Unit 4 part 2 The first two years of life Flashcards
Attachment theory
-> focuses in a specific type of relationship called attachment relationship -affectionate bond or emotional tie
-> are seeked when individual perceives potential alarm or discomfort
–> quality does not matter
- John Bowldy’s Attachment theory (1958) - from psychoanalysis + evolution +ethology = promotes adaptation and survival
Attachment system
= innate motivation, activated in distress, fear, tired, sick
-> attachement is a GOAL DRIVEN SYSTEM to promote optimum proximity
-> works with internal operating models/expectations
-> based on their early experience with with figure, children develop expectations about their attachment figure’s future behavior (in alarming situations)
What did early mother-child bond ruptures cause?
Isolation, emotional distancing, and interpersonal difficulties
–> the formation of a successful attachment was done during a critical period
(6m to 3yrs)
-> critical period => SENSITIVE PERIOD; time frame that is conducive for forming strong attachment
(these conclusions came from the ethology studies of imprinting)
KONRAD LORENZ
(1952) observed imprinting: when newborns recognise and seek proximity with the first object they encounter
-> goslings saw him first so then he was MOTHER
-> concluded there was a critical period as after a certain point they would no longer bond to other caregivers
-> BOWLDY concluded = need to attach is ever present
BEH system: following, clinging, crying
MOTIV. system: maintain proximity to an attachment figure as protection
Internal Operating Model
attachment system takes reference of the internal operating model of the attachment FIGURE and the self in relation to the baby
-> secure attachment: self DESERVES love (other was loving and attentive)
-> insecure attachment: the self is worthy of REJECTION (other was unavailable)
The goals of the infant is to ___ while ____
to explore and learn, this develops in opposition to the tendency of forming attachment
-> while exploring, CAREGIVER is SAFE BASE
Separation activates the system of attachment
-> must first distinguish them THEN they are be able to vocalise and move reasonably and independent
MONOTROPISM (any child can form a strong attachment to one person)
SEPARATION PROTEST
at 6m, when child is able to explore environment alone -> may cry or reach out to prevent departure
–> coincides with STRANGER ANXIETY
PHASE 1 & 2 (Birth to 2m + 2m to 7m)
B to 2m
-> Show little differentiation to caregiver and others - no recognition
2m to 7m
-> Begins to recognise caregiver (more comforted) BUT still lack object recognition
(if you cannot recognise set as an object you cannot recognise it’s absence) thus they still may present separation protest
Phase 3 to 4 (7-9m to 2yrs + 2-3yrs onwards)
7-9m to 2yrs
-> clearer signs of proximity seeking, separation protest and stranger anxiety (increasingly clearer)
2-3yrs onwards
-> Phy + Cog. Ab. mature = more complex, explore with greater independence
-> Attachment becomes an abstract, internal representation with an understanding of other needs
-> develops trust, understanding of caregiver’s needs (availability) - don’t happen at the same time but inevitably their goal of proximity is equal amongst infants
Maternal deprivation hypothesis
-> Bowlby focused on abnormal social development that results from severe parental neglect or long-term separation from parental figures
-> Prolonged disruption in attachment to the mother figure = maternal deprivation CAUSES illness, abandonment, or institutionalisation
Willian Goldfarb (1947)
studied different outcome variables in 30 children, given up by their moms before 9m
–> 1/2 foster care
–> 1/2 institutionalised (and then) foster care after 3.5 yrs
- measured intelligence, reading, and arthmetic at 10-14yrs
RESULT = they observed worse performance in institutionalised children than foster care kids
-> also fearful, restless, unpopular, and needier
–> maladaptive development was due to institutionalisation and the lack of attachment with a caregiver
He added that maternal deprivation can be
reverse with adequate care, correcting the disruptive effect, ONLY IF its given before the 2.5 yrs
ASSUMES the critical/sensitive period
Harlow and Zimmerman Rhesus monkeys
-> Mesh wire surrogate mom + milk bottle
—> used exclusively for food
-> ANOTHER with Terry cloth that had no food
—> used for comfort (prefered)
bad consequences= real psychological damage, hostile, couldn’t reproduce, or provide adequate care for offspring
What did Boldly influence to the general public
-> perception on child rearing and parenting, social policy (childcare), and parenting
-> BUT mother deprivation isn’t as severe as thought < environmental enrichment can compensate
-> they also found that institutionalisation isn’t as irreversible as Bowlby thought. it can be mitigated with prepared adoptive parents that were READY to resolve past traumas
MARY AINSWORTH
-> continued attachment = measuring the emotional state of the children in relation to the type of attachment
- Ainsworth observed the communication between mother and baby
-> beh of baby when mother absent, and when parent returned
Strange situation study/procedure
-Ainsworth: quality of attachment rather than intensity or duration
->7 phases/ 3min each (one-way mirror) - org done with bbs 1-2yrs
assessed on 5 scales, Proximity and contact, Contact maintaining, Avoidance of proximity, Resistance to contact, Search beh
What are the phases for Strange Situation Study
p1: P+C introduced to room w/ toys
p2: stranger comes in sits, talks, and plays for a minute each
p3: P leaves, stranger plays for 3min then sits
p4: P returns, stranger leaves. Puts C settle + sits
p5: P leaves, C completely alone for 3min
p6: Stranger comes back tries to settle C 3min
p7: S leaves and P comes back and tries to settle
What did Ainsworth identify
-> lasts 20 minutes but it is cut short if child is really stressed
-> infant displays willingness to use parent as safe base to derive SECURITY, in reunions (p4+7)
-> identified 4 attachment types
- Type B: secure attachment
- Type A: Insecure-avoidant attachment
- Type C: Insecure-resistant/ambivalent attachment
- Type D: Disorganised attachment (Mary Main)
Type A: Insecure-Avoidant attachment
Child show few or no signs of missing parent; when absent and actively ignores parent in reunion -> emotional distance
-> If picked up there may be squirming but not active rejection
-> treats mom and stranger the same
-> during separation there is a lack of distress
- 14% to 15%
Type B: secure attachment
-> C shows signs of missing parent, makes efforts to reunite w/ parent - figure is trusted - safe base to explore the environment
-> Desire for proximity and contact maintenance + Prefers mom. In distress can find some comfort in stranger but prefers mom
-> 44-60%
Type C: insecure-resistant/ambivalent attachment
-> C is clingy, no exploration. when alone extremely distressed w/ stranger
-> distressed when left alone, cannot be settles when parent comes back
-> they are pleased to see the mother but is angry and reject parent
-> Child shows resistance beh
- 8-11%
(reflect the child’s lack of willingness to use the parent as a safe base)
Type D: Disorganised attachment (Mary Main)
Lack of consistent beh., hesitation about approaching mom but confusion about separation -> NO standard response
-> uncertain about how to make use of caregiver as a source of security
5-15% general population; 28-30% clinical population
Ainsworth critique
SSS/SSP: shows ^ ecological validity
-> can be generalised to other real-life situations
-> confined to the artificiality of Labs
-> demonstrates nature of attachment (C can have different attachment with different ppl)
-> SSS doesn’t reflect where child. is left alone in the care of others
Ways parents are in the first years of life influences…
attachment style
warm and attentive (no regard to bio or not) -> secure
negative acts or rejection -> Insecure-avoidant
unreliable or inconsistent care (smts unresponsive + smts overbearing) -> insecure-ambivalent
inadequate care -> disorganised attachment
Disorganised-disoriented attachment + working models of attachment
- due to psychopathology in parents = bbs act negative towards them
can lead to maladaptive beh later on
Adult Attachment Interview
- AAI adults also create working models of attachment based on early facility experiences (influencing their parenting LTR on)
-> focus on relationship w/ parents in situations, stressfulness (cate. with 4 attachment s)
-> infancy and adulthood + parent-child relationships = stable
-> BUT those with insecure attachment not doomed
Language acquisition
Universal sequence
- sm learn many lang at once, sm faster than others
-> END OF SENSORIMOTOR PERIOD 6th stage
(15-18m)
symbolic function appears-> verbal lang arises at same time as other manifestations
-> Lang characterised by greater distance between signifier (sound) + signified (meaning)
Prelinguistic Period (0-12m)
-> bb talk, motherese or child directed speech (adults use higher pitch, simples words, grammar, reps, slower, exaggerated emo. tone)
-> C-directed speech (enc. learning) -> 4m, make sounds to communicate internal state
-> NONverbal gestures (0-9m): infant-adult (infant) interaction
-> PROTOS (triangulation Chi-Adu-Obj)
—> Protoimperatives/gestures (9m) -points to achieve
—> Protodeclarative/ gestures (12m) -points to share
1st semester prelinguistic (universal)
- reflex vocalisation 0-2m (high-pitched)
- cooing 2-3m
- Babbling 4-6m (consonant-like sounds and vowels in iso.) (12m -> develops accent, prosody)
2nd semester prelinguistic (NATIVE LANG)
-reduplicative babbling 6-9m (rep same syllables+ C-V syllabic strings)
- Babbling in the reduplicative 9-12m (C-V syllables, shorter strings + other syllabic structures)
(12 to 13m realize individual words have meaning)
17m can understand meaning of nouns and verbs to use
- The holophrase period
- Word combination period
- 12-24m
-utter first word (+1 word per week)
-comprehension develops before speech
-holophrase: single word the expresses complete meaningful thought
-naming explosion (18m) increase in vocab - > 24m
-Grammar: 2-word combo (18-24m)
–> 3-word combo (>24m)
- grammar proficiency= length of sentence
- MLU = mean length of utterance
Learn vs. Nativist Perspective
-> lang is learned through experience and reinforcement of lang use. they imitate sounds that they’ve been exposed to
-> parents shape infant lang.
-> learning cannot account for all aspects of lang.
-> everyday lang is incoherent so if child imitated it they’d speak incoherently
-> (NOAM CHOMSKY) LAD: Lang. acquisition device (detect regularities with exist in everyday speech) => create mini-theory to produce correct sentences (mouses vs. mice)
IF LAD exists - location
not yet located, NS, specific areas of brain found to be specialised for lang (lateralisation of brain functioning for lang)
-> BROCA’S AREA = Paul Broca disrupted ability to produce speech brooks aphasia
-> WERNICKE’S AREA = studies brain of a patient w/ disrupted ability to understand lang. (speech lack meaning) left temporal lobe
(the fact that the brain has spefici areas for speech shows that its some what innate) = interactionist perspective
interactionist perspective
(the fact that the brain has specific areas for speech shows that its some what innate)
-> social and bio factos + cog abilities (Piaget’s cog development)
