attatchment gaps Flashcards
Reiprocity
The infant and caregiver are both active contributors in the interaction and are responding to each other.
Both infant and mother respond to each other’s signals and each elicits a response from the other.
Smiling is an example of reciprocity – when a smile occurs in the infant it triggers a smile in the caregiver and vice versa.
Interactional synchrony
Interactional synchrony is when caregiver and infant interact and tend to mirror what the other is doing in terms of their facial and body movements, in both emotions and behaviours
For example, a caregiver who laughs in response to their infant’s giggling sound and tickles them is experiencing synchronised interaction.
Schaeffer + Emmerson
A01: study
Schaffer and Emerson (1964) studied 60 babies at monthly intervals for the first 18 months of life
The children were all studied in their own homes and a regular pattern was identified in the development of attachment. Interactions with their carers were observed, and carers were interviewed. A diary was kept by the mother to examine evidence for the development of an attachment. The following measures were recorded:
Stranger Anxiety - response to arrival of a stranger.
Separation Anxiety - distress level when separated from carer, degree of comfort needed on return
Social Referencing - degree that child looks at carer to check how they should respond to something new (secure base).
Scheaffer + Emmerson
A01: procedure
A diary was kept by the mother to examine evidence for the development of an attachment. The following measures were recorded:
Stranger Anxiety - response to the arrival of a stranger.
Separation Anxiety - distress level when separated from carer, degree of comfort needed on return
Social Referencing - degree that child looks at carer to check how they should respond to something new (secure base).
Schaeffer + Emmerson
A01: Findings
Between 25 and 32 weeks of age, about 50% of babies showed signs of separation anxiety towards a particular adult (usually the mother which signified a specific attachment).
Attachment tended to be to the caregiver who was most interactive and sensitive to infant signals and facial expressions (reciprocity). This was not necessarily the person the infant spent most time with.
By the age of 40 weeks, 80% of the babies had a specific attachment and almost 30% displayed multiple attachments.
Asocial stage: 0-6 weeks
Similar responses to objects & people. Preference for faces/ eyes.
Indiscriminate attachments 6 weeks – 6 months
Preference for human company. Ability to distinguish between people but comforted indiscriminately.
Specific Attatchments 7 months +
Infants show a preference for one caregiver, displaying separation and stranger anxiety. The baby looks to particular people for security, comfort and protection.
Multiple attachments 10/11 months +
Attachment behaviours are displayed towards several different people eg. siblings, grandparents etc.
Shaeffer + Emmerson findings
The results of the study indicated that attachments were most likely to form with those who responded accurately to the baby’s signals, not the person they spent more time with. Schaffer and Emerson called this sensitive responsiveness.
Intensely attached infants had mothers who responded quickly to their demands and, interacted with their child. Infants who were weakly attached had mothers who failed to interact.
The most important fact in forming attachments is not who feeds and changes the child but who plays and communicates with him or her. Therefore, responsiveness appeared to be the key to attachment.
Schaeffer + Emmerson
A03: Population Validity
The Schaffer and Emerson study has low population validity. The infants in the study all came from Glasgow and were mostly from working-class families. In addition, the small sample size of 60 families reduces the strength of the conclusion we can draw from the study.
Schaeffer + Emmerson
A03: Internal validity
However, the accuracy of data collection by parents who were keeping daily diaries whilst clearly being very busy could be questioned. A diary-like this is also very unreliable with demand characteristics and social desirability being major issues. Mothers are not likely to report negative experiences in their daily write up.
Schaeffer + Emmerson
A03: historical validity
The study lacks historical validity. It was conducted in the 1960s when gender roles were different – Now, more men stay at home to look after their children and more women go out to work so the sample is biased.
Role of the father
A01
Western cultures: expectation that the father should play a greater role in bringing up children than before, and number of mothers working full time increased, led to fathers having a more active role.
mothers usually adopt a more caregiving and nurturing role compared to fathers who adopt a more play-mate role. Eg fathers are more likely than mothers to encourage risk taking in their children by engaging them in physical games.
Most infants prefer contact with their father when in a positive emotional state and wanting to play. In contrast most infants prefer contact with their mother when they are distressed and need comforting.
Role of the father
A03: difficult to make generalisations
Numerous factors affect the father’s role and the impact he has on his child’s emotional development. For example, culture, father’s age, and the amount of time the father spends away from home. The existence of so many factors means it difficult to make generalisations about the father’s role.
Role of the father
A03:
It is possible that most men are just not psychologically equipped to form an intense attachment because they lack the emotional sensitivity women offer. Oestrogen underlies caring behaviour and there continue to be sex stereotypes which affect male behaviour.
However, Field found that when fathers have the main caregiver role, they adopt behaviours more typical of mothers therefore the key to attachment is the level of responsiveness, not the gender of the parent.
Role of the father
A03: The Child
Age and gender: Freeman et al. (2010) found that male children are more likely to prefer their father as an attachment figure than female children. He also found that children are more likely to be attached to their father during their late childhood to early adolescence. Infants and young adults are less likely to seek attachment to their fathers.
Role of the father
A03: cultural
In the UK, until 2015 fathers were not given any paid paternal leave so the responsibility for child care was implicitly given to the mothers. This could change the attachment the children make with their fathers. However, this is not the case in every country so the pattern of attachment between father and children might be different.
Bowlby’s monotropic theory
A01
evolutionary explanation Infants born with innate drive to become attached, and born with cute behaviours to attract attention from adults called social releasers Social releasers activate adult attachment system, infant becomes strongly attached to most sensitive adult- special bond (monotropy) Child then forms mental representation of primary caregiver (internal working model) Internal working model framework for future relationships Critical period for this monotropic attachment is 2 years
Bowlby’s monotropic theory
A03: Bailey et al
Supported for iwm
Bailey et al
mothers with poor maternal relationships had poor attachments with children
Bowlby’s monotropic theory
A03: Schaeffer
Criticised for monotropy
Schaeffer+ Emmerson found a significant minority formed multiple attatchments,
monotropic theory fails to consider this
Bowlby’s monotropic theory
A03: schrofe et al
supports iwm
schrofe followed infants to their late adolescence and found continuity between their early attachment and later social skills.
securely attached infants went on to be the highest rated for social competence, and in later childhood they were least isolated, more popular, and more empathetic
Bowlby’s monotropic theory
A03: sensitivity
socially sensitive, major implications on mothers lifestyle choices, major burden on mother and pushes into choices such as not working after having a baby
Learning theory as an explanation for attachment
all beh including attachment learnt via conditioning. With cc ucs: food leading to ucr: pleasure. Then ns: caregiver is placed alongside ucs: food leading to again ucr: pleasure. after repeated several times the caregiver is associated with the pleasure from food.
Dollard + Miller’s explanation based on operant conditioning and drive reduction theory
Dollard + Miller’s
Dollard + Miller’s explanation based on operant conditioning and drive reduction theory. states that when infant fed: hunger drive decreased producing a response of pleasure (positive reinforcement) food= primary reinforcer caregiver= secondary reinforcer attachment occurs because infant seeks person who can give them a reward
Dollard + Miller
A03: reductionist
simplifies complex attachment beh to simply stimulus + response and reinforcement. Research into caregiver + infant interaction suggests the quality of interaction is due to interactional synchrony, reciprocity, and a sensitive caregiver. Eg Isabella found that more strongly attached infant caregiver pairs showed more interactional synchrony. If attachment was purely based on feeding you wouldn’t expect this to happen
learning theory
A03: harlow
can be criticised for its view that food > comfort
Harlow studied 8 infant monkeys with surrogates etc found monkeys preferred the comfort of cloth, criticising view that food> comfort
Learning theory
A03: tronick
criticises: breastfed by lots of women, should have lots of attachments, yet still showed primary attachment to mother
learning theory
A03: Lorenz
Criticises. imprinted before fed. had no stimulus so couldn’t associate with pleasure from food
Meltzoff + Moore
A01
using controlled observation adult model displayed one of 3 facial expressions: tongue protrusion, mouth open, lip protrusion or one hand gesture: open hand
To start, child had dummy preventing facial expression, following display dummy removed and infant facial expression recorded. Then double-checked in slow motion frame by frame by an independent observer with no knowledge of face pulled by observer
Meltzoff + Moore findings
Association between infant beh and the adult model. infants as young as 2-3 weeks old could imitate and a later study found as young as 3 days could display interactional synchrony
Concluded that the ability to imitate serves as important building block for social and cognitive development
Meltzoff + Moore
A03: Infant movement
infants in fairly constant movement and movements being tested happen freq and naturally. diff to distinguish between natural and imitation beh, and cannot be sure of intention
but they filmed it and judges were blind and babies don’t know they are being observed all increasing the validity
Meltzoff + Moore
A03: Purpose
observation doesnt tell the purpose of reciprocity or interactional synchrony
Feldman (2012) points out that synchrony simply determines behaviours that occur at the same time. weakness as these are not robust phenomena in the sense that they can be reliably observed but this may not be useful as it doesn’t tell the purpose
Meltzoff + Moore
A03: Isabella and Belsky
babies observed at 3 and 9 months and the secure group interacted in a well timed, reciprocal manner in contrast insecure infants were minimally involved, unresponsive and intrusive
avoidant pairs: maternal intrusiveness and overstimulation
resistant pairs: poorly coordinated, under-involved and inconsistant
different interactional behaviours show attatchment
Institutionalisation
Institutionalisation is the behavior patterns of children who have been raised outside of the family home in an institution such as an orphanage or a residential children’s home.
Rutter
procedure
Romanian orphans who had been placed in orphanages, aged 1-2 weeks old, with minimal adult contact.
group of around 100 Romanian orphans and assessed at ages 4, 6 and 11, then re-assessed 21 years later.
3 conditions:
58 babies were adopted before 6 months old and
59 between the ages of 6-24 months old.
48 babies were adopted late between 2-4 years old.
rutter findings
Those who were adopted by British families before 6 months old showed ‘normal’ emotional development compared with UK children adopted at the same age.
Many adopted after 6 months old showed disinhibited attachments (e.g. attention seeking behavior towards all adults, lack of fear of strangers, inappropriate physical contact, lack of checking back to the parent in stressful situations) and had problems with peers.
Zeanah et al
Zeanah et al. (2005) assessed the attachment in 136 Romanian orphans aged between 12-31 months who had spent an average of 90% of their life in an institution and compared them to a control group who spend their life in a “normal family”. The attachment type was measured using the Strange Situation
Zeanah et al
findings
74% of the control group was found to be securely attached but only 19% of the institutionalised group.
65% of this group were classified as disorganised attachment (a type of insecure attachment were the children display an inconsistent pattern of behavior; sometimes they show strong attachment other times they avoid the caregiver).
The institutionalized children showed signs of disinhibited attachment.
Internal working model
According to Bowlby (1969) later relationships are likely to be a continuation of early attachment styles because the behavior of the infant’s primary attachment figure promotes an internal working model of relationships which leads the infant to expect the same.
IWM: childhood relationships A01
According to Bowlby’s theory when we form our primary attachment we also make a mental representation of what a relationship is which we then use for all other relationships in the future. According to attachment theory, the child who has a secure attachment style should be more confident in interactions with friends.
IWM: Childhood relationships A03
Considerable evidence has supported this view. For example, the Minnesota study (2005) followed participants from infancy to late adolescence and found continuity between early attachment and later emotional/social behavior. Securely attached children were rated most highly for social competence later in childhood, were less isolated and more popular than insecurely attached children.
IWM: Adult Relationships parenting A01
Research indicates an intergenerational continuity between adults attachment types and their children, including children adopting the parenting styles of their own parents. People tend to base their parenting style on the internal working model so attachment type tends to be passed on through generations of a family.
IWM: Adult Relationships parenting A03
Research by Bailey (2007) found that the majority of women had the same attachment classification both to their babies and their own mothers.
IWM: Adult Relationships romance A03 for
Hazan and Shaver’s love quiz experiment.
They conducted a study to collect information of participant’s early attachment types and their attitudes towards loving relationships.
those who were securely attached as infants tended to have long lasting relationships, on the other hand, insecurely attached people found adult relationships more difficult, tended to divorce, and believed love was rare. This supports the idea that childhood experiences have significant impacts on people’s attitude towards later relationships.
IWM: Adult Relationships romance A03 against
