vs nature theories in attachments?
- Bowlby’s Monotropic Theory
- Cupboard love theory
John Bowlby:
- Psychiatrist
- Worked w/ emotionally disturbed children
- Proposed first theory, the maternal deprivation hypothesis (1951)
- Suggested a young child should experience warm, intimate and continuous relationship w/ his mother/mother substitute otherwise they may suffer long term damage
What are the important characteristics aiding the formation of an attachment?
1) Monotropy
2) Social releasers
3) Critical/Sensitive period
4) Internal working model
Other features: Continuity hypothesis and secure base
Why is Bowlby’s theory (1958, 69) described as monotropic?
- Monotropy = Primary attachment fig (usually biological/unbiological mother)
- One attachment has special importance over secondary attachments(hierarchy)
What two principles explain monotropy?
1) Law of continuity –> More constant and predictable a child’s care, better the quality of attachment
2) Law of accumulated separation –> Effect of every separation adds up and ‘safest dose is therefore a zero dose’ (1975)
What does the primary attachment fig provide and what is the importance of secondary attachment figs?
- Primary–> Foundation for emotional development, self-esteem and later relationships
- Secondary –> Important in emotional development as it acts as a safety net
What are social releasers and why are they important?
- Set of innate cute behaviours like cooing
- Important as these mechanisms cause the caregiver to have an innate predisposition towards them, triggering a response
What did Bowlby recognise the attachment process to be?
Reciprocal
What is the critical/sensitive period in which an attachment should be formed and what happens if it is not?
- First 2 years (maximally sensitive)
- Extremely difficult to form any more attachments
What is the internal working model and what consequences does it have in the short and long term?
- Mental representation of relationship w/ primary caregiver (Bowlby 1969)
Important: - Short term –> Gives child insight into caregiver’s behaviour and enables them to influence them
- Long term –> Schema for what relationships should entail
How does attachment give protection for infants and what does it help to do?
- Acts as a secure base
- Allows them to explore the world and return when threatened
- Helps foster independence
What is the continuity hypothesis?
- The view that there is a link between early attachment relationships and later emotional behaviour eg. securely attached infants continue to be socially and emotionally competent vice versa
Strengths and weaknesses of Bowlby’s theory of attachment:
+ Research support for:
–> monotropy
–> social releasers
–> critical period (animal research)
–> internal working model
–> continuity hypothesis
- Counter evidence against:
–> monotropy
–> formation of attachments after critical period
–> assumption that a child will always have poor future relationships if they had a poor first attachment
- Outdated as role of father is ignored –> counter evidence to show importance
- Temperament may be important as as attachment
What support is there for monotropy?
- Attachments are expected to be universal as they have evolved to aid survival
- Tronick et al (1992) studied African tribe Efe in Zaire where babies are looked after + breastfed by other women, but slept w/ mother at night. Even these babies still showed one primary attachment at 6 months (monotropy)
What animal research support is there to show imprinting is innate?
- Lorenz found baby birds tend to imprint on first moving object –> babies usually do the same w/ mother esp if breastfeeding
- Lorenz also found birds would be unable to imprint if they did not do so w/in critical period
What support is there for social releasers?
- Brazelton et al (1975) observed mothers to prove existence of interactional synchrony
- Extended from observation to experiment
- When primary figs instructed to ignore babies’ social releasers, babies showed some distress
- After a while, some responded by curling up and lying motionless
What support is there for the internal working model?
- Bailey et al (2007) tested the predicted patterns of attachments
- Assessed 99 mothers w/ 1 yr old babies on quality of attachment to mother using standard interview procedure + observation
- Mothers who reported poor attachment w/ own mothers were much more likely to be poor asw
Which study supports the continuity hypothesis?
- Minnesota longitudinal study followed pps from infancy to late adolescence
- Secure infants were rated the highest for social competence later in life (supports Bowlby’s hypothesis)
What is the counter evidence against monotropy, showing multiple attachments?
- Too much emphasis on child’s attachment w/ primary fig
- Other attachments just as important eg. father for social development, siblings for relationship w/ peers
- Schaffer and Emerson (1964) found each attachment has its own value in infants
- Cross cultural research eg. Tronick’s study –> secondary attachments form first before primary
Which study shows attachments can actually be formed after critical period?
Tizard and Hodges found that 21/22 adopted aged 4 yrs went on to form secure attachment w/ them by 8 yrs old
What does research show about a poor first attachment relationship resulting in poor future relationships?
Insecurely attached individuals can develop positive and secure relationships due to positive school experiences/strong adult attachments
What is temperament and what study showed its influence on caregiver sensitivity?
- Child’s genetically influenced personality
- Kagan (1982) argued it was temperament that influenced caregiver sensitivity
- Happier babies encouraged more sensitive caregiving
How was Ainsworth significant in Bowlby’s research?
Provided him w/ secure base concept + importance of maternal sensitivity
How were the types of attachments tested, who tested it and what was the aim?
- The Strange Situation
- Ainsworth and Bell (1970)
- Aim: See how infants between 9 and 18 months behave under conditions of mild stress and novelty
Procedure of Ainsworth and Bell (1970):
- Novel environment: Research room (9x9 foot square marked into 16 squares to record infant’s movements)
- Controlled observation in a lab setting
- Grp of observers record what infant is doing every 15s
What are the episodes, how many are there and what behaviour was assessed?
7 episodes:
1) Parent sits while infant plays –> parent as secure base
2) Stranger enters and talks to parent –> stranger anxiety
3) Parent leaves, infant plays, stranger offers comfort if needed –> separation anxiety
4) Parent returns, offers comfort if needed, stranger leaves –> reunion behaviour
5) Parent leaves - infant is alone –> separation anxiety
6) Stranger enters + offers comfort –> stranger anxiety
7) Parent returns, greets infant + offers comfort
Give the list of behaviours observers scored for intensity between what two number
Scale between 1 and 7:
1) Proximity and contact-seeking behaviours
2) Contact-maintaining behaviours
3) Proximity and interaction-avoiding behaviours
4) Contact and interaction-resisting behaviours
5) Search behaviours
What did Ainsworth et al (1978) do?
Combined data from several ‘strange situation’ observations totalling 106 middle-class infants
What were similarities and differences in the behaviour of the infants?
Similarities:
- Exploratory behaviours declined from ep 2 onwards whereas amount of crying increased
- Proximity-seeking and contact-maintaining behaviours intensified in separation + stranger anxiety
- Contact-resisting and proximity-avoiding behaviours occurred rarely before separation
What were the findings of the Strange Situation?
Insecure Avoidant (Type A):
- High willingness to explore
- Low stranger anxiety
- Indifferent on separation
- Avoids contact at reunion
Secure (Type B):
- High willingness to explore
- High stranger anxiety
- Some easy to soothe
- Enthusiastic on reunion
Insecure Resistant (Type C):
- Low willingness to explore
- High stranger anxiety
- Distressed on separation
- Seeks and rejects reunion
What percentage of infants fit into each type of attachment for the Strange Situation?
- Insecure Resistant: 12%
- Secure: 66%
- Insecure Avoidant: 22%
Strengths and weaknesses of the Strange Situation:
+ High reliability
+ Real world application
- Fails to mention other types of attachment
- Ethical issues
- Lacks validity –> internal, ecological and pop
- Conflicting evidence of maternal sensitivity
How does the Strange Situation have high reliability?
- Reliability was assessed using inter-rater reliability
- Ainsworth et Al (1974) found almost perfect (0.94) agreement between rates
- Consistency shows reliability
- Bick et al (2012) looked at inter-rater reliability in team of trained Strange Situation observers and found agreement on 94% of tested babies
How can the Strange Situation useful for real world application and give an example?
- Intervention strategies can be be developed in situations of disordered patterns of attachment
- Circle of Security project (Cooper et al, 2005) teachers caregivers to understand their infants’ signals of distress better
- Showed decrease in number of disordered caregivers from 60% to 15% + increase in securely attached infants from 32% to 40%
What type of attachment is ignored in the Strange Situation and which study shows this?
- Main and Solomon (1986) analysed over 200 Strange Situation videotapes and proposed insecure-disorganised attachment (Type D)
- Characterised by lack of consistent patterns of social behaviour (don’t always react in same way)
- Further supported by meta analysis done by Van Ijzendoorn et al (1999) of nearly 80 studies in US finding 15% as Type A, 62% as Type B, 9% as Type C and 14% as Type D
What are the ethical issues with the Strange Situation?
- Caused psychological harm to infants eg. in ep 6, 20% of infants reportedly cried ‘desperately’
- When Strange Situation was repeated in Japan, it had to be stopped due to infants crying uncontrollably at ep 6
- Ainsworth et al (1978) claimed procedure was intended not to be any more disturbing than ordinary life experiences
How does the Strange Situation lack validity?
Lacks internal validity:
- Main and Weston (1981) found children behaved differently depending on which parent they’re with
Lacks ecological validity:
- Study carried out in controlled environment
- Behaviour may not be natural due to this or due to the fact they are being observed
Lacks population validity:
- Carried out on white American middle-class mothers and infants
What did Ainsworth suggest about maternal sensitivity and how has it been questioned?
- Ainsworth suggested a link between maternal sensitivity and attachment
- Some studies found low correlations between measures of maternal sensitivity and strength of attachment eg. Raval et al, 2001
- Slade et al, 2005 found a greater maternal reflective functioning (ability to understand someone else’s thoughts and feelings)
- This perhaps has a better link w/ attachment than maternal sensitivity
What happens if an individual has a loving attachment and compare this to bad first attachments?
- Loving first attachment –> Functional relationships
- Bad attachment –> Struggle to form relationships/ Inappropriate behaviour
Give one example of a study showing continuity between first attachments and later social and emotional adjustment and what type of study was it:
- Prior and Glaser (2006)
- Longitudinal study
What were the findings of Prior and Glaser’s study?
- Secure attachment is associated w/ positive outcomes like interpersonal harmony (gets on well with others), less emotional dependence + ambition
- Avoidant attachment is linked w/ aggressiveness + generally negative effects
- Resistant attachment is associated w/ greater anxiety and withdrawn behaviour
Which two studies supported the influence of early attachments on childhood relationships?
- Sroufe et al (2005)
- Myron-Wilson and Smith (1998)
What were the results of Sroufe et al (2005) study and why was this the case?
- Securely attached infants were highest rated for social competence, less isolated, more popular and more empathetic
- Securely attached infants have higher expectations that others are friendly and trusting so they can have easier relationships
Procedure of Myron-Wilson and Smith (1998) study:
- Assessed attachment type and bullying involvement
- Using questionnaires in 196 children aged 7 - 11 from London
Results of Myron-Wilson and Smith (1998) study and reasons:
- Securely attached infants unlikely to be involved in bullying
- Insecure avoidant attached infants were most likely to be victims
- Insecure resistant were most likely to be the bully
- Insecure attached infants did not have a strong internal working model due to poor attachment w/ primary caregiver
Strengths and weaknesses of influence of early attachment on childhood relationships:
+ Research support –> Minnesota + Myron-Wilson and Smith
- Flawed methodology
Which study has flawed methodology and why?
- Myron-Wilson and Smith
- Use of standard questionnaire –> may be victim to social desirability bias as many could lie about having secure attachments/ pretending to be victims/ say they weren’t bullied
Which study showed early attachments to have an influence on adult relationships and what was the aim of it?
- Hazan and Shaver (1987)
- Aim: Explore possibility that attachment theory offers perspective on adult romantic love + creates framework for understanding love, loneliness and grief
What predictions were made about the Hazan and Shaver study?
1) Would be correlation between adults’ attachment styles and type of parenting they received
2) Adults w/ diff attachment styles will display different characteristic mental models of themselves and their major social-interaction partners
What was the procedure of Hazan and Shaver (1987) study?
- Placed ‘Love Quiz’ in American small-town newspaper called Rocky Mountain News
- Quiz asked questions about current attachment experiences and attachment history –> to identify current and childhood attachment types
- Also asked about attitudes towards love (assessment of internal working model)
Give stats of Sample 1:
- 620 responses (205 from men, 415 from women all between 14 and 82 yrs of age)
- Heterosexual: 91%
- Married: 42%
- Dating: 31%
- Divorced/Widowed: 28%
- Living in w/ partner: 9%
- Some belonged to more than 1 category
Give stats of Sample 2 and what did they do:
- 108 students ( 38 men and 70 women)
- Answered additional items focusing more on ‘self’ side of mental model like items measuring loneliness
What were the findings of Hazan and Shaver?
- Securely attached: 56% in both samples
- Insecure avoidant: 23% in Sample 1, 25% in Sample 2
- Insecure resistant: 19% in Sample 1, 20% in Sample 2
How do securely attached adults feel about their romantic relationships?
- Easy getting close to others
- Comfortable depending on them
- Don’t worry about being abandoned/someone getting close to me
How do insecurely avoidant attached adults feel about their romantic relationships?
- Uncomfortable being close to others
- Difficult to depend on them
- Love partners want them to be more intimate
In both samples what did the securely attached describe their most important love relationships they ever had as, and what does this show about them?
- ‘Happy, friendly and trusting’
- Longer lasting relationships
- Unlikely to divorce
What do securely attached participants believe about love and how did they hold themselves?
- Believe in lasting love
- Held themselves as likeable
How did insecure avoidant participants feel about romantic love, what did they maintain and what feelings did they tend to show?
- Doubtful about its existence/durability
- Maintained the fact that they do not need lives partners to be happy
- Tended to reveal jealousy + fear of intimacy
What are both insecure types vulnerable to and who is more vulnerable?
- Loneliness
- Insecure-resistant are more vulnerable (sample 2)
What conclusions can be made from Hazan and Shaver?
- Percentage of adults in diff attachment types match those of infants in Strange Situation studies
- Correlation between children’s attachment styles and degree of sensitivity shown by mothers was similar to Ainsworth’s study
- Adult mental models differ according to attachment styles –> securely attached are more optimistic about themselves + potential love partners compared to others
How do insecurely resistant attached adults feel about their romantic relationships?
- Others are reluctant to get as close as they want
- Worry that partner won’t stay w/ them
- Desire to merge completely w/ another person which scares people away
What behaviours are influenced by the internal working model and which studies shows this?
- Childhood friendships –> Minnesota child-parent study
- Poor parenting –> Harlow’s monkey parenting study, Quinton et al
- Romantic relationships –> Hazan and Shaver
- Mental health –> Attachment disorder recognised by DSM as psychiatric condition due to lack of attachment fig
What does Quinton et al’s study show?
Proved the link between poor attachment and later difficulties w/ monkeys was same w/ humans
What other research supports the internal working model?
- Belsky (1999)
- Bailey et al (2007)
What did Belsky (1999) report about internal working model?
Women w/ childhood secure attachments experienced less conflict w/ husbands on topics like time spent together or household division of labour
Strengths and weaknesses of influence of early attachments on later relationships:
- Conflicting evidence
- Most studies measuring internal working model have issues of validity
- Association does not mean causality
- Influence of early attachment is probabilistic but not definite
What is the mixed evidence about the continuity of attachment types?
Proof of internal working model:
- Bailey et al (2007)
Contradiction to internal working model:
- Zimmerman (2000)
What did Zimmerman (2000) do?
- Assessed infant attachment type to adolescent attachment to parents
- Very little relationship between quality of infant and adolescent attachment
What issues of validity do most studies testing IWM have and why?
- Use of self report techniques
- Parents may show social desirability bias
- Very few researchers use Strange Situation to measure attachment types
- Difficult to prove if the attachments patterns are correct
- Asked about attachment relationship with their teenagers
- Retrospective and parents may forget, lie or exaggerate
What are alternative factors affecting the continuity between infant and later relationships and hence, what conclusion can be drawn from this?
- Parenting style
- Parental relationship
- Child’s temperament
- Research is correlational not causational
Who described the influence of early attachments as probabilistic but not definite and why is this the case?
- Clark and Clark (1998)
- Bowlby and many others have probably exaggerated significance of the influence
- Greater risk of problems however it can be overcome
