24 terms

A Level AQA Psychology: Attachment


Terms in this set (...)

A = Aim
P = Procedure
F = Findings
C = Conclusion
What is reciprocity?
Responding to the actions of another with similar actions, Brazelton suggested that this rhythm between caregiver and infant is an important base for future communications
What is interactional synchrony?
Mirroring another's action during interaction
Meltzoff and Moore (1977):
A: Study interactional synchrony
◘ Controlled observation, 4 different stimuli (mouth open, return to closed lips, tongue protrusion, tongue back in mouth)
◘ Observer watched videotape in real time, slow motion, frame by frame, and
with no knowledge of infant seeing adult model,
◘ Notes all instances of head/tongue movement, each observer scored the
tapes for intra and inter observer reliability, all scores .92+
F: Found association between infant and adult behaviour at 2/3 weeks old (later study found the same at 3 days old, innate response)
C: The behavioural response is innate
Evaluate interactional synchrony study
✔ Murray and Trevarthen (1985), 2 months old, play tape of mother, screen not responsive to infant's facial and body gestures, acute distress in trying to attract mother's interest, actively trying to elicit response
✘ Infants mouths generally always in motion and tested expressions occur frequently, how can you distinguish between general behaviour and specific synchrony?
✔ Intra observation does increase the internal validity
✘ Koepke failed to replicate these findings tho this maybe due to less control
✔ Abravanel and DeYong observed behaviour with objects, tongue movements and mouth open/close, infants between 5-12 weeks old made little response to objects, conclude specific social response to other humans
✔ Isabelle more strongly attached pairs showed greater IS
✔ Value of research: children begin to understand what others are thinking and feeling
Explain a study that showed the development of attachment
Schaffer and Emerson:
A: Development of attachments
◘ Sixty WC Glasgow infants, 5-23 weeks of age, studied till one year old
◘ Visited every 4 weeks, reported infant's response to separation in 7 everyday
◘ Intensity of any protest and whom protest was directed at recorded
◘ Indiscriminate attachment (from birth up to 2 mnths old) similar responses to all objects, tho begin to show preference to social stimuli
◘ Beginnings of attachment, (4 months) more social, distinguish between familiar and unfamiliar, no stranger anxiety
◘ Discriminate attachment, (7 months) show sep. anxiety and joy at reunion with primary attachment figure (65% w/ mother), stranger anxiety
◘ Multiple attachments, within a month 29% had multiple attachments, 6 months risen to 78%
C: The PAF is figure who's most sensitive to infant's needs, usually develop multiple attachments by 1 year old with 4 distinct stages
Evaluate a study that showed the development of attachments
✘ Unreliable, based on mother's report (systematic bias)
✘ Sample was biased all WC and Glasgow
✘ May not be relevant today, as it was carried out in the '60s (women work now, dad who stay at home quadrupled in past 25 years)
✘ Rutter says all attachments are equivalent
✘ Applies only to individualist culture (close mother attachment more common here than in collectivist culture e.g. Israeli kibbutz)
✘ Is development inflexible?
✔ Real world application
What is the role of the father?
- Lamb argued there is no relationship between father accessibility and infant-father attachment?
- Frodi found no difference in psychological response to infants crying, men do form secure attachments, biological and social factors may discourage this.
- More playful, active and challenging, fosters problem solving and communicative and cognitive demands on child (White and Woollett)
Explain Lorenz's study on animal attachments
◘ Divided gosling eggs between mother and incubator (first living thing they saw was Lorenz)
◘ Followed him around
◘ Marked two groups then put them together, and found they had imprinted on him
F: Goslings divided, Lorenz's showed no recognition of natural mother indicating existence of critical period
◘ If animal is not exposed to living thing early on, does not imprint
◘ Process is irreversible and long lasting
◘ Animals choose to mate with same kind of object they imprinted on
Evaluate Lorenz's study on animal attachments
✔ Guiton demonstrated imprinting on chicks exposed to yellow rubber gloves for feeding, supports that animals aren't born with predisposition to imprint on specific object, later tried to mate with gloves showing imprinting is related to reproductive behaviour
✘ Gosling found he could reverse the imprinting, after spending time with own species they were able to engage in normal sexual behaviour with other chicks
✔/✘useful pointer but must seek confirmation with human research before generalising
Explain Harlow's study on animal attachments
- A: Attachment not based on feeding bond like learning theory proposes
- P:
◘ 2 wire mothers with different heads, one wrapped in soft cloth
◘ 8 infant monkeys studied for 165 days
◘ 4 monkeys milk bottle was on cloth covered mother, other 4 it was on the plain wire
◘ Measurements made of time spent with different mothers and responses when frightened
◘ All 8 spent most time with cloth covered (with or without milk)
◘ Those who fed from wire mother only spent short time getting milk before returning to cloth mother
◘ When frightened all clung to cloth mother and when playing with new objects kept one foot on cloth (reassurance),
◘ Consequences: socially abnormal (froze with other monkeys), sexually abnormal (abnormal mating and didn't cradle baby)
◘ Critical period; if they spent time with peers before 3 months old they recovered, more than 6 months with just wire mother unable to recover
C: Infants don't develop attachments to person who feeds them but person offering comfort
Evaluate Harlow's study of animal attachments
✘ Two stimulus subjects varied in more ways than one, heads were different (confounding variable) = lacks internal validity
✔/✘ Humans differ to animals, but S&E study supports Harlow's conclusion that attachment is not based on feeding
✘ Lasting emotional harm for monkeys, difficult to form relations with peers, ethical?
✔ Increased our understanding on attachment and has offered better care for humans
What is learning theory?
- All behaviour is learned not innate, behaviourist theory
- Consists of classical conditioning and operant conditioning
- Classical conditioning (Pavlov):
◘ Innate unconditioned stimulus is food
◘ Innate unconditioned response of pleasure
◘ Infant's mother becomes associated with food due to consistent presence (neutral stimuli)
◘ Eventually mother starts to produce same response as UCS, so NS becomes learned/conditioned stimulus and produces conditioned response, just seeing person gives feeling of pleasure
- Operant conditioning investigated by Skinner (explained by Dollard and Miller):
◘ Drive reduction theory, drive motivates behaviour
◘ Hungry infant has drive to reduce discomfort
◘ Infant fed, drive reduced, feeling of pleasure is rewarding (positive reinforcement),
◘ Behaviour that led to feeding likely to be repeated, food becomes primary reinforcer
◘ Classical conditioning causes person associated with award to be secondary reinforcer, so infant seeks person, attachment forms
Evaluate learning theory
✘ Lack validity as based on animals so presents oversimplified version of human behaviour
✘ Non-behaviourists argue that attachment involves innate predispositions and mental activity
✘ Harlow showed that attachment has more to do with contact comfort (supported by Schaffer and Emerson)
✔ Has some value as infants do learn through association and reinforcement, though food is not main reinforcer but more attention and responsiveness from caregiver are rewards
✘ Drive reduction theory largely ignored only explains some behaviours and doesn't adequately explain secondary reinforcers
✘ Bowlby's theory
What is Bowlby's theory of attachment?
- A: Does imprinting occur in humans? Attachment is necessary for survival, for protection
- Adaptive:
◘ Babies have innate drive to become attached
◘ Critical period is 2 years, attachments after this are more difficult to form
◘ Attachments determined by sensitivity (influenced by Ainsworth)
- Social releasers; smiling, baby face elicit caregiving, innate mechanisms and explain how attachments form
- Monotropy: one special emotional bond, primary attachment, form secondary attachments (imp. emot. safety net and allow psych and social development)
- Internal working model, provides template for future relations
- Continuity hypothesis, idea that early relationships impact later life and social and emotional competence
Evaluate Bowlby's theory of attachment
✘ Says attachments develop from 3 months onward which is v. late as a protection mechanism
✔ Attachment is adaptive as it is vital when babies start crawling
✘ Sensitive not critical period (Rutter) less likely that attachment will form but not impossible
✘ Does healthy development only require one central person?
✘ Prior and Glaser point to hierarchical model but Lamb found different relationships serve diff purposes
✔ Study by Sroufe following participants from infancy to adolescence found continuity between early attachments and later emotional social behaviour supports continuity hypothesis
✘ temperament hypothesis (Kagan) infant's temperament may result in secure/insecure attachments
✔S&E support initial monotropy but 39% main attachment wasn't with main carer
What is the Strange Situation?
- Ainsworth
A: See how infant behaves under conditions of mild stress
- P:
◘ 106 MC infants, 9-18 months
◘ Controlled observation of mother and child with video camera in novel environment in 8 episodes, each 3 mins:
‌• Mother and baby enter room
‌• Mother sits and infant plays (secure base)
‌• Stranger enters, talks with mother (Stranger anxiety)
‌• Mother leaves (Sep. anxiety)
‌• Mother returns, stranger leaves (Reunion behaviour)
‌• Parent leaves (sep. anxiety)
‌• Stranger enters, comfort (stra. anxiety)
‌• Parent returns (reunion beh.)
- F:
◘ Secure (type B) harmonious, cry when M leaves, some distress w/ stranger, seek contact, happy at return, secure base, 66%
◘ Insecure-avoidant (type A), avoid interaction and intimacy, lil. response to sep and stranger, no tendency to cling or resist, anxious 22%
◘ Insecure-resistant (type C) seeks and resists intimacy, extreme distress when sep. or stranger, conflicting desires on return, 12%
- C: Classify attachment type and correlate behaviours
Evaluate the Strange Situation
✘ 4th attachment, type D insecure-disorganised, lack of consistent patterns can't deal with stress of sep. show strong attachment behaviour then avoidance
✔ Almost perfect agreement when rating exploratory behaviour .94 (inter observer reliability high)
✔ Better understanding of infants' signal of distress, helps improve parenting
✘ Main and Weston, different behaviour depending on parent, SS measures one relationship not personal characteristics, low internal validity
✘ Temperament hypothesis (Kagan)
What did Ijzendoorn and Kroonenberg investigate?
- Cultural variations
- A: Are there inter/intra culture difference in response to child-rearing
- P: 32 studies, 2,000 SS, 8 countries, meta analysis
- F:
◘ Secure was most common
◘ Variation within cultures 1.5 times greater than variation between cultures
◘ West Ger highest avoidant (35%), Israel resistant (29%)
◘ Global patterns similar, support an innate and biological process for attachment.
- C:
◘ Strongest attachments still formed with mother, but difference in patterns can be due to cultural attitudes and practises
◘ Grossman and Grossman, German infants encouraged to be independent, don't engage in proximity seeking behaviours so may appear IA
◘ Takahashi: 60 Japanese MC 1 yr olds (0%IA, 32% IR), 90% of infants alone phase had to be stopped due to extreme distress as for first 2 years they are never alone, lack of IA due to such behaviour considered rude, doesn't have same meaning in Japan
- E:
✘ Similarities possibly due to globalisation, mass media spreading and influencing certain parenting practices (not innate)
✔/✘ More variation within cultures than between them e.g. Urban Tokyo similar to west, rural found most IR
✘ Ethnocentric; theory for secure is explore, independent, regulate emotions, Japan competence is not showing feelings, group-oriented, method is also too deep-rooted in American culture as shown by studies by Takahashi
✘ Small sample,
✔ Eliminated extraneous variables: mother-infant pairs (at least 35 in each), excluded special needs and infants 2+
What is Bowlby's theory of maternal deprivation?
- A: Test maternal deprivation hypothesis 'mother love in infancy and childhood is as important for mental health as vitamins and proteins for physical health', to see lasting effects
- P:
◘ 88 children (5-16 year olds), 44 of which were thieves, 44 that are not
◘ These children and families are interviewed with record built up of early life (Accounts may have been unreliable)
- F:
◘ 32% of thieves group were affectionless psychopaths, none of the control group had AP (investigator confirmation bias).
◘ 86% of thieves were frequently maternally separated, less than 10% of non-thieves had frequent early separations
- C
◘ Link between early separations and later social/emotional maladjustment, can lead to AP or antisocial behaviour
Evaluate Bowlby's maternal deprivation theory
✔ Practical applications: MDH and other research highlighted importance of positive attachment experiences leading to developments in good childcare practises, through daycare centres assigning caregivers to children and allowing parental contact in hospitals
✔ Some governments offer more financial support for young families in terms of maternity/paternity leaves e.g. Sweden 480 days parental leave
✔ Schaffer (1996) found that almost all children are affected negatively short-term
✘ Study proposed that MD caused AP, doesn't acknowledge other factors
✘ All of the children institutionalized and deprived, and therefore not generalizable
✘ Based on memories of families, can be biased
✘ Oversimplified concept - Rutter's (1972) Maternal Deprivation book criticises that Bowlby failed to distinguish between separation from attachment figure, loss of attachment figure and complete lack of attachment (privation), Rutter argues that the 3 circumstances have different long-term effects which Bowlby overlooked
✔ Skeels and Dye (1949): Children raised in an institution scored poorly on intelligence tests, transferred to different institution where they received emotional care, IQ improved by 30 points
What are the effects on institutionalisation?
Rutter and Sonuga-Barke (2010):
- A: Can the effects of instiutionalisation be reversed?
- P:
◘ Study of Romanian orphans since 1990s
◘ 165 children who spent early life in Romanian institutions
◘ 111 adopted by UK families before the age of 2, 54 by age the age of 4
◘ Tested at regular intervals to assess physical, cognitive and social development
◘ Info gathered through interviews, progress compared to control group of 52 British children adopted in UK before 6 months
- F:
◘ ROs lagged behind on all measures when compared to control group
◘ All children adopted before 6 mths had caught up with British counterpart by 4 yrs
◘ Those adopted after 6 months showed disinhibited attachments and problems with peers
◘ Effects of institutionalisation: Physical underdevelopment, intellectual underfunctioning, disinhibited attachments, poor parenting
- C:
◘ Some effects are reversible if child has opportunity to form strong attachments
◘ Long term consequences of privation may be less severe if opportunity for attachments is provided
◘ Continued failure of attachment formation leads to severe consequences such as attachment disorder
Evaluate the Romanian Orphans study
✘ Can't generalize because of cultural differences,
✘ Cofounding variables, privation (never had attachment), deprivation, physical conditions, mental conditions, under staffed, lack of training, trauma
✘ Small sample, only 165
✘ Not all institutions represented
✔ Cross cultural comparisons
✘ Individual differences
✔ Caused change in polices, real life applications (adoption occurs earlier), value of longitudinal studies
✔ QUINTON, 50 women reared in institution vs 50 reared at home, institutional women found difficulty acting as parents
What is the influence of early attachment?
Hazan and Shaver
- A: Test the internal working model (schema)
- P:
◘ Place 'Love Quiz' in newspaper asking question about current and previous attachment experiences, attitudes towards love
◘ 620 responses, 205 from men and 415 female, fair cross section of population
- F:
◘ 56% secure
◘ 25% IA
◘ 19% IR
◘ Positive correlation between attachment type and love experienced, secure described happy and trusting relations with acceptance and support,
◘ Behaviours influence by IWM: Childhood friendships, Sroufe's found those securely attached=highest rate of social competence, popular, empathetic, higher expections
◘ Poor Parenting: Harlow link between poor attachment and later difficulties with parenting, Quinton (humans), mental health
Evaluate Hazan and Shaver's study
✘ Correlational rather than experimental so can't claim cause and effect, can be caused by innate temperament
✘ Retrospective classification, recollections can be flawed and inaccurate
✔ Longitudinal studies such as Simpsons support Hazan and Shaver as evidence shows securely attached=closer friends, more expressive, emotionally competent etc
✘ Suggests that early attachment has fixed effect, 'doomed' to experience emotional in satisfaction in adult relations, it is alterable
✘ Low correlations (Fraley, .50 to .10) attachment type isn't very stable