Lifespan A: Parenting & Attachment, WEEK 8 Flashcards
1
Q
John Bowlby
A
- examination of life histories show commonality among 44 juvenile thieves > 61% suffered early prolonged separation from mothers in childhood (separation for first 5 years of life)
- Bowlby speculated absence of caregiver could impact children’s emotional well-being
- Bowlby hypothesised children who experience separation in different degrees (mild/prolonged) would be affected in mental health + dev if in first 5yrs
2
Q
Origins of Bowlby’s attachment theory
A
- Emotional relationships between child + parents used to be dismissed before thise
- Reduction to primary drives > e.g. reduction to hunger, giving food, shelter + warmth was the function of parent-child relationship > scientists dismissed emotional aspect
- Bowlby argues the drive towards building an emotional bond was innate > based from research
- Lorenz (1935) is evidence to support this as he looked at imprinting beh of geese on human caregivers in first 17 hrs of life > geese imprinted on Lorenz
- Harlow & Zimmerman (1959) looked at infant rhesus monkeys where two mother substitutes were used (one in wire + one in cloth) > cloth mother preferred as they provide comfort
- Bowlby argues this evidence suggests there is an innate basis to this drive to seek comfort > need a caregiver for emotional satisfaction, not food
3
Q
Bowlby attachment theory
A
- Attachment = is where there is a strong affectional bond to someone, strong disposition to seek proximity with them + are a secure base
- Attachment behaviours are what Bowlby says are innate, not the quality of attachment
- Humans are born w/ basic skills of crying, smiling > attachment seeking behaviour + keeps attachment using proximity maintaining behaviour (clinging, following)
4
Q
Formation of early attachment
A
- If the caregiver is caring + gives attention > child represents the relationship as this
- If caregiver is dismissive, uncaring > the child represents their relationship as this
- Their representation + expectation of caregiver form an internal working model which impact how we expect other relationships to be
- Like Piaget, Bowlby argues there is a representational element to dev that occurs in phase 4 > experience leading up to 2.5yrs culminates in a goal corrected partnership where child negotiates a balance between their own autonomy and parent’s job to protect and care
5
Q
Phases of early attachment
A
- Phase I (before 3 months): signals, responds to others with limited discrimination.
- Phase II (3-6 months): signals, responds mainly to one or more discriminated figures; begins ’greeting’ on return and crying on departure.
- Phase III (9 months - 2 years): maintains proximity to discriminated figure; clinging, crying, following.
- Phase IV (2.5 years): goal corrected partnership; develops some insight into attachment figure’s behaviour. Child formulates ‘internal working model’ of relationship.
6
Q
Bowlby’s key predictions
A
- Feelings of security encourage exploration, feelings of fear encourage attachment behaviours.
- Sustained parental contact and responsive parenting are necessary for formation of attachments. (nurture hyp > parenting received in first 5yrs determine quality of relationship formed w/ caregiver)
- The quality of parent-child relationships influences later mental health.
- The quality of parent-child relationships influences capacity to develop relationships later in life. > long-term eff + predicts future relationships
- Representational models (IWM) of attachment figures and of self develop in childhood and persist
7
Q
Measuring attachment: Ainsworth & Bell (1970)
A
- Strange situation test
- A standardised, laboratory-based method for observing exploratory and attachment behaviours in 1- to 2-year-old children.
- Final reunion is most important part
8
Q
Strange situation: initial findings
A
- When the parent is present, there is greater exploration behaviour > when the parent is absent there is greater attachment behaviour (proximity seeking + maintaining behaviour increase)
9
Q
Attachment status
A
- Ainsworth used cluster analysis to find + identify types of att
- Attachment isn’t something which is present or absent but differs between children + parents
- More categories introduced since this research
- Individual difference are present in att > secure/insecure
- Secure attachment (B): May/may not become distressed during separation, responds quickly/positively to reunion, approx. 70% of children
- Insecure resistant (C): Marked distress when separated, reacts positively on reunion, caregiver not effective in reducing distress; resists contact, Approx. 10%
- Insecure avoidant (A): Not distressed when separated, fails to greet parent on reunion, avoids contact from parent, approx. 20%
10
Q
Parental influences on attachment
A
- Bowlby suggested the presence/absence determined att quality > Ainsworth recognised it isn’t just about parent being their but there were individual differences in parenting quality or sensitivity which impacts attachment quality > secure/insecure
- Caregivers giving most sensitive responses were most likely to be securely attached a year later (less responsive = less likely to securely attach)
- Quality of parenting received in first months of life predicts security of att to caregiver
11
Q
Measures of parental sensitivity
A
- Ainsworth developed measure of parental sensitivity to use in obs
Awareness of child’s signals > ranging from subtle to obvious - Interpretation of child’s signals > reading the child’s mood, feelings, desires (not their own).
- Appropriate responses to child’s signals > responding to what the child’s communications suggest.
- Promptness of responses to child’s signals > latency to response
12
Q
Meta-Analysis: Parental sensitivity & attachment
A
- Meta analysis of 66 studies (N=4176) looking at obs of parental sensitivity + correlation to security/insecurity
- r= .24 > small effect but genuine presence > sensitivity is linked to security but doesn’t explain it fully
- Follow up study on paternal sensitivity +att security where r= .12 (similar findings)
- If Ainsworth is correct, if we improve parents sensitivity, then there should be improvements in att security
13
Q
Is there a causal relationship between parental sensitivity and attachment security?
A
- Intervention studies can test if a relationship is genuinely causal by training parents to increase sensitivity (advice to be responsive + prompt etc)
- Meta analysis of 29 randomised studies show parent sensitivity interventions are effective > trained parents who are given feedback are more likely to become sensitive than those w/o it
- Interventions that trained parents to be more sensitive had a significant effect on infant attachment security (d = 0.39).
- Interventions with largest effects on parental sensitivity yielded largest effects on infant attachment security (d = 0.45) > nothing about long term effects
14
Q
Attachment & temperament
A
- Temperament is a basic disposition to behave or react in a certain way > innate > measured by obs
- Temperament is split into how fearful the child is in novel situations + also can be to what extent the child is cranky or positive (stability of mood)
- Temperament is heritable in infancy + toddlerhood > 50% of variance in temperament is accounted by genes
- Infant temp might influence quality of att or behaviour in strange situation > strange sit may just be measuring temperament > means Ainsworth classification is based on temperament not parental sensitivity
- Twin studies on temp suggest it’s heritable
15
Q
Attachment & temperament: Groh et Al (2017)
A
- Meta analysis looks at link between temp + strange situation classification of secure/insecure att
- 69 studies (N = 7043) : secure & negative temperament, d = 0.08
- 36 studies (N = 4600): avoidant & negative temperament, d = 0.07
- 40 studies (N = 4918): resistant & negative temperament, d = 0.27
- Negative temp where child is more prone to distress
- High levels of negative temp are not associated w/ secure + insecure avoidant att > doesn’t impact performance in strange sit
- But, there was a modest corr for insecure resistant infants + -ve temp > genetic factors may impact how children perform in strange situation
