Studied by 5 people
attachment
a close emotional relationship between two people, characterised by mutual affection and a desire to maintain proximity (closeness)
reciprocity
responding to the actions of another with a similar action, where the action of one person (the caregiver) is designed to elicit a response from the other partner (baby) e.g. baby smiles if caregiver talks to them
Brazelton’s theory
that basic rhythm is an important precursor to later communications - the regularity of an infant’s signals allows a caregiver to anticipate the infants behaviour and respond appropriately which lays the foundation for later attachment
interactional synchrony
when two people interact they tend to mirror (same/similar action) what the other is doing in terms of their facial and body movements (includes imitating emotions as well as behaviours) e.g. caregiver sticks tongue out, the infant does the same
Meltzoff + Moore study
babies aged 2-3 weeks old were shown facial gestures e.g. sticking tongue out and manual gestures e.g. waving fingers in order to investigate their abilities to imitate → could imitate both and is an important building block for later social and cognitive development
Tronick et al (STRENGTH of reciprocity)
mothers who had been enjoying a dialogue with their baby were asked to stop moving and maintain a static, unsmiling expression - babies would try to tempt the mother into interaction by smiling themselves and would become puzzled and increasingly distressed when their smile did not provoke the usual response they expect
Condon and Sander (STRENGTH of reciprocity)
analysed frame by frame video recordings of infant movements to find they coordinated their actions in sequence with adult speech to form a kind of turn taking conversation
GENERAL STRENGTH of reciprocity and interactional synchrony
can be explained as being adaptive for the infant’s survival (monotropic theory)
socially sensitive (LIMITATION of reciprocity and interactional synchrony)
suggests that children may be disadvantaged by particular child rearing practices e.g. mothers who return to work shortly after the child is born, restricting opportunities for achieving interactional synchrony
GENERAL LIMITATION of reciprocity and interactional synchrony
infants are constantly moving and the expressions that are tested occur frequently (e.g. tongue sticking out, yawning etc.) making it difficult to distinguish between general activity and specific imitated behaviour
Le Vine et al (LIMITATION of reciprocity and interactional synchrony)
reported that Kenyan mothers have little physical contact or interactions with their infants, but such infants do have a high proportion of secure attachments (cultural differences)
aim of Schaffer + Emerson’s study
to investigate attachment formation
method of Schaffer + Emerson’s study
a longitudinal study was conducted upon 60 newborn babies from a working class area in Glasgow. Observations were conducted as well as interviews with the mothers, asking them about whom they responded to, who caused them distress etc.
findings of Schaffer + Emerson’s study
at about 7 months 50% babies showed separation anxiety towards one particular adult, usually the mother
by 10 months most had a specific attachment and about 30% has multiple
at 18 months almost all had at least two attachments, with 31% having 5 or more
conclusions of Schaffer + Emerson’s study
attachments are more easily made with those who display sensitive responsiveness rather than those who spend the most time with the child → multiple attachments are the norm and of a similar quality
asocial phase of attachment (0-6 weeks)
babies produce similar responses to objects and people although they do have bias towards human like stimuli like faces and eyes → very few produce any kind of protest
indiscriminate attachments (6 weeks - 6 months)
babies become more sociable as they begin telling people apart and preferring to be in human company → easily comforted by anyone and don’t prefer specific individuals yet → no fear of strangers
specific attachments (7 - 9 months)
the baby begins to show separation anxiety, protesting when their primary attachment figure leaves them as well as showing a fear of strangers
multiple attachments (10 months +)
babies begin to attach to others, such as siblings, grandparents and other regular caregivers → 75% have formed an attachment with father by 18 months and 30% had 5+
unreliable data (LIMITATION of research on stages and multiple attachments)
research based on mothers reports of their infants so social desirability may be a factor (may be less sensitive to infants’ protests etc.)
biased sample (LIMITATION of research on stages and multiple attachments)
working class population thus the findings may not apply to other social groups
lacks time validity (LIMITATION of research on stages and multiple attachments)
sample from the 1960s - parental care of children has changed considerably since then = more women go out to work so many children cared for outside the home or fathers stay at home and care for the children
GENERAL LIMITATION of research on stages and multiple attachments
problem with how multiple attachments is assessed as Bowlby pointed out that children have playmates as well as attachment figures (may be distressed when a play mate leaves the room but doesn’t signify attachment)
Geiger (research into multiple attachments and the role of the father)
fathers adopt a play mate role wheras mothers adopt a caregiver role. Fathers are more playful, physically active and generally better at providing challenging situations
Lamb (research into multiple attachments and the role of the father)
found most infants prefer contact with their father when they are in a positive emotional state and want to play but when they are in distress, they prefer contact with their mother
Verissimo et al (research into multiple attachments and the role of the father)
found that the quality of the relationship between fathers and toddlers significantly correlated with the number of friends at preschool, and appeared to be more important than the attachment between a toddler and their mother in subsequent childhood friendships
children without fathers
often been seen to do less well at school and have higher levels of risk taking and aggression, especially in boys showing they prevent negative developmental outcomes
hormones (LIMITATION of research on the role of the father)
female hormones (oestrogen) create higher levels of nurturing and therefore women are biologically predisposed to be the primary attachment figure
Field (LIMITATION of research on the role of the father)
filmed 4-month old babies in face to face interactions with primary caregiver mothers, secondary caregiver fathers and primary caregiver fathers → showed both primary care giver mothers and fathers spent more time, smiling, imitating and holding infants (can take on role of main caregiver and adopt behaviours of mother)
Maccallum (LIMITATION of research on the role of the father)
children growing up in single or same sex parent families do not develop any differently from those in two parent heterosexual families
social factors (LIMITATION of research on the role of the father)
most studies focused on female single mothers from poor socio-economic backgrounds so may be a social factor relating to poverty that produces these negative outcomes
GENERAL LIMITATIONS of research on the role of the father
could simply be the result of traditional gender roles, women expected to be more caring and nurturing
fathers play a significant ‘backstage’ role by offering financial and practical support to the mother which indirectly benefits the infant
aim of Konrad Loren’s study on imprinting
to investigate the mechanisms of imprinting where the youngsters follow and form an attachment to the first large moving object they meet
method of Konrad Loren’s study on imprinting
a clutch of goose eggs were randomly divided into two groups where half the eggs were hatched with a mother goose in their natural environment whilst the other hatched in an incubator and first saw Lorenz as a moving object
results of Konrad Loren’s study on imprinting
incubator groups followed Lorenz everywhere whereas the control group followed the mother
also noted how imprinting would only occur within a brief set time period of between 4-25 hours after hatching
Guiton (STRENGTH of Lorenz’s study)
demonstrated leghorn chicks exposed to yellow rubber gloves for feeding during their first weeks became imprinted on the gloves showing young animals are not born with a predisposition to imprint on a specific type of object but on any moving object present during the critical window
theoretical value (STRENGTH of Lorenz’s study)
influenced Bowlby’s idea of a critical period in human babies (a specific time period within which an attachment between carer and infant must form)
issue with animals (LIMITATION of Lorenz’s study)
can’t generalise findings from birds to humans as it seems that the mammalian attachment system is quite different from that in birds e.g. mammalian mother shows more emotional attachment to young
aim of Harlow’s study for the importance of contact comfort
to identify the factors involved in attachment and bonding in monkeys (closer to humans than geese)
method of Harlow’s study for the importance of contact comfort
baby monkeys separated from mother’s at birth and given a choice of substitute mother
made of wire and ‘produced milk’ via a feeding bottle
covered in toweling cloth
measured time with each mother as well as devising ways of frightening babies e.g. mechanical teddy bear 'and ‘monster mothers’
results of Harlow’s study for the importance of contact comfort
monkeys spent more time with the toweling mother whe given a choice (18hrs/day vs 2hrs/day) even when could only obtain milk from wire mother
frightened: rushed to cloth mother
exploring new toys: keep one foot on cloth mother
conclusions of Harlow’s study for the importance of contact comfort
Rhesus monkeys have an innate need for contact comfort, suggesting that attachment concerns emotional security more than food
theoretical value (STRENGTH of Harlow’s study)
influenced Bowlby’s maternal deprivation hypothesis where he saw any disruption of attachment bond as having serious, irreversible effects - changed advice given
ethical issues (LIMITATION of Harlow’s study)
creating serious lasting emotional harm as the monkeys later found it difficult to form relationships with their peers
GENERAL LIMITATION of Harlow’s study
the two stimulus objects varied in more ways than just being cloth covered or not e.g. heads were different (cloth = more attractive) so lack internal validity
learning theory
proposes that all behaviour is learned through either classical or operant conditioning and is not innate
classical conditioning
learning through association
operant conditioning
learning to repeat a behaviour, or not, depending on its consequences (reward or punishments)
specific classical conditioning for attachment
BEFORE CONDITIONING
food (UCS) → pleasure (UCR)
caregiver (NS) → no response
DURING CONDITIONING
food (UCS) + caregiver (NS) → pleasure (UCR)
AFTER CONITIONING
caregiver (CS) → pleasure (CR)
positive reinforcement in operant conditioning
if a behaviour produces a positive consequence, it is likely to be repeated e.g. cry for comfort as leads to a response from caregiver
negative reinforcement in operant conditioning
the removal of an unpleasant stimulus and increases the frequency of the behaviour e.g. crying removing the unpleasant feeling of being hungry
animal studies (LIMITATION for learning theory)
attachment formed to the cloth mother not the wire mother (who provided food) showing how contact comfort is more important than feeding as basis for attachment + Lorenz’s study shows geese imprinting before they were even fed/comforted
Schaffer + Emerson (LIMITATION for learning theory)
39% of infants formed first attachments to a person who did not carry out caretaking tasks such as feeding, challenging the claim attachments are based on this
reductonist (LIMITATION for learning theory)
explains complex attachment behaviours in the simplest way possible (via stimulus-response pairing) meaning internal cognitive processes and emotional nature of attachment is ignored
research findings (LIMITATION for learning theory)
from reciprocity and interactional synchrony contradicts learning theory as difficult to see how complex interactions would develop if attachment was purely off feeding
alternative explanations (LIMITATION for learning theory)
Bowlby suggests attachment is innate and not learnt as it enhances survival
Bowlby’s monotropic theory of attachment
states attachment is innate, adaptive process for both infant and parent as helps ensure warmth, food and protection (stems from natural selection)
innate programming (Bowlby)
infants are born programmed to become attached and adults are programmed to form attachments with their young
Infants emit social releases e.g. smiling, crying that provoke caregiving responses from adults which helps the attachment process
critical period (Bowlby)
suggests there is a critical period within which attachments must form (before the age of 2 and a half years) and if this is disorientated, then the child will suffer from permanent emotional damage
monotropy (Bowlby)
believed that one attachment relationship in particular, the one with the primary caregiver is much more important and the infant is biased to this one individual
internal working model (Bowlby)
primary attachment relationship provides the infant with a ‘template’ of what future relationships will be like (if primary caregiver = warm and caring = develop good relationships with others)
Lorenz’s findings (STRENGTH of Bowlby’s monotropic theory)
supports innate programming as he demonstrated imprinting in chicks, as they attached themselves to the first moving object they saw and followed it straight after birth = innate
Hazan and Shaver (STRENGTH of Bowlby’s monotropic theory)
supports Bowlby’s internal working model as they asked people to respond to a love quiz and found strong relationship between childhood relationships with parents and experiences in future relationships (tend to trust others and had belief in lasting love if securely attached)
reciprocity + interactional synchrony (STRENGTH of Bowlby’s monotropic theory)
supports the role of social releasers eliciting caregiving from a caregiver and the behaviours the infant exhibits cannot be learned as occur straight after birth
Schaffer + Emerson (LIMITATION of Bowlby’s monotropic theory)
doesn’t support monotrophy as they found evidence of multiple attachments (by 5 months only 13% were attached to only one person with some having 5+)
concept of critical period (LIMITATION of Bowlby’s monotropic theory)
close attachments can be formed outside the critical period as orphaned children adopted around 3 or 4 have shown that children above 2 and ½ are still capable of forming strong attachments to adoptive parents
