Attatchment Flashcards
What are care-giver infant interactions
the reciprocal relationship between an infant and their caregiver. It involves the communication and emotional exchanges between the two parties, which have a profound impact on the infant’s development.
What is reciprocity
responding to the action of the other party with a similar action
Action of one elicits a response in the other conversation like creating a rhythm
What is interactional synchrony
When the two people interact and the mirror what the other is doing with both facial and body movement
Evaluation of infant-caregiver interactions - problems with infants
infants mouth are in fairly constant motion and the expression tested occur frequently e.g. yawning, smiling, tongue out. This makes it difficult to distinguish between general activity and specifically imitated behaviour
Meltzoff and Moore recorded the infants and got external observers to overcome this
Evaluation of caregiver infant interactions - research support
Meltzoff and Moore (1977) found infants as young as 2 weeks imitated hand and face gestures from and adult model
Evaluation of caregiver infant interactions - individual differences
Individual differences - Isabella et al (1989) found that more strongly attached infant care giver pairs showed greater interactional synchrony.
Evaluation of caregiver infant interactions - failure to replicate
Other studies have not been able to replicate meltzoff and moore e.g. Koepe
Reduces reliability
Could be because of methodology
Schaffer’s stages of attachment (1964)
Longitudinal study followed 60 infants from working class families in Glasgow over 2 years
Asocial attachment
Indiscriminate attachment
Discriminate/specific attachment
Multiple attachment
What is asocial attachment
0-2 months
Behaviour between humans and non-humans is similar
happier with humans than alone
Prefer faces to non-faces
smile at anyone
accept comfort form anyone
What is indiscriminate attachment
2-7 months
recognise and prefer familiar people
smile more at familiar faces
Preference for people rather than inanimate objects
don’t show separation anxiety from caregiver or stranger anxiety
What is discriminate/specific attachment
7-12 months
primary attachment to one individual (who offers most interaction and responds to signals) and experience separation anxiety from this person
stranger anxiety
Use familiar adults as a secure base
What is multiple attatchments
1+ years
form secondary attachments with familiar adults
Evaluation of Schaffer (1964) - stage theories
Stage theories - suggest that development occurs in a specific order making it inflexible and is a problem if the stages become normal and families are judged as abnormal if this standard is not met
Evaluation of schaffers stages of attachment - asocial stage
Poor evidence for the asocial stage - as young babies have poor co-ordination and are fairly immobile they display anxiety in hard to observe ways which may not have been noticed and reported back. Babies may be social but because of flawed methods appear to be asocial
Evaluation of Schaffers stages of attachment - population validity
all working class families from one place and in the 1960s may not be applicable for different social groups, countries or time periods
Evaluation of Schaffers stages of attachment - unreliable data
Data collected was from mothers reports, some mothers may be less sensitive to how their infant behave and would not notice little details and not report them
challenges validity of data and stage
Lorenz (1935) imprinting procedure
Took a clutch of Gosling eggs and split them into 2 groups
1 group was left with their natural mother
1 group was placed in an incubator and the first moving thing they saw was Lorenz
He marked the 2 groups then placed them together while both the natural mother and Lorenz were present
Lorenz (1935) imprinting findings
The goslings divided themselves up one group followed their natural mother the other group followed Lorenz
Lorenz’s group showed no recognition of their natural mother
Noted that the process of imprinting was restricted to a definitive period of the young animals lives called the critical period
If a young animal is not exposed to a moving object during the critical period the animal will not imprint
Suggests animals can imprint on a persistently present moving object within its first 2 days
Observed that imprinting to humans does not occur in some animals e.g. curlews will not imprint on a human
What is imprinting
A process similar to attachment as it binds a young animal to a care giver in a special relationship
Lorenz (1935) long lasting effects of imprinting
The process is irreverible and long lasting
One of the gees called Marina slept on Lorenz’s bed every night
Early imprinting had an impact on mating preferences called sexual imprinting, animals (especially birds) will choose to mate with the same kind of object which the imprinted to
Harlow (1959) learning theory contradiction procedure
Created 2 wire mothers, one was wrapped in cloth
Studied 8 infant Rhesus monkeys over 165 days.
4 of the monkeys the fully wire mother had a milk bottle and for 4 of the monkeys the cloth mother had the milk bottle
Measurements were made for how long each monkey spent with the different mothers
Observations of the infants responses when frightened were also made
Harlow (1959) contradiction to learning theory findings
All 8 monkeys spent the majority of their time with the cloth mother (17-18 hours a day) whether or not it had the milk bottle
Those fed from the wire mother only spent a short amount of time with it getting food then returned to the cloth mother
When frightened all the monkeys clung to the cloth mother and when playing with new objects the monkeys often kept one foot on the cloth mother seemingly for reassurance
Suggests infants do not develop attachment to food providers but to the person offering contact comfort
Harlow (1959) contradiction to learning theory long lasting effects
The motherless monkeys (even those with contact comfort) developed abnormally
Socially abnormal - froze or fled when approached by other monkeys
Sexually abnormal - did not show normal mating behaviour and did not cradle their own babies
Also found a critical period
If the motherless monkeys spent time with monkey peers the seemed to recover but only if this happened before they were 3 months
Having only a wire mother for more than 6 months was not able to be recovered from
Evaluation of Lorenz (1935) - research support
a number of other animal studies have demonstrated imprinting e.g. Guiton (1966) demonstrated Leghorn chicks exposed to yellow rubber gloves while being fed in their first few weeks became imprinted on the gloves. Supports the view that animals are not born with a predisposition to imprint on a specific type of object but probably on a moving thing that is present in the critical period. Guiton also found that later the male chicks tried to mate with the gloves which supports sexual imprinting
Evaluation of Lorenz - Imprinting criticism
The accepted view was that imprinting was irreversible. It is now understood that it is more plastic e.g. Guiton (1966) found he could reverse the imprinting in the chicks that were trying to mate with the rubber gloves. If they spent time with their species they were able to engage in normal sexual behaviour.
Evaluation of Harlow (1959) - confounding variables
the 2 wire mothers varied in more ways than just having cloth or not. The 2 heads of the mothers were also different. It may be possible that the monkeys preferred the cloth mother because they preferred the head.
Evaluation of Harlow - generalisation
Humans differ to monkeys at their decisions are governed by conscious decision. However Schaffer and Emerson’s supports that infants were not attached to the food provider
Evaluation of Harlow - ethics
Ethics - This study could not be done with humans and their are questions about whether it should be done with monkeys. The study created lasting emotional harm as the monkeys found it difficult to form relationships with their peers. But it could be justified as the findings have had a significant effects on our understanding of attachment and has helped to better care for humans and primates
Learning theory
All behaviour is learnt rather than inborn. When children are born they are blank slates and their behaviour can be explained in term of their experiences as they learn through classical and operant conditioning
Classical conditioning for learning theory
The unconditioned stimulus (food) produces the innate unconditioned response (pleasure).
During the infants early life the person providing food (neutral stimulus) becomes associated with the UCS (food) and will produce the same response (pleasure). The food provider is now a conditioned stimulus and produces the conditioned response of pleasure
Operant conditioning for learning theory
When the infant is fed the drive for food/hunger is reduced producing feelings of pleasure.
negative reinforcement as it is escaping something unpleasant.
Evaluation of learning theory - Harlow
Contradicted by Harlow (1959) as the monkeys spent more time with the cloth monkey even when it did not provide food
Evaluation of learning theory - alternate explanation
Bowlby’s theory of attachment
Learning theory evaluation - based on animal studies
Skinner and Pavlov
lack the ability to be generalised to humans
Evaluation of learning theory - reductionist
Reduces the complex human behaviour to stimulus and response
Bowlby’s Monotropic attachment theory why attachment forms
Attachment evolved because it serves an important survival function. In the past if an infant was not attached it is less well protected as they would not remain close to an adult.
It is also important that the attachment is two ways to ensure the infants are cared for and survive.
Bowlby’s monotropic theory critical period
babies have an innate drive to become attached. the critical period for attachment is around 3-6 months. Infants that do not have the opportunity to form an attachment during this time seem to have difficulty forming attachments later on
Bowlby’s monotropic theory of attachment social releasers
Important to ensure that attachment forms from the parent to the baby. Mechanisms such as smiling and having a babyface all elicit caregiving. Innate mechanism to help attachment form