Developmental Flashcards
Infant Caregiver interactions
From an early age babies have meaningful social interactions with carers
Reciprocity & interactional synchrony = NB
Reciprocity
How 2 ppl interact = NB
Mother & infant interaction = reciprocal as respond to each others signals & elicit a response from the other
Helps facilitate attachment
Babies have alert phases in which they signal they are ready to play - Feldman & Eidelman 2007
From 3 months interaction = m frequent involves close attention to verbal signals & facial expressions - Feldman 2007
Brazelton et al (1977) described interaction as a dance
Interactional Synchrony
Mother & infant reflect actions & emotions = co-ord way
Meltzoff & Moore (1977) observed start at 2 weeks old adult displayed 1/3 facial expressions and child resonate = filmed
Stages of Attachment
Schaffer (1926)
Pre-attachment (0-3 months) demo pref for human faces
Indiscriminate (3-7/8 ms) distinguish between familiar & non familiar ppl
Discriminate (7/8 ms +) specific attachment distress when separated
Multiple (9 ms +) emotional ties w/ m than 1 caregiver
Schaffer & Emerson (1964)
Aim: investigate early formation of attachment - age, emo intensity, & to who
Sample: 60 Glasgow WC = longitudinal = obvs & interviews 1st at 18 ms assessed sep & stranger anxiety left alone in cot / stranger approach
Findings: 25-32 weeks = 50% sep anx 40 w’s 80% = specific & 30% = X attachment
Schaffer & Emerson Evaluation
Good ecological validity in fam homes reflects real life
Lacks cul gen same background & area
Social desirability
Longitudinal study same ppl stops confounding variables
Observation Evaluation
Week controlled procedures = filmed for later analysis = good validity
Hard to know what really mean don’t know if imitation is deliberate
= Soc sen Isabella et al (1989) inc synchrony levels = better quality attachments - creates guilt
Doesn’t tell purpose - no prac application
Role of Father Positive Research
Field (1974) filmed 4 month olds ftf interaction mum as 1c dad as 1c & dad as 2c - level of responsiveness & nurturing = NB not gender
Securely attached children do better in school, better peer relas & less behav probs
Amount of interaction = NB
Children w/o fathers do less well in school, = higher levels of risk taking & aggression
Gives mum time off to inc self esteem
Role of the father negative research
Early research = on mother in infant interaction & father as playmate
Grossman (2002) how NB are fathers in development & do they have a distinct role? = longitudinal study 44 fams looked at parent behav & rela to quality of attachment exper - quality of attachment in adolescence = dependent on mother not father - father = less NB but quality of play = NB for attachment
Have dif role = play & stimulation
Role of the Father Evaluation
Sig IDs effect how NB a rela is more positive a’s = good but difs in fathers & children vary response
NB factors = degree of sensitivity m secure if m sensitive
Attachment w/ own parents = NB = sim to w/ one child
Marital intimacy rela w/ partner affects type of a w/ child
Supportive co-parenting = NB amount of support offers affects
Harlow
Aim: investigate if food / comfort = m NB for a
Sample: 16 baby monkeys
IV: cloth / wire model fed
Findings: pref cloth over wire to cuddle regardless of feeding - contact comfort = m NB - found if deprived of mum = m aggressive, less sociable & skilled at mating babies often died / killed attacked & neglected them
Harlow Evaluation
Lacks gen monkeys not accurate rep of humans may vary
Lorenz
Aim: to investigate imprinting do geese attach to the 1st thing they see
Sample: goslings
IV: incubator / mum DV: who formed attachment to by seeking proximity
Findings: when released from box mum ones followed mum & others Lorenz
Conc: imprinting = form of attachment & exhib by birds means = instinctive & irreversible & bio determined has LT impact - animals show sexual advances to humans
Lorenz Evaluation
Guitan et al (1966) found that chickens that imprinted on yellow washing up gloves would try & mate w/ them (as L predicted) in end pref chickens
Research bias wanted to prove imprinting could interp to sup
Lacks gen geese may differ from humans
Learning Theory of Attachment
Explains A w/ idea of cupboard love based on becoming attached to those who feed
CC of assoc NS = mum UCR = pleasure of = full mum there’s feels comforted by food assoc w/ mum then feels w/o food
OC = reinforcement baby cries receives food reward relieves hunger reinforces action baby repeats food = primary reinforcer never w/o mum = secondary reinforcer reduces discomfort & brings pleasure
Learning Theory Evaluation
Shows A’s can = formed not only to mum but to anyone who feeds
If A’s = lost others can = formed
Harlow goes against contact comfort over food
Lorenz goes against birds imprinted w/o food
Bowlby’s Theory of Attachment
Evolutionary explanation = innate to ensure infant survival & = born w/ instinct
Sensitive period: has to be made in 1st few years of life
Social Releasers: babies elicit behav which make caregivers respond
Monotropy: 1 single A = m NB
Internal Working Model: key A = basis for all future A’s
Continuity Hypothesis: contin to next gen
Bowlby Support
Sroufe et al (2005) found early A type predicted later emo & Soc behav
Secure = m likely to = popular
Erickson et al (1985) observed 4-5 yr olds in preschool setting secure = less depen on teacher & m confident
Hazan & Schaffer (1987) found adults romantic A = closely linked to infant secure = secure
Temperament Hypothesis (Kagan 1984) born temp difs can affect A’s
Hodges & Tizards (1989) longitudinal study of institutionalised children formed no A in early life dif peer rela
Bowlby Refute
Schaffer & Emerson (1964) showed m formed 1st w/ 1 person but nearly 1/3 formed multiple A - no pref figure = inc common as older refutes monotropy
Czech Twins found age 7 locked up & isolated no lang at 14 = normal social & intellectual func & able to form A - refutes sensitive period
Despite rapid advance in genetics = no evidence for gene for A refutes innate
The Strange Situation
Method: controlled observation
Design: repeated measures
IV: 8 dif episodes of the SS e.g., mum leaves, mum returns
DV: baby’s response - sep anx, stranger anx, reunion behav & seeking proximity
Sample: infants 12-18 months
Findings of SS
Secure: The explore happily reg return to caregiver (prox seeking & secure base behav) = mod sep & str anx require & accept comfort at reunion 60-75% British infants
Insecure - Avoidant: explore don’t seek prox little / no reaction to c leaving little effort for comfort at return little str anx 20-25%
Insecure - resistant: greater prox seeking less expl huge sep & str anx resist comfort at reunion = 3%
Conclusion of SS
Mothers caused dif attachment types
Sensitive & caring = secure
Ambivalent & dismissive = IA
Inconsistent = AR
Cross Cultural Variations in Attachment: Procedure
Investigation into cross cul vari in A
Van Ijzendoorn & Kroonenberg (1988)
Meta analysis of studies in A in dif countries - looked at proportions of dif SS A types
Secure = always m common = sig vari
Cultural Variations Findings: USA
Secure: 65%
Avoidant: 21%
Resistant: 14%
Cultural Variations Findings: Germany
Secure: 57%
Avoidant: 35%
Resistant: 8%
Cultural Variations Findings: Israel
Secure: 65%
Avoidant: 7%
Resistant: 29%
Cultural Variations Findings: Japan
Secure: 68%
Avoidant: 5%
Resistant: 27%
Mother & child rarely separated
SS Evaluation: Validity
Pop: unreasonable to make gens sample = MC = culture biased
Internal: category issue - Main & Cassidy (1988) identified disorganised & inconsistent behav confusion & indecision - freeze & rocking if SS = truthful should measure in own environment - should reflect SS - is it just measure of unfamiliar situ - would = same at home? - due to consistent results can be argued = valid
Predictive: Hazan & Shaver (1987) show infant A can be used as some predictability can see in later life - rom relas - sec = m friends
SS Evaluation: Reliability
If = useful should produce same results in dif Conditions e.g., V&K ma despite some difs in IR & IA S = m common in all cultures - consistent in world
SS Evaluation: Samples
Many samples = limited samples not whole cul rep e.g., Is kibbutz Vs rural - probs m variation w/in culs than between
SS Evaluation: Sensitivity Hypothesis Vs Temperament
Ainsworth concluded infant A & mother sensitivity temp hypo says could be innate not mother
SS Evaluation: Ethnocentrism
Countries included = W & non-W only 3132 in China & Japan dif patterns to SS reflect cul values & practices
E.g., A-A in Ger could be bc value indepen inc frequency of type a in Japan may = greater stress during SS not used to str
Maternal Deprivation Hypothesis
Bowlby claimed claimed 1st rela provides template for all future A’s - internal working model - what rela is, what do expect, what they deserve
Claimed child w/ disruption of A leading to deprivation during 1st 24 months would develop IWM of self as unworthy - could lead to affection less psychopathy, lower intel, delinquency, & depression
If an A is lost, broken, never made will affect rest of life
Privation
Not having op to form bond
Deprivation
Having and losing A
Separation
Not being with caregiver only problem if no substitute
If brief not sig but LT can be
PDD Model
Robertson, & Robertson (1989)
Babies go though 3 stages: 1.protest: screams cries angrily 2. Despair protest starts to stop still upset refuses others comfort = w/ drawn 3. Detachment sep continues engages w/ others reject on return & show anger
MDH Support
Genie: locked in room from b4 2 tied to chair & beaten 11hrs old = found 13 couldn’t walk expert help = lim development always low IQ restricted lang, needed help to live
Golfarb (1947) comp 15 kids from childhood homes until beyond 3 w/ fostered at 6 months at 12 had good mental ability & social skills
Spite & Wolfe (1946) studied institutionalised kids ins = poor quality- staff rarely interacted found 1/3 died b4 1 yr rest showed depression, apathy & helplessness = reversed if dep less than 3 ms
Bowlby (1946) links between AP & mat dep - 44 thieves & 44 control - 32% thieves = APs none in control 36% thieves had early sep only 17% w/o = AP
MDH Refute
Isabelle: deaf mute mother in dark room until 6.5 yrs old= deaf & mentally retarded loving care / expert help inc development 16 caught up
Czech twins: Kolvchova (1972) lost mother after birth in dark room until 6 low IQ no lang 14 had recovered
Tizard & Hodges (1989)
Romanian Orphans: Effects of Institutionalisation: Behaviours
Rocking
Poor social skills psychological consequences of neglect ability to form relas & learn & lang acquisition
IQ development delays often show signs of neuro divergence not as pronounced if adopted b4 6 months
Disinhibited A: child = equally affectionate & friendly to str
Usually smaller lack of emotional care affects growth hormones = underdevelopment - Gardiner (1972) studied 8 month old fed through tube never cuddled = w/d & physically stunted sent to hospital thrived & = normal = deprivation dwarfism.
Romanian Orphans Rutter (2007)
Studied 111 Romanian orphans adopted by Brit fams b4 2 = natural exper
Adopted b4 2 months, 6ms - 2yrs & over 2 yrs
Disinhib A: attention seeking behav if ad b4 6 ms not exhibit conc = m likely to recover if adopted into caring environment sooner
Romanian Orphans Rutter (2011)
Longitudinal 165 = 4 groups 1. 58 b4 6 ms 2. 59 6-24 ms 3. 48 over 2 yrs control 52 Brit adoptees
At start 1/2 ROs = malnourished low IQ assessed at 4, 6, 11, & 15
Result: 1/2 showed delayed intellectual development at 11 recovery rates were related to their age at adoption - b4 6 ms = mean IQ of 102, after 2 yrs had a mean IQ of 77 - difs continued to = apparent at 16 - Beckett et al 2010
Frequency of DA = related to adopt age after 6 ms = clinginess, attention seeking, & indiscriminate affection to strangers - sup sensitive period
Romanian Orphans Chugani et al (2001)
Admin PET scans to sample of ROs comp to normal adults showed mild neuro impairment, impulsivity, attention & Soc deficits showed lower orbital falgyrus func parts of the PFC activ & brainstem dis func - stress of early dep - may link to LT cog & behav deficits
Romanian Orphans Evaluation
Research into negative effects changed adopt & care in orphs = key workers, to ensure high levels of care & early age adoption & suitable new fam = prioritised
Golfarb (1947) comp 15 children from childhood homes until over three, fostered from 6 months - found at 12 fos had inc mental abilities and Soc skills
Rutter issue = children not randomly allocated to a & c groups = chosen by new parents could mean m sociable & picked younger
Rutter = longitudinal ongoing effects still to be found - could catch up
H & T provided evidence adverse affects can be overcome w/ sub care if adopted by effective fams can cope better on measures of behav - peer relas than if go back to OG fam
Influence of Early Attachment on Relationships
Continuity Hypothesis: idea there = consistency between early emo exper & later relas based on IWM - primary A template
Temperament Hypothesis: idea nature of the infants A’s is due to innate personality factors see attempt to develop better qual relas by changing A styles to m + ones as not working
Hazan & Shaver (1987)
Method: questionnaire. Design: repeated measures Sample: voluns from Npaper = 12,000
Variables: infant A & attitude to M NB love rela
Procedure: analysed 620 love quiz responses = 3 sections 1. Assessing current / m sig rela 2. Gen love exper 3. Assess A types - response to 1-3 statements
Hazan & Shaver Findings
56% = secure 25% = Avoidant 19% = Resistant
S = m accepting of parent failures - enduring trust less likely to get divorced
A = afraid of intimacy = m highs & lows, jealousy
R= prone to obsession & extreme attraction & jealousy
I - love = rare fell out of relas easily m likely to divorce
Bailey (2007)
99 M’s & I’s using SS & interview = maj have same A type as w/ own parents - Harlow
Kerns (1994)
Securely A = better relas in later childhood than insecurely A
Influence of Early Attachments Evaluation
Internal val: used Q honesty & retrospect data probs
Association X = causality - parenting style also a factor & temp
Evidence of continuity of A = mixed McCarthy sups but Zimmerman (2000) found little rela between qual of infant A & adolescent A
Evidence suggests A type affects development of IDs e.g., cog abik & social skills
Contin Hypo: not fully suped - ppl can form relas if = I&I & I&Scexper & current rela won’t nec affect future
