Psychology-Attachment Flashcards
What is reciprocity?
Responding to the action of another with a similar action, where the actions of one partner elicit a response from the other partner. The responses are not necessarily similar as in interactional synchrony
What research looks at reciprocity?
Research in the 1970s eg Jaffe et al demonstrated that infants coordinated their actions with caregivers in a kind of conversation. From birth babies move in a rhythm when interacting with an adult almost as if they were taking turns like in a conversation (an example of reciprocity)
What did Brazelton suggest about reciprocity?
Suggested that reciprocity is an important precursor to later communications. The regularity of an infant’s signals allows a caregiver to anticipate the infant’s behaviour and respond appropriately. This sensitivity to infant behaviour lays the foundations for later attachment between caregiver and infant
What is interactional synchrony?
When two people interact they tend to mirror what the other is doing in terms of their facial and body movements. This includes imitating emotions as well as behaviours. This is described as a synchrony-when two (or more) things move in the same pattern
What was the first systematic study of international synchrony?
Meltzoff and Moore found that infants as young as two to three weeks old imitated specific facial and hand gestures
How was Meltzoff and Moore’s study into interactional synchrony conducted?
They used an adult model who displayed one of three facial expressions or hand movements where fingers moved in a sequence. A dummy was placed in the infant’s mouth during the initial display to prevent response. Following the display the dummy was removed and the child’s expression was filmed on a video
What did Meltzoff and Moore find?
There was an association between the infant behaviour and that of the adult model
What did Meltzoff and Moore demonstrate in a later study?
They demonstrated the same synchrony with infants only three days old. The fact that infants as young as this were displaying the behaviour would appear to rule out the possibility that the imitation behaviours are learned, i.e. the behavioural response must be innate
What is the real, or pseudo imitation argument?
Meltzoff and Moore proposed that this imitation is intentional, but by contrast, Piaget believed that true imitation only developed towards the end of the first year
How does Piaget explain imitation behaviours in infants?
Imitation before the end of the first year was a kind of ‘response training’-what the infant is doing is repeating a behaviour that was rewarded (i.e. the result of operant conditioning). Eg an infant may happen to stick its tongue out after seeing a caregiver do this. The consequence is the caregiver smiling which is rewarding and encourages the infant to repeat the behaviour net time. Pseudo-imitation; the infant had not consciously translated what they see into a matching movement
What support is there for Meltzoff and Moore’s view of imitation?
A study by Murray and Trevarthen. In their study two-month old infants first interacted via a video monitor with their mother in real time, then the monitor played a tape of the mother so the image on the screen was not responding to the infant’s facial and bodily gestures. The result was acute distress. The infants tried to attract mothers interest but gained no response and turned away, showing the infant is actively trying to gain a response rather than displaying a response that has been rewarded. This shows the infant is an active and intentional part in mother-infant interaction-further supporting the notion that such behaviours are innate rather than learned
What are the evaluation points for caregiver-infant interactions?
Problems with testing infant behaviour, failure to replicate, is the behaviour intentional?, individual differences, and the value of the research
How is ‘problems with testing infant behaviour’ an evaluation point for caregiver-infant interactions?
There is reason to have some doubt about the findings of research because of the difficulties in reliably infant behaviours. Infant’s mouths are in fairly constant motion and the expressions that are tested occur frequently (yawning/smiling etc). This makes it difficult to distinguish between general activity and specific imitated behaviours. To overcome these problems Meltzoff and Moore measured infant responses by filming infants and then asking an observer to judge the infants’ behaviour from the behaviour. The person judging had no idea what behaviour was being imitated, increasing the internal validity of the data
How is ‘failure to replicate’ an evaluation point for caregiver-infant interactions?
Other studies have failed to replicate the findings of studies. For example, a study by Koepke et al failed to replicate Meltzoff and Moore findings; Meltzoff and Moore counter agued that the research by Koepke et al failed because its was less carefully controlled. Marian et al replicated the study by Murray and Trevarthen and found that infants couldn’t distinguish live from videotaped interactions with their mothers. This suggests that the infants are actually not responding to the adult. However, Marian et al acknowledge that the problem may lie with the procedure rather than the ability of infants to imitate their caregiver
How is ‘is the behaviour intentional?’ an evaluation point for caregiver-infant interactions?
Another method used to test the intentionality of infant behaviour is to observe how they respond to inanimate objects. Abravanel and DeYong observed infant behaviour when ‘interacting’ with two objects, one simulating tongue movements and the other mouth opening/closing. They found that infants of median age 5 and 12 weeks made little response to the objects. They concluded that this shows that infants do not just imitate anything they see-it is a specific social response to other humans
How is ‘individual differences’ an evaluation point for caregiver-infant interactions?
An important feature of interactional synchrony is that there is some variation between infants. Isabella et al found that more strongly attached infant-caregiver pairs showed greater interactional synchrony. Heimann showed that infants who demonstrate a lot of imitation from birth onwards have been found to have a better quality of relationship at three months. However, it isn’t clear whether the imitation is a cause or an effect of this early synchrony
How is ‘the value of the research’ an evaluation point for caregiver-infant interactions?
The importance of this imitative behaviour is that it forms the basis for social development. Meltzoff has developed a ‘like me’ hypothesis of infant development based on his research on interactional synchrony. He proposes that first there is connection between what the infant sees and their imitation of this. Second, infants associate their own acts and their own underlying mental states. Third, infants project their own internal experiences onto others performing similar acts. As a result infants begin to acquire an understanding of what other people are thinking and feeling. Such understanding relates to a Theory of Mind-understanding the mental states of other people. This is fundamental for conducting social relationships. A strength of the research is it explains how children begin to understand what others think.feel and so are able to conduct relationships
What is the main study into the development of attachment?
Schaffer and Emerson conducted a study on attachment, and then used the findings from the study to construct a 4 stage description of how attachment develops
What are the four stages of attachment?
Stage 1 is indiscriminate attachments, stage 2 is the beginnings of attachment, stage 3 is discriminate attachment, and stage 4 is multiple attachments
What age is the infant during the first stage of attachment?
From birth until about two months
What is the indiscriminate attachments stage?
Infants produce a similar response to all objects, whether they are animate or inanimate. Towards the end of this period, infants begin to show greater preference for social stimuli, such as a smiling face, and to be more content when they are with people. During this time, reciprocity and interactional synchrony play a role in establishing the infants relationships with others
What age is the infant during the second stage of attachment?
Around the age of four months
What is the beginnings of attachment stage?
Infants become more social. They prefer human company to inanimate objects and can distinguish between familiar and unfamiliar people. However, they are still relatively easily comforted by anyone, and do not yet show stranger anxiety. The most distinctive feature of this phase s their general sociability
What age is the infant during the third stage of attachment?
About seven months old
What is the discriminate attachment stage?
Infants begin to show separation anxiety, and show joy at reunion when their primary attachment figure (special attachment) returns. Around the same time the infant begins to display stranger anxiety
What did Schaffer and Emerson find about primary attachment figures?
They were not always formed with the person who spent most time with the child. They observed that intensly attached infants had mothers who responded quickly and sensitively to their ‘signals’ and who offered their child the most interaction. Infants who were poorly attached had mothers who failed to interact. Concluded that the quality of the relationship mattered most in formation of attachment, rather than quantity
Who is usually the primary attachment figure?
In 65% of children the first specific attachment was to the mother, and in a further 30% the mother was the first joint object of attachment. Fathers were rarely the first sole object of attachment (3%) but 27% of them were the joint first object
When is the fourth stage of attachment?
The fourth stage is very soon after the main attachment is formed
What is the multiple attachments stage?
The infant develops a wider circle of multiple attachments depending on how many consistent relationships they have. Specifically Schaffer and Emerson found that, within one month of primary attachment, 29% had multiple attachments to someone else (other parent, grandparents, siblings, relatives, friends etc). These are secondary attachments. Infants also display separation anxiety in these relationships. Within six months this had risen to 78% (by the age of one year, the majority of infants had multiple attachments, 1/3 had five or more secondary attachments)
What did Schaffer and Emerson find about the role of the father as a primary attachment figure?
This is less likely to be the case, maybe because they spend less time with their infants (Lamb). Men may not be psychologically equipped to form an intense attachment as they lack the emotional sensitivity that women offer, which may be due to biological or social factors that make women more caring. Heermann et al show evidence that men are less sensitive to infant cues than mothers, however Frodi et al showed videotapes of infants crying and found no differences in the physiological responses of men and women
What did Schaffer and Emerson find about the role of the father as a secondary attachment figure?
Research has consistently highlighted the fact that fathers are more playful, physically active and generally better at providing challenging situations for their children. A father is an exiting playmate whereas mothers are more conventional and tend to read stories to their children (Geiger) It may be that a lack of sensitivity from fathers can be seen as positive because it fosters problem-solving by making greater communicative and cognitive demands on children (White and Woollett)
What are the evaluation points for the development of attachment?
Unreliable data, biased sample, are multiple attachments equivalent, cultural variations, and stage theories
How is ‘biased sample’ an evaluation point for the development of attachment?
There were many biases, the sample was from a working class population so may not apply to other social groups. Also it was from the 1960s and parental care of children/division of labour has significantly changed. Cohen et al found the number of dads who choose to stay home and care for family has quadrupled over the past 25 years
How is ‘are multiple attachments equivalent?’ an evaluation point for the development of attachment?
Bowlby’s view was that an infant forms one special emotional relationship. Subsidiary to this are many other secondary attachments which are important as an emotional safety net, and for other needs. Eg fathers may offer a special kind of care and relationships with siblings are important in learning how to negotiate with peers. However Rutter argues all attachment figures are equivalent
How is ‘unreliable data’ an evaluation point for the development of attachment?
Data collected by Schaffer and Emerson may be unreliable as it was based on mothers’ report of their infants. Some mothers my have been less sensitive to infant’s protests and so were less likely to report them. This would create a systematic bias which could challenge the validity of the data
How is ‘cultural variations’ an evaluation point for the development of attachment?
Differences between individualist and collectivist cultures where there are more multiple attachments. Sagi et al compared attachments in infants raised in communal environments with infants raised in family-based sleeping arrangements. In a Kibbutz children spend time in community children’s home cared for by a metapelet. Closeness of attachment with mothers was almost twice as common in family based arrangement than in communal environment. Suggests the stage model applies specifically to individualist cultures
How is ‘stage theories’ an evaluation point for the development of attachment?
Developmental psychologists often use stage theories to describe how children’s behaviour changes as they age, however they suggest development is inflexible. They become a standard by which families are judged and may be classed as abnormal
What are the two key animal studies of attachment?
Lorenz’s research and Harlow’s research
Who was Lorenz?
Lorenz was an ethologist studying animal behaviour under relatively natural conditions-though his research did involve some manipulation
What was the procedure of Lorenz’s research?
He took a clutch of gosling eggs and divided them into two groups. One group was left with their natural mother while the other eggs were placed in an incubator. When the incubator eggs hatched the first living thing they saw was Lorenz and they soon started following him around. To test this effect of imprinting Lorenz marked the two groups to distinguish them and placed them together; they had become imprinted on him. Both Lorenz and their natural mother were present
What were the findings of Lorenz’s research?
The goslings quickly divided themselves up to either follow the mother or Lorenz. Lorenz’s group showed no recognition of their natural mother. He noted this process of imprinting is restricted to a very definite period, called the critical period, otherwise they will not imprint. Imprinting is similar to attachment. Lorenz did observe that imprinting to humans does not occur in some animals, like curlews
What long-lasting effects did Lorenz find?
Lorenz noted several features of imprinting, for example that the process is irreversible and long lasting. Lorenz described how one of the geese who imprinted on him, called Martina, used to sleep on his bed every night. He also noted that this early imprinting had an effect on later mate preferences
Who was Harlow?
Harlow conducted landmark research on attachment. He called his research report ‘The Origins of Love’ and sought to demonstrate that mother love (attachment) was not based on the feeding bond between mother and infants as predicted by learning theory
What was the procedure of Harlow’s research?
Harlow created two wire mothers with different ‘heads’. One was additionally wrapped in soft cloth. Eight infant rhesus monkeys were studied for a period of 165 days. For four monkeys the milk bottle was o the cloth monkey and on the plain wire mother for the other four monkeys. During that time measurements were made of the amount of time each infants spent with the two different mothers. Observations were also made of the monkey’s responses when frightened
What were the findings of Harlow’s research?
All eight monkeys spent most time with cloth mother whether or not this mother had the feeding bottle. Those monkeys who fed from the wire mother only spent a short amount of time getting milk and then returned to cloth monkey. When frightened all monkeys clung to the cloth mother, and when playing with new objects they often kept one foot on the cloth mother for reassurance. Suggests that infants do not develop an attachment to the person who feeds them but to the person offering contact comfort
What long-lasting effects did Harlow find?
Harlow continued to study the rhesus monkeys as they grew up. The motherless monkeys, even those with contact comfort, developed abnormally. They were socially abnormal and sexually abnormal. He also found they had a critical period. If the motherless monkeys spent time with their monkey ‘peers’ they seemed to recover but only if this happened before three months old. Having more than six months with only a wire mother was something they could not recover from
What are the evaluation points for Lorenz’s research?
Research support for imprinting, and criticisms of imprinting
How does research support for imprinting evaluate Lorenz’s research?
Number of other studies demonstrate imprinting in animals, so support Lorenz’s research and conclusions. Eg Guiton demonstrated that chicks exposed to yellow rubber globes for feeding during the first few weeks became imprinted on the gloves, supporting the view that young animals are not born with a predisposition to imprint on a specific type of object, but anything moving that is present in the critical period.
How do criticisms of imprinting evaluate Lorenz’s research?
Some dispute over characteristics of imprinting. Original concept of imprinting, that an encounter with an appropriate object leads to the image of that object being stamped irreversibly on nervous system, was accepted for many years. Now it’s understood that imprinting is more ‘plastic and forgiving mechanism’. Eg Guiton could reverse the imprinting in chicks. It is also now thought that imprinting may not be so different from any other kind of learning, which can also take place rapidly with little conscious effort and is fairly reversible
What are the evaluation points for Harlow’s research?
Confounding variables, generalising animal studies to human behaviour, and ethics of Harlow’s study
How do confounding variables evaluate Harlow’s research?
One criticism of the research was that the two stimulus objects varied in more ways than being cloth covered or not. The two heads were also different, which acted as a confounding variable as it varied systematically with the independent variable. It is possible that the reason the monkeys preferred one mother to the other was because the cloth covered monkey had a more attractive head, so the conclusions of the study lack internal validity
How is ‘generalising animal studies to human behaviour’ an evaluation point for Harlow’s research?
Aim of animal studies is to generalise conclusions to human behaviour. However, humans differ in important ways, eg most importantly because much behaviour is governed by conscious decisions. However some observations of animal attachment are mirrored by studies in humans, eg Harlow’s research is supported by Schaffer and Emerson’s findings that infants were not most attached to the person who fed them
How do the ethics of Harlow’s study, evaluate his research into attachment?
Harlow’s study could not be done with humans, but then there is the question of whether it should be done with monkeys. The study created lasting emotional harm as the monkeys later found it difficult to form relationships with peers. In the other hand it can be justified as it had a significant effect on our understanding of the process of attachment and has led to better care for human infants. Do the benefits outweigh the costs (NOPE-ANIMALS CANNOT CONSENT MAKING IT LESS ETHICAL-THEY FEEL ALL THE PAIN THAT HUMANS DO, THEY JUST CANNOT SAY NO!)
What are two explanations of attachment?
Learning theory, and Bowlby’s theory
What is learning theory?
Learning theory proposes that all behaviour is learned rather than inborn. When children are born they are tabula rasa (blank slates) and everything they become can be explained in terms of the experiences they have. Behaviourists suggest all behaviour is learned either through classical or operant conditioning
How does classical conditioning explain attachment?
During an infants early weeks and months certain things become associated with food because they are present at the time when the infant is fed. This might include the infant’s mother, the chair she sits in to feed the infant or some sounds that might always be present. These are all neutral stimulus. If regularly and consistently associated with a UCS it takes on properties of the UCS and becomes the CS creating the CR. The person who feeds the infant becomes a CS and alone gives the infant happiness
How does operant conditioning explain attachment?
When an infant is hungry there is a drive to reduce that discomfort. When they are fed, the drive is reduced and this produces a feeling of pleasure. This is rewarding (positive reinforcement). The behaviour that led to being fed is more likely to be repeated in the future as it was rewarding. Food becomes primary reinforcer as it supplies the reward. Through classical conditioning the person who supplies the food becomes a secondary reinforcer for avoiding discomfort and attachment occurs because child seeks person who supplies the reward
What is social learning theory?
It is a further development of learning theory by Bandura. Hay and Vespo suggested that modelling could be used to explain attachment behaviours. They proposed that children observe their parents’ affectionate behaviour and imitate this. Parents would also deliberately instruct their children about how to behave in relationships and reward appropriate attachment behaviours such as giving kisses/hugs
What are the evaluation points for the learning theory explanation of attachment?
Learning theory is based on research with animals, contact comfort is more important than food, learning theory has some explanatory power, drive reduction theory is largely ignored today, and an alternative explanation