attachment but better

what is reciprocity

infant and carer pay close attention to each others signals, responding to each other

who plays a role in reciprocity

both baby and mother play a role

Brazleton et al. = Both play a role, like a dance where they respond

when does reciprocity increase

Around three months, they increase in frequency = Feldman

what is interactional synchrony

co-ordination of small social behaviours, infant and carer’s emotions and actions mirror each other

When does interactional synchrony begin

As young as two weeks, babies can mimic one of three actions from adults = Meltzoff and Moore

Why is interactional synchrony important

Important for the development of mother and infant attachment

Study : Mother-infant attachment

Isabella et al

30 mothers and infants = High levels of synchrony associated with better attachment

Attachment to different figures

Babies typically become attached to mother first (around 7 months) then secondary a few weeks after

75% infants form attachment to father by 1 ½
= Schaffer and Emerson

Role of attachment to father

Attachment to father is more with play and stimulation

Attachment to mother = child’s adolescent attachment

Grossman

Role of primary caregiver related to gender

Field = Level of reciprocity and attention is key to attachment, not gender

PCG mother, PCG father, SCG father

Smiling, imitation and holding baby is key

EVAL : Observing babies

Observation of patterns and movement

Cannot know what behaviours are being observed

EVAL : Controlled observation

CG and infant observations are often well-controlled

fine details are recorded = good validity

EVAL : Observations and purpose

Cannot tell us the purpose of synchrony and reciprocity

EVAL : Inconsistent findings on fathers

Research looks for different things, role as PCG vs SCG

Researchers look for different behaviours therefore come to different conclusions

EVAL : Is the role of fathers actually important

Grossman suggests attachment to father is key

If that is case, why do children of same-sex and single parents not develop any differently

EVAL : Social sensitivity

Suggestion that mother’s attachment is key may be insensitive to working mothers

Cannot do things suggested in studies that are key to building attachment

Aim of Schaffer and Emerson

When early attachments form, the intensity and where they are directed

Method of Schaffer and Emerson

60 babies from working class Glasgow

Visited every month for a year, then once at 18 months

Measured separation and stranger anxiety

Findings of Schaffer and Emerson

25-32 weeks = 50% babies showed separation anxiety toward specific adult

40 weeks = 80% had specific attachment and 30% had multiple attachments

Schaffer and Emerson : Stages

Asocial

Indiscriminate

Specific

Multiple

Asocial stage

First few weeks

Behaviour to human and non-human objects same

Show preference to familiar faces

Indiscriminate Stage

2-7 months

Prefer people over inanimate, prefer familiar adults

Accept comfort from any adult, no separation or stranger anxiety

Specific Stage

Over 7 months

Separation and stranger anxiety towards particular adult

Specific adult is their primary attachment figure, who baby has most interaction with

Multiple Stage

Attachment behaviour towards other adults they spend a lot of time with

Sch and Em : 29% infants had multiple attachments 1 month after formation of specific attachment

By 1, most had multiple attachments

EVAL : Validity of Schaf and Emer

Done in families own homes, observation done by parents and reported later

Behaviour unaffected by stranger, good external validity

EVAL : Longitudinal of Schaf and Emer

Same children regularly observed

Better internal validity than cross-sectional, as it doesn’t have confounding variables

EVAL : Sample size of Schaf and Emer

Decent sample size producing large volume of data

However, set 50 years ago and all families are from same area, same background

Brings into question generalisation

EVAL : Studying asocial stage

Infants are a few weeks old, have poor co-ordination

Difficult to judge what behaviour and movement means

EVAL : Measuring multiple attachment

Just because baby is upset when person leaves room, doesn’t mean they’re an attachment figure

Bowlby = Infants become distressed when playmates leave room. Are they attachment figures?

EVAL : Schaf and Emer measuring of behaviour

Used two behaviours to measure attachment , some would say this is too crude

What did Lorenz study and why

Studied geese to understand critical period for imprinting behaviour

Lorenz : Procedure

Split clutch of eggs in half, ½ hatched by mother goose, ½ hatched in incubator where Lorenz was the first thing they saw

Lorenz : Findings

Incubator group : Followed Lorenz Control (mother) group : Followed Mother

Critical period = Time in which imprinting needs to take place

If imprinting doesn’t happen within critical period, the chicks were not attached to mother

Lorenz : Sexual imprinting

Peacock raised in zoo saw tortoise after hatching

Bird only displayed courtship behaviour toward tortoises

What did Harlow study and why

Monkeys to understand the drive behind attachment, food or comfort

Harlow : Procedure

16 monkeys raised with two wire mothers

Condition 1 : Milk dispensed from plain wire mother

Condition 2 : Milk dispensed from cloth motehr

Harlow : Findings

Baby monkeys cuddled cloth mother and sought comfort from them, regardless of which one dispensed them milk

Contact comfort was more important than food for attachment

Harlow : Maternal deprivation in monkeys

Reared by wire mother were most dysfunctional but all were affected

More aggressive, less sociable, bred less often, unskilled at mating, neglected their own young and attacked other babies

Harlow : Critical period

Mother figure needed to be introduced within 90 days for attachment to poem

After this, attachment impossible and damage of deprivation begins

EVAL : Lorenz generalisability

Humans are very different from birds

e.g. mammalian mothers show more affection, humans can form attachments at number of times, but is easier in infancy

EVAL : Lorenz’s questionable observations

Suggested sexual imprinting was hardwired from early attachment

Guidon et al : Chicks had imprinted on yellow washing glove but they learned to prefer other chickens to mate with

EVAL: Harlow’s theoretical value

Highlights that contact comfort is more important than food

Shows importance of quality of early relationships for social development

EVAL : Harlow’s practical value

Can help social workers understand factors of child neglect

Can help animal carers in care of captive baby animals

EVAL : Harlow’s ethics

Great suffering in face of procedure

Only suffering can replicate these findings

What does learning theory suggest about attachment

Baby will attach to whoever feeds them , cupboard love, through conditioning

Classical conditioning of attachment

Food is unconditioned stimulus and being fed from caregiver, neutral stimulus, gives us pleasure, unconditioned response

Over time when CG provides food and brings pleasure to infant, CG becomes conditioned stimulus and produces pleasure as a conditioned response

Operant conditioning for attachment

Behaviour reinforced

Baby cries, CG responds and baby stops crying. Behaviour is reinforced.

As baby is positively reinforced, CG is negatively reinforced, avoids negative behaviour

Attachment as a secondary drive

Primary drive = hunger

Hunger is limited by CG, attachment to CG is secondary to removing hunger

EVAL : Counter from animal research

Animal studies highlight we form attachment to comfort figures (question generalisability)

Learning theorist believe animals and non-animals are the same

EVAL : Counter from human research

Schaffer and Emerson : Primary attachment was to mother, not the CG’s that fed them

No drive or stimulus is involved

EVAL : Learning theory is ignorantly

Isabella et al : Quality of attachment comes from reciprocity and interactional synchrony

Cannot relate this to stimuli or cupboard love

EVAL : Conditioning is often involved

Most of human behaviour is shaped by conditioning

Only issues is learning theory revolves around feeding

Therefore cannot completely ignore role

What did Bowlby propose

Evolutionary explanation, attachment is innate and ensures survival

Key ideas of Bowlby

Critical Period

Internal Working Model

Social Releasers

Monotropy

Bowlby : Monotropy

CG and infant attachment is more important

More time spent with PCG, the better the attachment

Bowlby: Monotropy, two key principles

Law of continuity : More consistent and predictable the care = Better attachment

Law of accumulated separation : Effects of every separation add up

Bowlby : Critical Period

Proposed a 2 year period where attachment system is active

Bowlby : Internal working model

Mental representations of relationship with CG are formed and serves as model for future relationships

Affects future relationships and ability to be parents themselves

Bowlby: Social Releasers

Babies have innate behaviours that encourage attention from adults, they active adult attachment system

CG and baby have innate predisposition to become attached

EVAL : Mixed evidence

Bowlby : One attachment formed to special person

Schaffer and Emerson : Multiple key attachments can be formed, though specific attachment formed first

Primary attachment is key, judgement for rest is unsure

EVAL : Support for social releasers

Brazleton et al

CG and I interactions monitored, found interactional synchrony

PCG told to ignore babies signals, some showed distress, some lay motionless

EVAL : Support for internal working model

Bailey et al

Tested 99 mothers attachment with their own mothers, then compared to their infants

Mothers with poor attachments to parents had poor attachment with child

EVAL : Social sensitivity of monotropy

Law of accumulation places heavy weight on mothers activity and role

Strange Situations : Procedure

Controlled observation to measure security of attachment

Proximity seeking, exploration and secure-base behaviours, stranger anxiety, separation anxiety, response to reunion

Attachment classifications

Secure attachment

Insecure-avoidant

Insecure resistant

SS : Secure attachment

60-75% of British toddlers

Explore happily but regular returned to CG

Moderate separation and stranger anxiety

Require and accept comfort when CG returns

SS : Insecure-avoidant

20-25% of British toddlers

Explore freely, no secure base or proximity seeking behaviour to CG

Little reaction to CG leaving, little reaction to coming back

SS : Insecure-resistant

<5% of British toddlers

Explore little and seek greater proximity

Huge separation and stranger anxiety, resist comfort from CG when they return

EVAL : Validity of SS

Babies with secure attachment have better outcome in later life

Insecure-resistant = Bullying and mental health issues

EVAL : Reliability of SS

High inter-rater reliability within behavioural categories

Bick et al = 94% in team of observers

EVAL: Culture bound

Cultural differences in raising children

Takahashi = Doesn’t work in Japan, mothers rarely separated and the infants would show more anxiety

EVAL : Measuring

What is being measured? How do you operationalise infants behaviour? Is attachment the biggest influence on anxiety?

Van Ijzendoorn and Kroonenberg

Looked at proportions of attachment styles across countries

Van I and K : Procedure

Meta-analysis : 32 studies from 8 countries, 1990 childrens results

Van I and K : Findings

Secure was most common ( 75% Britain - 50% China)

Insecure R = Overall least common (3% Britain - 30% Israel)

Insecure A = Varied greatly from East to West (35% Germany - 5% Japan)

Greater intracultural variation (90% and 46% in USA) than intercultural

Simonella et al

Study in Italy, 76 CG and I pairs

50% secure, 36% insecure avoidant

Jin et al

Korean study, 87 CG and I pairs

Secure and insecure-resistant fairly similar to other countries, only one child insecure-avoidant

EVAL : Van I and K sample

Nearly 2000 CG and I pairs

Increases internal validity and reduces anomalous results

EVAL : Unrepresentative samples

Comparisons between countries not cultures, one sample may be overly representative of poverty

Intracultural difference highlights this

Ijzendoorn and Sagi = Tokyo is similar to western studies, more rural sample is overly insecure resistant

EVAL: Observer bias

Imposed etic : Assuming something to be culturally universal

Ainsworth = British, applying a British ideal to something not just British

EVAL : Explanations for similarities

Bowlby : Innate and universal

Van I and K : Differences are presented in media and continued

Maternal Deprivation

Continual presence of nurture from mother is essential for normal development

Separation VS Deprivation

Separation = Child not being in presence of mother

Deprivation = Element of care has been removed

Maternal Deprivation : Critical period

First 30 months are critical period for psychological development

If deprivation occurs, damage is irreversible

Mat Deprivation : Intellectual Development

Abnormally low IQ

Goldfarb = Lower IQ in adopted children who spent longer in institutions

Mat Deprivation : Emotional Deprivation

Affectionless psychopathy : Inability to experience guilt

44 Thieves : Procedure

44 criminal teenagers interviewed to look for signs

Families also interviewed to establish if there is early separation

Control of non-criminal but emotionally disturbed teenagers

44 Thieves : Findings

14/44 thieves = Affectionless psychopaths, 12/14 = Prolonged separation in first 2 years

5/30 had experienced prolonged separation but no affectionless psychopathy

Control = 2/44 had experienced prolonged separation

EVAL : Poor evidence

Post-war study, means that the evidence is flawed

Care is likely to be poor, likely to have spent time in an institution

EVAL: 44 Thieves bias

Research done by Bowlby, he is looking for a certain result

EVAL : Counter evidence to 44 Thieves

Lewis = Looked at 500 young people, those with prolonged separation didn’t have criminality issues

EVAL: 44 Thieves, critical period

Bowlby believed damage within critical period was irreversible

Later evidence shows that damage within time period was potentially reversible

Twin boys isolated and frequently looked in cupboard, later looked after by loving adults and recovered fully

EVAL : Maternal deprivation, distinction between deprivation and privation

Bowlby muddled the definitions

Ritter = Damage that Bowlby saw is more likely to come from privation, lack of any attachment figure

Rutter’s Romanian Orphan Study: Procedure

165 orphans adopted into Britain, control = 52 British children adopted around same time

Assessed at 4, 6, 11, 15

Romanian Orphan Study: Findings, development

At 11 = Differential rates of recovery relating to age of adoption

Mean IQ, adopted before 6 months = 102

Mean IQ, adopted between 6 months and 2 years = 86

Mean IQ, adopted after 2 years = 77

Romanian Orphan Study = Findings, attachment

Adopted after 6 months = Showed signs of disinhibited attachment

Signs of attention seeking, clinging behaviour and indiscriminate behaviour towards adults

Bucharest Early Intervetion : Procedure

95 children, 12-31 months

Control = 50 children, never institutionalised

Bucharest Early Intervention : Findings

74% of control were securely attached according to Strange Situations

Institutionalised Group = 19% securely attached, 65% classified as disorganised attachment

Effects of institutionalisation : Disinhibited attachment

Equally affectionate to all people ?ensures survival?

Ritter= Adaptation to living with multiple CG during critical period

Effects of institutionalisation : Mental retardation

Ritter= Most showed signs before adoption, most adopted before 6 months caught up with control by 4 years old