Only $2.99/month


Terms in this set (42)

:) ADEQUATE EXPLANATION of how attachment's formed. Do seem to learn through association in real life (e.g. association certain situations with danger when develop phobias, even if association irrational).So provides plausible explanation how humans develop in response to their environment.=Suggests LT may play a part in attachment formation.
:( REDUCTIONIST: Reduces complex behaviour into basic explanations/simplest terms possible.-doesn't take all factors like internal processes into account, so too simplistic when attachment could be the result of many factors. Also doesn't explain emotional nature of attachments, simply how arise as behaviors.
--->SHAFFER AND EMMERSON (babies)- First attachments formed by 39% babies not to person providing physiological needs (feeding) but more likely to sensitive and rewarding to baby.=Food may not be main reinforcer of attachments, but responsiveness from caregiver that may also rewarding. Goes again LT assumption (infants more likely form attachments who meet physical needs).
---->HARLOW (monkeys)- Newborn Rhesus monkeys separated mother, after birth, in cage with 2 wire 'mothers'. One exposed wire and feeding bottle, other wrapped in soft cloth bu not food. Monkey's spent most time with soft cloth mother. Concluded monkeys value comfort above abilitiy of mother provide food.=Don't always attached cargiver offering food, but attached offering comfort. Suggests 'cupboard love' unlikely explain attachment as monkeys should have attached to mother with food.
---->LORENZ (geese)- Newly hatched Greylag geese, after seeing Lorenz shortly after hatching (first image) folowed everywhere as became 'imprinted parent'.=Newborns 'imprint' image of first moving object see (usually parents) within hours born, allows stick closely to importance source of protection and food.=Criticises LT as suggests attachment innate as infants too young to learnt anything. Also, imprinting occurs without food/care offered as rapid process.
Proposed millions of years of evolution produced a behaviour that's essential to the survival chances of human infants. Infants form an attachment to a caregiver because attachment is adaptive (increases chances of survival) and innate. In line with Darwin's theory of natural selection, any behaviour that helps you survive and reproduce yourself will be maintained in the gene pool. Attachment is seen as a biological process as argues infants born with an attachment gene which programmes to exhibit innate behaviours called social releasers which increases chances of receiving care (clinging, crying, smiling). These automatic behaviours triggers by conditions that threaten achievement of proximity (separation, insecurity, fear) like being alone. This ensures infants stay close to caregiver who will feed and protect them.
--During evolution babies who stayed close to mothers would survived to have children of own, and he hypothesizes both infants and mothers have evolved a biological need to stay in contact with each other. Therefore, the attachment gene also drive patents to provide care as this is also adaptive (increases chances of one's genes continuing into next generation).
--Argued there's a critical period for attachment to take place between birth and 2.5. years. If doesn't form after this, not possible to develop thereafter. If attachment figure broken/during critical period, suffer long term consequences of maternal deprivation.
--Although didn't deny infants form lots of attachments, argued one relationship (usually with mum) more important and drive to have one main primary attachment= monotropy Other attachments develop in a heirarchy below. Failure to initated/breakdown of this maternal attachment lead to serious negative consequences including affectionless psychopathy.
--Proposed this first mother-child relationship (monotropy) important for future relationships, providing infants with an internal working model/ attachment template for later relationships with others (aka continuity hypothesis) as same attachment behaviours & abilities continue to follow same parents. (Gives child feel for what a relationship is-represents infant's knowledge about their relationship with caregiver. Model generates expectations about other relationships, so child's primary relationship lead to similar expecations about other relationships, serving as template for all future relationships).
:) Lorenz: survival value/adaptive & innate.
--->LORENZ (geese)- Newly hatched Greylag geese, after seeing Lorenz shortly after hatching (first image) followed everywhere as became 'imprinted parent'.=Newborns 'imprint' image of first moving object see (usually parents) within hours born, allows stick closely to importance source of protection and food (so also survival value, supports attachment is adaptive). Also supports infants are born with innate drives to form attachments. However research done on animals so can't be fully generalised to humans
:) Hazen and Shaver: internal working model.
--->HAZEN AND SHAVER (love quiz)-See if correlation between infant's attachment type and future approach to romantic relationships. Self report measures (love quiz) in local newspapers with 620 replies from ages 14-82, assessed their adult romantic relationships and childhood relationships with parents. High correlation between infant attachment types and adult relationships. Securely attached=close and loving adult relationships. Insecure-avoidant= insecure relationship, jealousy and fear of rejection.
=Shows there's a continuity in that children do continue to follow some sort of relationship 'template' into later life, supporting that the internal working model allows an infant to form an attachment template which continues into adulthood.
:)/ :( Schaffer and Emmerson's supports and criticizes monotropy.
--->SCHAFFER & EMERSON (glasgow study)-60 infants from Glasgow showed more infants formed their first attachment with one particular person. But nearly one third formed multiple attachments, appeared no preferred attachment figure. This study supports Bowlby's theory of Monotropy, as it shows infants do form primary attachments.
:( However, it also disproves this theory by presenting that a HEIRARCHY isn't formed between the monotropy & other multiple attachments, meaning no preference between what should be their closest attachment and lower multiple attachments.
:( POST-HOC ASSUMPTION as it's an evolutionary argument, so rather than proven facts, it's unfalsifiable. E.g. tries to make judgements by looking backwards, arguing a specific behaviour must be adaptive simply because it persists which may not be the case. Argues there's an evolutionary significane of attachment, but bases this on assumptions made 'after the fact' rather than facts than can be scientifically demonstrated here and now.=Subjective and not based on empirical evidence.
:) However, highly PLAUSIBLE to extent that being close to caregiver is protective and helps infant find food.
:) PROVIDES EMPIRICAL EVIDENCE, BOWBY'S INTERNAL WORKING MODEL: So provides the first empirical evidence for his attachment theory. [[Securely attached]]-develop positive working model of themselves, mental representations of others as being helpful, while viewing themselves worthy of respect.
[[Insecure-avoidant]]-think themselves unworthy and unacceptable, caused by rejecting primary caregiver. [[Insecure-resistant]]-negative self image and exaggerate their emotional responses as a way to gain attention. Associated with increased risk of social and emotional behavioral problems, via the internal working model.
:) SS CLASSIFICATION (HUGE AMOUNT OF DETAIL, QUICK): Most research studies into attachment behaviour longitudinal approach, taking months/years to draw conclusions. SS has rapid sequence of different episodes allows infants to be categorised quickly. =Speed of methology and ease replicability led to rapid increase in amount of research into individual differences. SS metholoogy accepted methology worldwide for measuring attachment.
:) LAB: HIGH CONTROL. REPLICABLE: Reliability can be rested for as it's a standardised procedure with high control, so task easily replicable and Ainsworth herself replicated numerous times as well as other researchers.
:( SAMPLE-CULTURALLY BIASED: Uses 100 american sample from middle class families=culturally biased. Desirable attachments in USA may not be desirable elsewhere. (Nevertheless test has been used worldwide to judge infants in other cultures.) Therefore difficult to generalize findings outside of America and to working class families. Measures when used in different cultures proved inappropriate due to different ways in which varying cultures raise their infants.
:( LAB: LACKS ECOLOGICAL VALIDITY as unnatural artificial setting to infants every day environment, so possible wasn't measuring infant's natural behaviour (demand characteristics) so findings can't be generalised.
:( SUBJECTIVE JUDGEMENT: Of the infant's behaviours, and not easily operationalised.
:( ETHICAL ISSUES as puts child under stress (stranger and separation anxiety) so causes distress to the participants.
:( ADDITIONAL ATTACHMENT TYPE ADDED: Ainsworth's original 3 attachment types didn't classify all infants, so a fourth attachment type (MAIN AND SOLOMON) "Disorganised Attachment" has been developed where they showed attachment behaviour which was inconsistent with the 3 main ones.=Suggests her ideas weren't complete.
:) SS REPLICABLE: easy to replicate cross-culturally. For example, same methology has been replicated in Eastern Cultures like Japan. Means used not only on Western cultures (america & german) but wide range of cultures too.=Shows SS useful too for measuring attachment types, easy to replicate and demonstrated variations both within and between cultures.
:( SS ETHNOCENTRIC: Grossman's study of comparing cultures using the same SS attachment, behaviour INTERPRETATIONS may be ethnocentric. E.g. in Germany, insecure-avoidant reflects effects of specific encouraging towards independence and a move away from 'clingy' behaviour. Means that the principle behind the strange situation is that the behaviour of all children in all cultures can be interpreted from same viewpoint, which may not be the case.=Making cross cultural comparisons using the SS may lack validity.
:( ARTIFICIAL SETTING: Used the SS which was strange and unfamiliar to the infants everyday environment, So possible wasn't measuring infant's natural behaviour (demand characteristics) so findings can't be generalised.
:( CONTRADICTORY EVIDENCE: provided against idea of cross-cultural differences. KROONENBERG conducted a meta-analysis (review lots different pieces research) of findings from 32 studies of attachment behaviour in 8 different countries. Found differences between cultures were SMALL. Secure attachment most common in every country, insecure-avoidant next most common (except Japan), and insecure-resistant least common.=Research suggested in-fact cross cultural SIMILARITIES as opposed to differences or variations.
The Robertson's work showed that short term seperation isn't always bad for the child. However, Bowlby argued that longer term separation (months or years) would always be harmful as it causes irreversible damage to the attachment bond. To investigate this he carried out his own study.
Bowlby's maternal deprivation hypothesis
- Continual disruption of attachment between infant and caregiver= cognitive, social and emotional difficulties.e.g. aggression, depression and affectionless psychopathy.
Aim: Investigate effects of maternal deprivation/long term separation on 'delinguents' to see if they suffered deprivation.
Procedure: Interviewed 44 adolescent thieve who had been referred to the clinic where Bowlby worked because he'd been stealing. They were compared to a control group of 44 'emotionally disturbed' adolescenscents who didn't steal (in clinic due to emotional). Also interviewed parents about any separation during the 'critical period'.
Results: Over half thieves were separated from mother for more than 6 months in first 5 years. In control group, only 2 had this separation. 32% of thieves showed 'affectionless psychopathy' (they didn't care how their actions affected others). 12 of these 14 had experienced seperation from their mothers.
Conclusion: Anti social behaviour in first group caused by maternal deprivation-long term seperation of the child from its main carer early in life can have very harmful long term consequences.
Correlational, cause and effect.
:) SUPPORT FROM GENIE: Provided evidence for permanent effects of privation. Locked in room by dad until 13(as thought she was retarded). When found, severely physically underdeveloped and couldn't stand/talk. Never fully recovered socially/learned to speak. Thought her underdevelopment due to early privation.=Support Hodges and Tizard's idea that early privation had permanent effect on child's development.
:( GENIE RETARDED: However may be she was retarded meaning never functioned 'normally' anyway.
:( ATTRITION as longitudinal study meaning participants more likely to drop out (causing original sample to reduce in subsequent follow-ups). Results in biased sample as those who drop out likely particular type (e.g. more troubled).
:( SAMPLE BIAS: Possible that adopted and restored group were different since children first selected for adoption might be less troubled children-as parents choose which child to adopt so likely choose those easier to get on with. Explains why got on better at home, but doesn't explain why had more difficulties with peers. According to temperament hypothesis, easier children should have easier relationships with everyone.
:( ALTERNATIVE EXPLANATIONS for findings. Hodges and Tizard suggested findings at age 16 could explained in other ways. E.g. could be adopted children suffered from poor self-esteem which stems from being adopted-explaining problems outside home. Another explain could be that ex-institutional children lag behind peers in emotional development and this would explain poor peer relationships (simply not yet ready to cope).
Recently been recognised as 'psychiatric condition', affects social and emotional development. Children with this disorder show 3 things: 1) No preffered attachment figure 2) Inability to interact and relate to others 3) Experience of severe neglect or frequent change of caregiver.
-2 kinds of attachment DISORDER: Reactive/inhibited (shy and withdrawn, unable cope most social situations), Disinhibited (over friendly and attention seeking).
:) HODGES and TIZARD- Participants in the study who had been institutionalised showed 1) no preferred attachment figure (age 2: unusual attachment patterns, demanded attention from variety of adults), 2) Inability to interact and relate to others (age 8/16: no deep relationships/hadn't formed 'special friend' bond). =Shows that due to early privation, they could be classified as having disinhibited attachment disorder, whereas children who are over-friendly and attention seeking classified as disinhibited attachment. Shows howearly institutionalisation lead to irreversible consequence and the development of behaviours which can be categorised as 'attachment disorder'.
:( DONTAS-suggests quality of care can affect future development. Investigated infants 7-9 months, when assigned 'regular' carer, early attachment formed. Later when infants adopted, able to form attachments with new carer as little as 2 weeks after removed. Means if recieve good quality care when instiutionalised,go on develop good relationships with adaptive carers.=Suggests when quality of institute good and infants able form early attachments with caregivers, effects of privation reduced.
Investigate effects of day care on infant's aggressive behaviour, longitudinal study in America. Over 1000 children and parents from diverse families, different backgrounds and 10 different locations (replicated), assessed at regular interviews. Found in comparison to one-to-one care by childminders, group care in day nurseries more adverse effects. Age 5--more time child spent in day care (no matter what type or quality effects remained), more likely rated disobedient and agressive by adults. Children in full-time care 3x more likelybehaviour problems (temper tantrums, hittings) than those raised at home. Concluded no matter what type, quality child attended, more likely aggressive behavioural problems.
:( SELECTIVE REPORT: only found aggression results for kids spent over 30 hours, didn't specifiy this in study just used this result as general. 80% of -30hours day care fine, not agressive. Means reported in way that makes outcome seem magnified.
:( SAMPLE while large, study took place in one culture so findings can't be generalised to other cultures and findings maybe ethnocentric-day care system and standards may be different in USA.
:( May have been a THIRD FACTOR in study. E.g. child already had a temperament disorder which therefore may have meant thay they were put in day care as the parents didn't want them at home. This may mean that day care and aggression aren't liked by a causal effect.
:) GENERALISABLE: Tried to make study very generalised as all the children from different backgrounds and type of day care so can apply to other findings. Also followed children up till end of primary school to see if effects were temporary, long lasting, or permanent.
:) LONGITUDINAL STUDY with large participants sample followed from birth to schooling age, so thorough coverage, so researchers could bring in a number of aspects of the child's experiences to draw conclusions from. Following children up till end of primary school, see if effects temporary, long lasting or permanent.
:) MORE THAN ONE RESEARCH METHOD used so date from each method can be used to check for reliability and validity.
:) HIGH ECOLOGICAL VALIDITY: Most of research into effects of day care on social development has high ecological validity. Shea's research was a naturalistic observation of children in first 10 weeks of nursery and no attempt made to influence children's behaviour in any way. =Research conducted in real-life settings of real-life nurseries, therefore likely behaviour observed will be realistic. So findings can be generalised to other real-life settings.
:( CONTRADICTORY research. Some suggests day care beneficial, some detrimental to child's development. Means research in this area produced wide variety of findings, little agreement. Problematic as research remains inconclusive, therefore understanding of effects of day care still limited.
:( Impact MORE COMPLEX on social development, than research suggests. Effects may be complicated by lots of different variable including (child:staff ratio, group size, mother's sensitivity, parental income). Appears studies focuses too much on quantity (no. hours) meaning ignore more complex issues of quality of care child recieves and social backgrounds. =Studies which find positive effects are investigating higher quailty care than studies reporting negative effects (i.e. investigated diff variable, as not accounted for quality of care so don't know.)
:( CORRELATIONAL between day care and later development, may be third variable affecting results (infant's upringing/behaviour of parents they witness), so cause and effect can't be inferred and limits extent to which research can draw firm conclusions.