evaulation points attachment Flashcards
STUDIES BASED UPON
reciprocity
interactional synchrony
real or pseudo imitation
Reciprocity
Brazelton - suggested that basic rhythm is important to later communications, the infant signals allows the caregiver anticipate the infants behaviour so they can responds
Interactional synchrony
- Meltzoff and Moore
found that infants as old as two and three made facial and hand gestures, had an adult model who made one of three either facial gestures or hand gestures while the baby had a dummy in its mouth, the dummy was taken out then the baby was filmed. judge by an outside observer who found there was an association with the expression and the facial reaction made
- meltzoof and moore demonstrated same idea with 3 day olds later
Real of Pseudo
- John Piaget - response training so pseudo
- Murray and Trevarthen - two month old with a video camera in there mother in real time they interacted back then a pre recorded one where the mother was not interacting and the baby got distressed and unhappy shows real and baby is part of the relationship
EVAULATION POINTS
reciprocity
interactional synchrony
real or pseudo imitation
problems with testing
- infants mouth is constantly moving and facial expressions occur regularly overcame this by asking outside observer they had no idea what behaviour was being imitated
failure to replicate
- Koepke et al - failed to replicate Metzoff and Moore findings this was because it was less carefully controlled
- Marian et al - replicated Murray and Trevarthen and found that infants could not distinguish live from videotaped interactions with there mothers this suggested that they were not responding - lies in procedure
Behaviour intentional?
- Abravanel and DeYoung - observed infant behaviour interaction with two objects one stimulating tongue move and one mouth movements, found that infants had little response to the object therefore it is a specific response to humans
Individual differences
Isabella et al - found more strongly attached infant caregiver pairs showed greater interactional synchrony
Heimann showed that infants who generate a lot of imitation from birth onwards have a better quality of relationship at 3 months
value of research
- Meltzoff developed a hypothesis of infant development
proposes there is a connection between what the infant sees and there imitation of this, then the infants associate their underlying mental states then they project there own internal mental states onto others why performing a similar act
under stands what other people are feeling and thinking explains how children begin to develop what people thick and feel
Stages of attachment
Schaffer and Emerson - 60 infants from Glasgow from working class families - aged between 5 and 23 weeks - studied till they were 1 year old 1. visited mums every 4 weeks 2. asked infants response to 7 everyday separations 3, asked to describe the type of protest 4. rated on 4 point scale 5. asked who the protests were aimed at
Evaluation of stages of attachment
unreliable study
based on mums reports - systematic error and decreases internal validity and reliability
Biased sample
- working class families lowers population validity
- done in the 1960s, therefore historically may not apply anymore as parental care has changed for example dads decide to stay home
are multiple attachments equivalent
Bowlby - one significant attachment figure this is called monotropy , and other secondary attachments are second to this and used as a safety note
Rutter - all attachment figures are equal and all integrated into an infants attachment
Cultural variations
collectivist cultures who focus on the group share things such as child care therefore they don’t apply to the stages
sagi et al - in family based sleeping arrangements attachment with mothers is twice as common than in communal environments
Stage theories
suggests development is inflexible this becomes standard by which families are classed at and may be classed as abnormal
Lornez and Harlow evaluation
Research support for imprinting
Guiton (1966) - Leghorn chicks exposed to yellow gloves and imprinted on them, later they tried to mate with the yellow gloves showing that early imprinting is linked to later reproductive behaviour
criticism of imprinting
- Guiton found it could be reversed
Confounding variable
2 different heads therefore it varied systematically with the IV, also monkeys have never seen another monkey so they do not know how to behave
Generalising animal studies to human behaviour
Humans differ to animals as we make more conscious decisions but Schauffer and Emerson supported that infants are not attached to people who feed them
Ethical issues
- left emotional harm
significant effect and better care available, they found it hard to form relationship with other monkeys
helped us understand the processes of attachment
Evaluation learning theory
Learning theory is based on research with animals
Behaviourists - believe that humans learn the same way as animals therefore we can generalise the way we behave
non behaviourists - attachment involve innate predispositions and mental activity that is explained by conditioning
- behaviourists - oversimplified version of human behaviour therefore lacks validity
contact comfort is more important than food
other studies show other elements impact attachment for example Harlow, Schauffer and Emerson
learning theory has some explanatory power
does explain some of it
- infants do learn through association and reinforcement
- attention and response from caregiver could be main reason for attachment
- responsiveness is something that infants imitate and therefore learn how to conduct a relationship
Drive reduction theory is largely ignored today
- only explains a limited number of behaviours,
- many things people do have nothing to do with reducing discomfort
- some people increase discomfort
- does not explain secondary reinforcement - they do not reduce discomfort yet are reinforcing
An alternative explanation
explains why attachment forms
offers advantages of attachment
better explanations of the facts
Bowlby’s monotropy attachment theory explained
- why attachment forms
How attachment forms
- critical period
- social releasers - smiling or a baby face
- monotropy - one special bond
Consequences of attachment
- internal working model
Evaluation of Bowlby’s monotropic attachment theory
Is attachment adaptive
- attachment develops after 3 months as late mechanisms to protect infants - distant ancestors would have to develop it as soon as possible
A sensitive period rather than critical
Rutter et al suggested there was no critical period although attachments were less likely to form after 6 months but not impossible
Multiple attachment versus monotropy
No primary or secondary model but integrated into an internal working model
Bowlby - suggested secondary attachments do contribute in social development but there is a hierarchy
- prior and glasser agree with Bowlby
Continuity hypothesis
according to Bowlby one outcome of attachment is the effect it has on other relationships
Sroufe et al proved this - the study followed participants from early infancy to late adolescent and found a continuity between early attachment and later emotional social behaviour.
- the ones classified as securely attached were less isolated and more popular and empathetic this supports continuity hypothesis
An alternative explanation
kagan
- suggests that the infants temperament is what controls attachment behaviour, infants who have an easy temperament are more likely to become strongly attached as its easier to interact with them.
- Belsky and Rovine provide evidence for this, for example they found that infants between 1 and 3 days old who were more behaviourally unstable were later classed as developing insecure attachment they also suggested it depended on the mothers responsiveness
Evaluation of Strange situation
other types of attachment
Ainsworth overlooked a 4th attachment type,
Main and Soloman (1986) - analysed over 200 strange situation video tapes and proposed insecure-disorganised (Type D) this is a lack of consistent patterns of social behaviour
- they lack a convenient strategy for dealing with the stress pf separation for example they show strong attachment behaviours followed by avoidance of caregiver - Van Ijzendoorm supported this
observations had high reliability
measurement’s confirmed if agreeable if agreement among obsevers called interobserver reliability determined by comparing ratings 94% agreement therefore it was highly reliable
real world application
in situations where disordered attachments happen interventions are put into place,
- security project taught better care to mothers and saw a 60-15% decrease in caregivers categorised as disordered
low internal validity
Main and Weston - behave differently depending on what parent they are with therefore it was not measuring the aim as only one relationship measured but Bowlby’s theory of monotropy suggested than infant behaved differently with anyone other than the caregiver. Main (1999) supported him, tested children and re-assessed them at the age of 9 using the AAI interview they found that the attachment was influenced by the mother
maternal reflective functioning
this suggested that secure attachment was linked to maternal sensitivity
- reval et al (2001) found law correlation between maternal sensitivity and secure attachment
- Slade et al (2005) greater role for maternal reflective functioning - ability to understand what someone else is feeling and thinking more important in establishing an attachment type
Cultural variation studies
Van Ijezendoorn and Kroonenberg - 32 studies 2,000 strange situations
Tronick et al - africian tribe
Grossmann and Grossmann - german
Tashashi - Japan
Cultural variation evaluations
similarities may not be innately determined
Bowlby - reasons for universal similarities is due to attachment being innate mechanisms unmodified by culture
Van and Kroonenburg - some cultural similarities are explained by affects of mass media which spreads ideas about parenting so all children are exposed to similar influences
nation rather than culture
comparing countries not culture countries have many sub-cultures these are created on over or under representation
cross-cultural research
techniques such as strange situation made by an American designer who has been influenced by their own culture so may not be affected by other cultures or match them for example Japan
Culture bias
Rothbaumetal - isn’t just the methods used in attachment which are not relevant to other culture’s but rooted in its culture
Indigenous theories of attachment
rothebaum et al - psychologists should be able to produce a use of indigenous theories - explanation of attachment rooted in individual cultures
- Posada and Jacobs - evidence that supports universality attachment
- Prior and Glasser - maternal sensitivity and secure base behaviour may vary but concepts are universal
Maternal deprivation evaluation
Physical and emotional separation
deprivation may be related to psychological separation for example being depressed would mean even though the caregiver is around they may not be able to give the care it needs for deprivation to happen
- Marian Radke - Yarrow et al studied depressed mothers and found that 55% of children were insecurely attached compared with 29% of non-depressed mothers
Support for long term effects
maternal deprivation does not always produce negative outcomes but just increases the likelihood,
- Antonia Bifulco et al - studied women that had experienced maternal deprivation 25% later experienced depression compared with 15% who had not been separated this supported the critical period
Real world application
- impact post war
- how children were treated in hospitals Kames Robertson followed and filmed 2 year old Laura during an 8 day period at hospital she was frequently depressed
Individual differences
not all children are effected be emotional disruption in the same way
- Barrett - viewed various cases of separation and concluded securely attached coped better than insecurely
- Bowlby et al - 60 children under 4 who had Tb nurses could not supply sufficient enough care and children were only visited once a week therefore they suffered deprivation, 63% were maladjusted but there was not a difference in intellectual tests, securely coped better
Deprivation versus privation Rutter did not make clear whether attachment bond had not been formed or had been broken or had never formed - never forming was a greater problem - privation - never had a bond - deprivation - lost a bond
Romanian orphans studies
- Rutter and Sonuga-Barke
- Le mare and Audet
- Zeanah et al
- Gardner
- Quinton et al
Romanian orphan studies evaluation
Individual differences
some studys say that individulas who do not form a primary attachment within a sensitive period are unable to recover
- in all studies some children are not as affected as others and there are differences for example Rutter said that some children received special attention maybe because they smiled more therefore they had some attachemnts this meant that individual differences could cause the difference in institutionalised children having normal attachments rather than disinhibited attachment
- Bowlby showed that there were individual differences in the way that children coped
Real life application
improved how children were cared for in hospitals
- in romanain orphan studies mothers were previously told to hold on to their infants for a while therefore the period of attachment may have passed making it harder for the infants to form secure attachments
- singer et al - children are just attached to adoptive families
Value of longitudinal studies
follow children for many years, takes a lot of time and planning and waiting for results but it shows how the effects of institutionalism disappear over time with high quality care
- the effects may still be disappearing when they do there last result so may not cover the whole picture
Deprivation is only one factor
physical conditions were as bad as emotional care
- lack of cognitive stimulation would also effect there development
- Turner and Lloyd suggested that damage only occurs when there are multiple risk factors such as poor care in infancy then more poor care living in poverty and parental disharmony
Institutionalisation may just be slow development
- at the last assessment at age 11 a lower number of children had disinhibited attachment
- proved the effects disappear over time with good care
- need to mature sufficiently and learn how to cope with relationships
- criticism as it implies that effects may be reversible which is not true
- Le Mare and Audet - by age 11 may not have improved but ,at have not reached their full potential
ment
Influence of early attachment
- role of the internal working model
- Hazan and Shaver - rocky island
behaviours influenced by the internal working model - childhood friendships
- poor parenting
- romantic relationships
- mental health
