Explanations and Types of Attachment Flashcards
Explanation 1 - Lesrning theory classical conditioning
Classical conditioning explains attachment though food. Food (UCS) produces natural response of pleasure (UCR). When paired with the mother (NS) the child begins to associate the mother with the feeling of pleasure (UCR) and infant feels when fed (UCR). After conditioning, the mother now becomes the CS and produces feeling of pleasure without food and this pleasure is now the CR.
Explanation 2 - Learning theory - Operant conditioning
According to operant conditioning, rewarded behaviours are repeated. Dollard and Miller found a baby is driven to seek food when hungry and when fed the hunger drive is reduced and therefore is a positive reinforcer. So when the baby is hungry again and repeats the behaviour eg crying it leads to a hunger drive reduction and is the negative reinforcer. Since the mother provides the food ( primary reinforcer) she becomes the secondary reinforcer.
Two Process model ( linking classical and operant)
Attachment is created by classical conditioning. Baby associates the reward of food with the mother. Attachment is maintained by operant conditioning as food reward maintains the attachment
EVALUATION OF LEARNING THEORY OF ATTACHMENT
LIMITATION - lack of research on humans studying attachment with classical conditioning - Pavlov didn’t consider attachment and only looked at the association made between a bell and food. Research not at all related to attachment so we can’t generalise. Nethertheless human research for operant conditioning with Dollard and Miller
LIMITATION- too reductionist, Harlow found baby monkeys preferred comfort over food, rejects cupboard love theory. However ignores biological differences in humans and animals
STRENGTH - explains how we form multiple attachments which Bowlbys cant. Bowlby believes that we attach due to food provided but we cab attach to grandparents, father not just the mother and different people can feed us . However learning theory assumes attachments are environmental and ignores the role of evolution.
What is Bowlby’s monotropic theory?
An evolutionary explanation of attachment. Bowlby argues infants have an innate drive to form an especially strong attachment to their mother and stay in close proximity for survival.
To help develop the monotropic relationship, babies instinctively use signals called social releases eg crying or smiling to attract the caregivers attention and Bowlby says mothers are biologically programmed to find these behaviours distressing or cute.
Links his ideas with the internal working model and continuity hypothesis
What is the internal working model according to Bowlby
A mental model of the world that enables individuals to predict and control their environment. In the long term this model acts as a template for all future relationships because it generates expectations of these relationships.
What is the continuity hypothesis according to Bowlby
The idea that emotionally secure infants go on to be emotionally secure, trusting and socially confident adults.
EVALUATION - Is Bowlby’s theory accurate and attachment is formed innately due to evolution?
STRENGTH - research support for continuity hypothesis - Hazan and Shaver love quiz - found that adults romantic attachments were closely linked to their infants attachments. Securely attached infants tended to have secure romantic attachments - this supports Bowlby’s continuity hypothesis as emotionally secure go on to be secure and internal working model acting as template for future relationships - however self report technique, social desirability bias and retrospective as people won’t remember how they were as a baby
STRENGTH - Supported by Lorenz - said imprinting is innate and found goslings imprinted within a fixed critical period - Bowlby believed that a similar adaptive process of forming attachments is likely to have evolved in humans as well as animals to enhance survival- However Lorenz believes in critical period but Bowlby says humans have a sensitive period being between 3-6 months
STRENGTH - further research support - Schaffer and Emerson - 60 infants fro: Glasgow showed most infants formed first attachment with one particular person at around 7 months old (65%) which supports monotropy - on the other hand Shaffer and Emerson also stated after first attachment multiple attachments and there was no preferred attachment figure. Could criticise Bowlby as there is evidence for multiple attachments but it is important to note that Bowlby accepted multiple attachments but said they are not important in developing secure attachments
Ainsworths strange situation - types of attachment
Controlled observation and time sampling
Sample - 100 American infants aged 9-18 months
Behaviours measured - stranger anxiety, separation anxiety, reaction to reunion, using mother as secure base and ability to be soothed by stranger
METHOD - 1 researcher introduces mother and baby to playroom, 2 mother and baby are alone and baby plays with toys, 3 stranger enters and talks with mother, 4 mother leaves and stranger offers comfort to baby, 5 mother returns and greets baby and stranger leaves, 6 mother leaves and baby is alone, 7 stranger returns and offers comfort, 8 mother returns and offers comfort to baby and reinterests in toys
RESULTS - 66% secure, 22% insecure avoidant and 12% insecure resistant
Characteristics of secure attachment
Explores environment happily
Easy to soothe by mother
Moderate stranger anxiety
Seeks mother when reunited
Parental style - sensitive to needs of child
Characteristics of insecure avoidant attachment
Explored environment
Indifferent separation anxiety
Low stranger distress
Little/no reaction when mother returns
Parental style - may ignore infant
Characteristics of insecure resistant attachment
Explores environment less
Highly distressed when separated
Hugh stranger anxiety
Seeks/reject mother return
Parental style - ambivalent (mixed feelings)
Evaluation of Ainsworths strange situation with research to support
- Good predictive validity - main et al tested babies at 18 months and at 6 years. 100% of the secure and 75% of insecure avoidant were still the same at 6 years. Hazan and Shaver evidence for continuity hypothesis.
- Some ecological validity- toys were age appropriate and it was a playroom setting however controlled observation and not as good as Schaffer and Emerson where babies were in their home.
- provided support for 3 attachment types although fourth type was found later (disorganised) that didn’t fit into any of the attachment types.
- good reliability to get the same results - 9x9 grid room and instructions of how the playroom was set so easy to replicate. Assessed via inter rater test and there was a 0.94 agreement on rating - 1 would be perfect
- ethics - no more stress than everyday life eg babies always meet new people however in episode 6 - 20% of infants reportedly cried desperately
