Lecture 9: Attachment and the self Flashcards
Attachment
Attachment is a deep and enduring emotional bond that connects one person to another across time and space
Generally, attachment research focuses on mother-infant dyads, but attachment includes biological, foster, or adopted parents, grandparents, siblings…
John Bowlby and Mary Ainsworth are two of the key researchers of this area
Why is attachment necessary
Capacity to ‘mentalise’ is a very human trait (theory of mind, mind-mindedness, metacognition)
intrinsically linked to attachment both in evolutionary and process terms
Not shared by other species… – Why?
Evolutionary context
Human infants born less than fully formed (compare human infant vulnerability to other mammals, what are the differences?
Compare human infant vulnerability with other animals
Locomotion, skull formation
Dependence for regulation of body temperature, food, physical safety from predators, comfort, emotion regulation, learning skills
Maintaining proximity to source of care
Infant requires greater investment from mother
Effective strategies to elicit care are needed
John Bowlby
Early work with maladjusted children
Incidences of large-scale separations (e.g., evacuation)
Training in psychoanalysis
But Bowlby was interested in actual experience rather than unconscious fantasies, and so was effectively excommunicated by the psychoanalysts
Forty-four juvenile thieves (1944)
Disruptions in relationships with primary caregivers, e.g., multiple foster home histories
Importance of early attachment relationships
Animal research- Imprinting
Konrad Lorenz
He compared naturally hatched greylag geese with incubator-hatched ones
Lorenz was the first moving stimulus the incubator-hatched geese had a connection with during the critical period after hatching (between 13-16 hours)
The incubator-hatched geese imprinted on Lorenz
Harlows monkeys
Harry Harlow – American psychologist (1905- 1981)
Rhesus monkeys were separated from their biological mothers and presented with two “mothers” – one provided them with food and the other gave them comfort with their soft “skin”
Rhesus monkeys felt attached to the cloth mother even when they were fed by the wire mother
“contact comfort”
Attachment and Bowlby
John Bowlby proposed attachment theory, which was tested and developed further by Mary Ainsworth
Influenced by ethological theory and posits that children are biologically predisposed to develop attachments with caregivers as a means of increasing the chances of their own survival
Bowlby (1969) proposed that attachment is developed over 4 phases to a secure base – an attachment figure’s presence that provides an infant or toddler with a sense of security that makes it possible for the infant to explore the environment
Bowlbys 4 phases of attachment
- Preattachment phase (birth to 6 weeks)
The infant produces innate signals that bring others to his or her side and is comforted by the interaction that follows - Attachment-in-the-making (6 weeks to 6-8 months)
The phase in which infants begin to respond preferentially to familiar people - Clear-cut attachment (6-8 months to 1-2 years)
Characterised by the infant’s actively seeking contact with their regular caregivers and typically showing separation protest or distress when the caregiver departs - Reciprocal relationships (from 1 or 2 years onward)
Involves children taking an active role in developing working partnerships with their caregivers
4 phases of attachment continued
The baby’s goal is to maintain proximity to the attachment figure, using attachment behaviours such as clinging and following to achieve this goal.
Certain contexts (e.g., fright) serve to heighten the activation of these attachment behaviours -> that activates the attachment figure’s response (e.g., comforting the baby) -> it results in deactivation of the behaviour
By early childhood, the child will formulate an internal working model (IWM)
If their relationship with the caregivers is positive, then they will formulate a positive IWM, but if the caregivers are unloving or unsupportive, the child will formulate a negative IWM
The strange situation
Mary Ainsworth developed a laboratory procedure called “The Strange Situation” to assess infants’ attachment to their primary caregivers
In this procedure, the child is exposed to eight episodes, including two separations and reunions with the caregiver and interactions with a stranger when alone and when the caregiver is in the room
Using this procedure, Ainsworth (1973) identified three categories of secure and insecure attachment
Secure attachment
Secure attachment is a pattern of attachment in which an infant or child has a high-quality, relatively un-ambivalent relationship with his or her attachment figure
In the Strange Situation, a securely attached infant, for example, may be upset when the caregiver leaves but may be happy to see the caregiver return, recovering quickly from any distress
When children are securely attached, they can use caregivers as a secure base for exploration
About two-thirds of American middle class children are securely attached
Insecure-avoidant attachment
Insecure-avoidant attachment is a type of insecure attachment in which infants or young children (about 20% of infants from middle class U.S. families) seem somewhat indifferent toward their caregiver and may even avoid the caregiver
In the Strange Situation, these children seem indifferent toward their caregiver before the caregiver leaves the room and indifferent or avoidant when the caregiver returns
If these children become upset when left alone, they are as easily comforted by a stranger as by the caregiver
Insecure- resistant attachment
Insecure-resistant (or ambivalent) attachment is a pattern in which infants or young children are clingy and stay close to their caregiver rather than explore the environment
In the Strange Situation, insecure-resistant infants tend to become very upset when the caregiver leaves them alone in the room, and are not readily comforted by strangers
When the caregiver returns, they are not easily comforted and both seek comfort and resist efforts by the caregiver to comfort them
Disorganised attachment
Because a small percentage of children did not fit into these categories, a fourth category, disorganised/ disoriented attachment, was subsequently identified (Main & Solomon, 1990)
In the Strange Situation, infants in this category seem to have no consistent way of coping with the stress
Their behaviour is often confused or even contradictory, and they often appear dazed or disoriented
Although it’s a category in its own right, babies classified as insecure-disorganised are additionally assigned the original category that best describes the underlying pattern of attachment that has become disorganised
Long term consequences of attachment
Children who were securely attached as infants seem to have closer, more harmonious relationships with peers than do insecurely attached children (e.g., Vondra et al., 2001)
Secure attachment in infancy also predicts positive peer and romantic relationships and emotional health in adolescence (Collins et al., 1997)
Securely attached children also earn higher grades and are more involved in school than insecurely attached children (Jacobsen & Hofmann, 1987)
Evaluating the strange situation
Ainsworth’s strange situation has received a huge amount of attention and follow-up research, but some limitations have been raised:
Discrete, or continuous “attachment”?
Ecological validity? In the strange situation, the infant’s attachment style is determined on the basis of just a few minutes separation and reunion
Global/cultural universality? How universal are these attachment styles across cultures?
Sense of self in infancy
Young infants have a rudimentary sense of self in the first months of life, as evidenced by their control of objects outside of themselves (Rochat & Morgan, 1995)
Their sense of self becomes more distinct at about 8 months of age, when they respond to separation from primary caregivers with separation distress
By 18 to 20 months of age, children begin to show a sense of self – as shown by the mirror recognition (Lewis & Brooks-Gunn, 1979), and shopping cart test (Moore et al., 2007)
By 30 months of age, almost all children recognize their own photograph (Bullock & Lutkenhaus, 1990) – 63% around age 2
Three-year-old children’s exhibition of embarrassment and shame, their self-assertive behaviour, and their use of language also indicate their self-awareness (Lewis, 1995)
Sense of self in childhood
At age 3 to 4, children understand themselves in terms of concrete, observable characteristics related to physical attributes, physical activities and abilities, and psychological traits (Harter, 1999).
Children begin to refine their conceptions of self in school, in part because they increasingly engage in social comparison (Frey & Ruble, 1985), the process of comparing aspects of one’s own psychological, behavioural, or physical functioning to that of others in order to evaluate oneself
gender identity
Gender identity refers to self-identification, which is not the same as which sex chromosomes an individual carries
During the first year, infants’ perceptual abilities allow them to distinguish man/boy from girl/woman using gender cues
Such cues include hairstyle (Intons-Peterson, 1988) and vocal pitch (Martin et al., 2002)
By the latter half of their second year, children begin forming gender-related expectations about the kinds of objects and activities that are stereotypically associated with men and women
Between their second and third birthdays children come to know which gender group(s) they feel they “belong” to and by age 3, use gender terms (e. g., “boy”) in their speech (Fenson et al., 1994) – Though this may be a reflection of the terms used by others to describe them, rather than their own genuine gender identity
Gender development - evolution
Maintains that there are genetic predispositions towards gender differences in behaviour, which have emerged because they offer reproductive advantages
For example, evolutionary psychologists argue that good spatial reasoning might have been selected for men because men who had the ability to track animals over distances could better insure the survival of themselves and their offspring (Geary, 2004)
Similarly, women’s tendency to build strong social alliances with other women could have insured assistance with childcare, benefiting their offspring (Miller et al., 2002)
HOWEVER: no research with humans has provided evidence for direct genetic influences on gender-typed behaviour (many of the claims are untestable and circular)
Gender development- the brain
There is growing evidence of small differences in the physical structure of adult male and female brains (e.g., Hines, 2004, 2013).
However, these differences do not appear to result in any clear advantage in cognitive performance (Halpern, 2012).
Indeed, there is a great deal of overlap between female and male brains, and no brain structures are unique to one sex (Hyde et al., 2019).
It’s not yet clear if/how this may relate to gender differences
Moreover, conclusions about sex-related differences in brain structure have been based on brain-imaging adult brains.
Given the continual interaction of genes and experience during brain development, it is unclear to what extent any average sex differences in adult brain structure or functioning are due to genetic or environmental influences.
Gender socialisation
Social learning theory emphasises that simply by observing other people, children gather information about gender and what is considered appropriate behaviour for their own gender
Research has shown that children observe and imitate same-gender models more often than they do different-gender models (Bussey & Bandura, 1984)
Parents’ expectations and emphasis on gender-related behaviours and preferences also influence children
Providing gender-typed toys (cars for boys, dolls for girls) reinforces behavioural expectations (Fisher-Thompson, 1993)
Use of gender-essentialist statements convey indirect and subtle messages about acceptable forms of behaviour (“Boys don’t cry”, “Girls take ballet”; Gelman et al., 2004)
