Studied by 12 people
Looks like no one added any tags here yet for you.
Define attachment
A deep and enduring emotional bond between two individuals in which each individual sees the other as essential for their own emotional security.
What are the 4 attachment behaviours?
Proximity
Separation distress
Secure-base behaviour
Reunion behaviour
Define proximity
Try to stay physically close to whom they are attached to.
Define separation distress
Distressed when attachment figure leaves their presence
Define secure-base behaviour
Tend to make regular contact with attachment figures even when they are independent of them.
Define reunion behaviour
Respond emotionally when reunited with attachment figure.
Define interactional synchrony
Caregiver-infant mirror each others facial and body movement in time to sustain communication. Higher levels of synchrony have been associated with a better quality mother-infant relationship.
Give an example of interactional synchrony
The care-giver and infant may mirror each others facial expressions, such as sticking out their tongues at the same time.
Define the term reciprocity
Caregiver-infant interaction is a two way mutual process where each party turn takes by eliciting a response from the other in order to sustain communication.
Give an example of reciprocity
The caregiver may smile at the infant and in response, the infant may reach out their arms towards the caregiver.
Outline Meltzoff and Moore’s study - interactional synchrony
Meltzoff and Moore aimed to investigate how early infants were able to mirror adults. 6 infants between the ages of 12 and 21 days were shown 3 facial gestures (eg smiling) and 1 manual gesture (eg raising hand) sequentially. Infants responses were videotaped and scored by observers who were unaware of which gestures the infants had seen the adults do. The results showed that infants of this young age were able to mirror all four gestures. This suggests that synchronised behaviours are innate.
Outline Brazelton’s study - reciprocity
Brazelton et al aimed to investigate the reciprocal social interactions between mothers and their young infants. 12 mother-infant pairs were seen repeatedly over the infants first 5 months of life. During each videotaped and coded session, mothers would come from behind a curtain to play (using lots of positive facial expressions) with their infants for 3 minutes. The mother would then leave and the recording would continue for 30 seconds whilst the infant was alone. The mother would then return for second 3 minute face-to-face interaction but were instructed to present a still, unresponsive face. It was found that when mothers were carrying out face-to-face interactional play, the infants moved their bodies in a smooth, circular pattern and looked frequently at their mothers. However when the mothers stopped responding to them, the infants movements became jerky and they averted their gaze, followed by a short period of attempting to get their mothers attention, until finally they curled up and lay motionless. This suggests that reciprocal behaviours are crucial to attachment formation.
What are the evaluation points for caregiver-infant interaction studies
+ Well controlled procedures/replicable
- Low population validity
+ Practical application Antenatal classes
- Problems with testing infants’ behaviours
+ Well controlled procedures/replicable
A strength of the research is that they are controlled observations and are therefore highly controlled procedures. Infants interactions were filmed from different angles. This meant that very fine details were recorded and could be analysed later. This is a strength of caregiver-infant interaction as several researchers could re-watch the clips as many times as was necessary to ensure that all behaviour was recorded. Therefore the findings are likely to have high internal validity.
- Low population validity
A limitation of caregiver-infant interaction is that the supporting research has low population validity. Meltzoff and Moore’s sample consisted of 6 infants and Brazelton’s consisted of 12 mother-infant pairs. These are both very small sample sizes and therefore are not representative of all infants. This is a limitation because the findings about caregiver-infant interactions may be difficult to generalise to other infants and therefore has low external validity. In addition, due to the small sample size, the conclusions drawn about interactional synchrony and reciprocity may not be valid. Therefore this reduces the validity that caregiver and infants interact via interactional synchrony and reciprocity.
+ Practical application Antenatal classes
A strength of the research into caregiver-infant interaction is that it has led to practical applications. Professionals involved in antenatal care along with childcare websites have used the findings to encourage parents to interact with their babies. This aids healthy attachment formation in childhood which often continues throughout life and extends to later relationships. This reduces welfare and social services benefits and mental health costs to the NHS as individuals will be more likely to be happier, typically functioning adults. This is a strength of caregiver-infant interaction as this is a valuable contribution to society and helps to reduce long term costs of social services.
- Problems with testing infants’ behaviours
A limitation of observable research testing caregiver-infant interactions is that it is difficult to reliably test and is open to observer bias. Infants mouths are fairly in constant movement and the tested expressions can occur frequently by chance (eg sticking out tongue and smiling). This is a limitation as it can be difficult to distinguish between general activity and specific synchronised/reciprocal behaviours. As a result there is a great deal of interpretation of what the babies are actually doing and therefore the findings may not be valid.
However, Meltzoff and Moore videotaped the infants responses and observers were not made aware of the gesture the infants had seen the adults do. This technique increases the internal validity of their findings , which in turn strengthens the validity of the claim that infants do imitate caregivers behaviours.
What are the four stages of attachment
Asocial attachment
Indiscriminate attachment
Specific attachment
Multiple attachment
Describe asocial attachment
Asocial attachment takes place between the first 8 weeks. Babies are happier in the presence of other humans, particularly those who have a calming effect on them but their behaviour towards humans and non-human objects is quiet similar.
Describe indiscriminate attachment
Indiscriminate attachment takes place between 2-7 months. This is the beginning of attachment formation where babies show a preference for humans over inanimate items and prefer familiar to non-familiar people. However they will still accept attention and affection from all adults equally.
Describe specific attachment
Specific attachment takes place from 7 months where separation anxiety/distress and stranger anxiety occur. Babies will have formed a specific attachment which in 65% of cases is the mother and is largely based on reciprocity.
Describe multiple attachment
Takes place between 8-12 months where babies begin to form multiple attachments to those other than their primary attachment figure - secondary attachments (eg aunts, uncles, father etc)
Outline Schaffer and Emerson’s study into the stages of attachment
Schaffer and Emerson aimed to investigate the age at which attachment forms and with whom and the intensity of it. 60 babies (31 male and 29 female) and their mothers from working class families based in Glasgow were visited at home every month for the infants first year of life, and again at 18 months. The mothers were asked questions about their babies reactions when they were separated (separation anxiety) and when there was a stranger present (stranger anxiety).
They found that:
attachment developed in stages:
Asocial attachment takes place between the first 8 weeks. Babies are happier in the presence of other humans, particularly those who have a calming effect on them but their behaviour towards humans and non-human objects is quiet similar.
Indiscriminate attachment takes place between 2-7 months. This is the beginning of attachment formation where babies show a preference for humans over inanimate items and prefer familiar to non-familiar people. However they will still accept attention and affection from all adults equally.
Specific attachment takes place from 7 months where separation anxiety/distress and stranger anxiety occur. Babies will have formed a specific attachment which in 65% of cases is the mother and is largely based on reciprocity.
Multiple attachment takes place between 8-12 months where babies begin to form multiple attachments to those other than their primary attachment figure - (secondary attachments).
By 6-8 months most babies started to show separation anxiety from their attachment figure indicating that an attachment had been formed
65% - first attachment mother
3% - first attachment father
27% - joint first attachment
By 18 months, around 87% had at least 2 attachments, whereas 31% were attached to 5 or more people (multiple attachment)
Meltzoff and Moore concluded that attachment develops in different stages and the mother is not always necessarily the main attachment figure. They also concluded that attachments are more likely to be formed with those who displayed sensitivity and responsiveness rather than those who spent the most time with the child or those who fed them.
What are the evaluation points of Schaffer and Emerson’s study into the stages of attachment
+ Longitudinal research
- Low population validity
+ High ecological validity
- Self report data
+ Longitudinal research
A strength of Schaffer and Emerson’s research into the stages of attachment is that it was longitudinal. The research lasted 18 months where the same infants were followed up and observed regularly as opposed to different children at varying ages at the same time. This is a strength as it excludes the potential confounding variable, individual differences and therefore the findings have high internal validity.
- Low population validity
A limitation of Schaffer and Emerson’s research is that it has low population validity. The sample consisted of only 60 babies from working class families in Glasgow which remains the most deprived city in Scotland. High deprivation is often associated with single mothers, stay at home mothering or sometimes even both parents being unemployed. Therefore the sample may not be representative of babies from middle class families as they may have different experiences in terms of how much time at home they spend with their mothers, fathers and extended family members along with staff members at nursery. This is a limitation of the findings from the research as they may be difficult to generalise to all babies in the population (low external validity) - the pattern of development in these children may be difficult.
+ High ecological validity
A strength of Schaffer and Emerson’s study into the stages of attachment is that it has high ecological validity. Babies behaviours measured were natural as the observations were made by mothers during ordinary activities, who reported back to researchers. This means that babies behaviours were unlikely to be affected by the presence of the observers. This is a strength as the findings can be generalised to real life settings and therefore have high external validity.
- Self report data
A limitation of Schaffer and Emerson’s study is that the data was collected from the mother’s reports of their infants. Some mothers might have been less sensitive to their infants protests and were therefore less likely to report them. Moreover, some mothers may have given socially desirable answers because they may not want to disclose that their child is not attached to their father or that they don’t get upset when they are separated. This is a limitation of the study because the conclusions drawn about the stages in which attachment develops would not be valid.
Role of the father
Schaffer and Emerson found that although most babies became attached to their mothers first, 75% of infants studied formed an attachment with their father by the age of 18 months.
Alpha biased research over exaggerates the difference between genders regarding attachment as they claim that women are inherently better at caring for their offspring than men.
Evolutionary perspective - women have higher levels of the hormone oestrogen which increases emotional response to other’s needs and also have the hormone oxytocin which is released when the mother breastfeeds the new born .
Role of the father - play
Grossman - carried out a longitudinal study where he investigated both parent’s behaviours and its relationship to the quality of the child’s attachment into their teens. He found that the quality of attachment with the father was less important than the quality of attachment with the mother. However the quality of the fathers play with infants was related to children’s attachments in their teens. This suggests that fathers role in attachment is more to do with play and stimulation and less to do with nurturing.
Geiger - fathers play interactions with infants were a more boisterous, rough and tumble play in comparison to the mothers play which was more nurturing and affectionate. Fathers play was more exciting and pleasurable but both plays have an important role to play in the development of the child.
Role of the father - level of responsiveness
Field - when fathers are the primary caregiver, they are found to spend more time smiling, imitating and holding infants than secondary caregiver fathers. This suggesting that the key to the attachment relationship is the level of responsiveness and not the gender of the parent.
Lamb - children prefer interacting with fathers when they are in a positive emotional state but with mothers when they are distressed and need comfort. It was also found that when fathers became the sole caregiver, they quickly became more sensitive to the needs and emotional states of their children. This suggests that the extent of caregiver involvement is more crucial than the gender of the caregiver in predicting attachment quality.
What are the evaluation points the role of the father
- Low population validity
- Observer bias
+ Longitudinal research
+ Practical application
- Low population validity
A limitation of Schaffer and Emerson’s research is that it has low population validity. The sample consisted of only 60 babies from working class families in Glasgow which remains the most deprived city in Scotland. High deprivation is often associated with single mothers, stay at home mothering or sometimes even both parents being unemployed. Therefore the sample may not be representative of babies from middle class families as they may have different experiences in terms of how much time at home they spend with their mothers, fathers and extended family members along with staff members at nursery. This is a limitation because the findings about the role of the father may be difficult to generalise to all babies in the population (low external validity). Therefore this study is weak evidence to support the validity of the claim that the role of the mother and father is different.
- Observer bias
A limitation of the research into the role of the father is that social biases may prevent objective research. Stereotypes and preconceptions from common discussions on how fathers should behave (eg be more playful/stricter) may cause unintentional observer bias when observers ‘see’ what they expect rather than recording reality. This is a limitation because the conclusions drawn may be due to bias and therefore may lack internal validity. Therefore the research does not demonstrate a valid representation of the role of the father.
+ Longitudinal research
A strength of Grossman’s research into the role of the father is that it was longitudinal. The same families were followed up at three time points over a ten year period. This is a strength because the findings of the study will not be affected by confounding variables such as individual differences and therefore have high internal validity. Therefore Grossman’s study is strong evidence to support that the role of the father is different of that of the mother and strengthens the validity of the claim that the role of the father is more involved in play and stimulation.
+ Practical application
A strength of the research into the role of the father is that it has led to successful applications, such as male partner involvement in antenatal classes, and the birthing process. By valuing fathers more, men feel more able to be sensitive to the needs of their children. This leads to better attachments which in turn leads to better social and emotional development of children. This is a strength because it improves the quality of life for people as adults and reduces problems for them later in life which also reduces costs in the health and legal systems.
Define imprinting
An innate readiness to develop a strong bond with the mother which takes place between the critical period. If imprinting does not occur within this time period, it is unlikely to ever happen. Imprinting is the instinctive formation of an attachment due to exposure to a particular stimuli. It occurs without feeding.
Outline Lorenz’s study into imprinting
Lorenz aimed to investigate whether imprinting was innate/a ‘fixed action pattern’. He carried out a field experiement whereby he randomly dividied a cluth of goose eggs. Half hatched in their natural environment with their mother present whereas the other half hatched in an incubator with Lorenz present who imitated quacking sounds. To ensure imprinting had occurred, he placed the goslings under an upturned box, allowing them to mix. He found that when the box was removed, the two groups had seperated to go to their respective ‘mothers’. This suggested which mother they had imprinted on. He concluded that imprinting does not appear to be immediately active after hatching, but can occur within a 12-17 hour critical period. If no attachment has developed within 32 hours, it is unlikely that it will ever develop. Imprinting has consequences for both short term survival and in the long term forming internal templates for later relationships. It can occur without any feeding taking place.
Define contact comfort
The infants need for physical closeness and touching
Outline Harlow’s study into contact comfort
Harlow aimed to investigate the importance of contact comfort in understanding attachment behaviours. He removed 16 rhesus monkeys from their mothers immediately after birth and raised them in a lab setting, where they were kept in total isolation. there were 4 conditions with 4 monkeys in each. In two of these conditions, the monkeys had access to two surrogate mothers, one made of wire and the other covered in cloth. 4 of the monkeys could get milk from the wire mother and the other 4 from the cloth mother. Their behaviour was recorded including how much time was spent with each mother. He found that all 8 monkeys spent more time with the cloth mother mother even if she had no milk. The monkeys would only go to the wire mother when hungry but once fed, would return to the cloth mother for most of the day. There was also a fear condition in which a scary mechanical monkey was placed in the cage. Harlow found that the monkeys took refuge with the cloth mother, its ‘safe base’. This suggests that infants develop an attachment with those who offer them contact comfort, not those who feed them.
What were the long lasting effects of the monkeys in Harlows study?
Socially abnormal - froze/fled when approached by other monekys
Sexually abnormal - did not show normal mating behaviour and did not cradle their own babies
The effects of the monkeys maternal deprivation were permanent; they grew up to be less sociable, more aggressive and unskilled at mating.
What are the evaluation points for animal studies?
- Ethical issues
- Difficulty extrapolating to humans
- Contradicted by the learning theory
+ High control - Harlow
+ High control - Lorenz
- Ethical issues
A limitation of both animal studies is that they are unethical. The goslings that has imprinted on Lorenz could be argued to have been denied the opportunity to acquire many of the skills they would’ve learnt from their real mother. Moreover, the monkeys is Harlows study were permanently damaged, subjected to harm and some were even killed. This is a limitation because in both studies, the animals were harmed due to their participation in the research, which would not be allowed to occur today. However this ethically dubious use of animals does not render the finding as invalid.
- Difficulty generalising to humans
A limitation of both stuidies is that they use animals to investigate attachment behaviours. Lorenz’s study investiagted imprinting in geese and Harlows study investigated contact comfort in rhesus monkeys. This is a limiation because the findings may be difficult to generalise to humans due to the differences we have in the complexity of intelligence and communication in comparison to monkeys and geese. Therefore the studies are unable to help us understand if humans need contact comfort in the same way rhesus monkeys do or if imprinting is instinctive in humans as they are in goslings.
- Contradicted by the learning theory
A limitation of both animal studies is that their findings are contradicted by the learning theory. Lorenz found that goslings formed attachments through the process of imprinting and Harlow found that contact conmfort was imprortant in attachment. The learning theory contradicts these findings, instead claiming that attachment is formed through classical and operent conditioning on the basis of food and not as a result of imprinting or contact comfort. This is a limiation because the conclusions drawn by Harlow and Lorenz may not apply to humans.
+ High control - Harlow
A strength of Harlow’s study is that we can establish cause and effect. Harlow had high control over extraneous variables (he had more or less complete control of the environment) so can therefore be confident that it was the IV (wire/cloth mother) that caused the DV (how much time the monkeys spent with the ‘mothers’). This is a strength as the results of the study are unlikely to be affected by confounding variables and we can therefore be confident that the findings that contact comfort is important when forming an attachment is valid.
However it is important to note that both the cloth and wire monkeys weren’t only different in terms of what they were made of, but also the appearance of their heads - introducing a potential confounding variable. Therefore the validity of the findings may not be as high as they first appear.
+ High control - Lorenz
A strength of Lorenz’s experiment is that it can establish cause and effect. Lorenz had control over extraneous variables (he had more or less complete control of the environment) and can therefore be confident that it was the IV (whether the gosling hatched in their natural envoronment with their mother present or hatched in an incubator with Lorenz present) that caused the DV (whether the goslings imprinted on their real mother or Lorenz which was evident in who they followed once the box was removed). This is a strength of the study because the results are unlikely to be affceted by confounding variables and we can therefore be confident that the findings that imprinting occurs within a critical period are valid.
What is the learning theory?
behaviour is learnt, not innate
behaviour is learnt through classical and operant conditioning
children are born as ‘blank slates’ - behaviour can be explained in terms of their experiences.
‘cupboard love’ - children learn to love those who feed them
What is classical conditioning?
Refers to learning through association
What is the process of classical conditioning?
Food - unconditioned stimulus (UCS)
Baby being fed satisfies babies hunger making them feel pleasure which is an unconditioned response (UCR)
Babies caregiver is a neutral stimulus (NS) - they alone do not satisfy babies hunger yet
After many pairings of the caregiver (NS) providing food (UCS) satisfying babies hunger, resulting in them feeling pleasure (UCR), the two stimulis become associated (NS + UCS = UCR)
The baby has learnt to expect food from the caregiver who now becomes a conditioned stimulus (CS)
Finally the baby will now feel positive emotions in the presence of the caregiver (CS) even when they are not providing food. These positive emotions are the conditioned response (CR)
Consequently infant becomes attached to the caregiver because they are the CS which produces a CR
This results in an attachment
Before conditioning
Food (UCS) —> Baby feels pleasure (UCR)
During conditioning
Caregiver (NS) + Food (UCS) —> Baby feels pleasure (UCR)
After conditioning
Caregiver (CS) —> Baby feels please (CR)
What is operant conditioning?
Learning whether to repeat a behaviour as a result of its consequences. If the behaviour results in positive/pleasant consequences, it is more likely to be repeated (positive reinforcement).
What is the process of operant conditioning?
Babies feel hunger (innate/primary drive) - unpleasant
Eating stops this unpleasant feeling (drive reduction)
Babies cry (social releaser) to attract the attention of their caregiver and encourage them to provide food
Crying has been positively reinforced as it has led to the provision of food which has resulted in the baby feeling pleasure
Crying will be repeated in the future
Food - primary reinforcer
Caregiver providing the food is associated with pleasure - secondary reinfiorcer
Baby sees them as a source of reward
caregiver is motivated to behave in a way designed to stop the hearing of crying as it is unpleasant
The removal of an unpleasant stimuli is known as negative reinforcment (caregiver is rewarded with the removal of crying)
As a result caregiver is motivated to continue with the feeding process.
Attachment occurs because the child learns to seek the person who rewards it.
What are the evaluation points for the learning theory?
- Contradicted by Harlow
-/+ Explanotory power
- Contradicted by Schaffer and Emerson
- Contradiction of operant conditioning
- Contradicted by Harlow
A limitation of the learning theory is that it is contradicted by research from Harlows animal study. Harlow found that baby rhesus monkeys were most attached to the mother that provided them contact comfort, not the mother who provided food. This is a limitation of the learning theory as it suggests that feeding is not the key element to attachment formation and that other factors such as contact comfort can be argued to be more important. Therefore this reduces the validity of the learning theory explanation.
-/+ Explanatory power
A strength of the learning theory is that it does have explanatory power as it is evident that infants do learn through association and reinforcement. However the learning theory overlooks reinforces such as attention and responsiveness from a caregiver which are also important rewards that assist attachment formation, not only food. Therefore the learning theory does have at least some validity, however attachment formation may be more complex than just simply the provision of food.
- Contradicted by Schaffer and Emerson
A limitation of the learning theory is that it is contradicted by research using human participants. Schaffer and Emerson found that more than half of the infants that they studied were not attached to the person primarily involved in their physical care (feeding them). This is a limitation because it suggests that feeding is not a key element to attachment formation and that other factors other than food can be argued to have more importance in developing an attachment. This therefore limits the learning theory explanation.
- Contradiction of operant conditioning
A limitation of the learning theory is that many of it’s claims about operant conditioning have been contradicted by instances of child abuse. The learning theory would argue that neglect or punishment would decrease attachment behaviour however observations have shown that children still continue to show strong attachment behaviours to cruel parents who punish rather than reward them. This is a limitation as it suggests that operant conditioning does not play an integral role in attachment formation and is therefore not a valid explanation.
Outline Bowlby’s monotropic theory
MICE
monotropy
Infants attachment behaviours are shown indiscriminately at first, however they go on to develop a particularly close relationship with one carer who is with them constantly. Their attachment to them is different and is more important than it is with others. This person is known as the ‘primary attachment figure’ - a person to whom the baby is most attached. The more time spent with the primary attachment figure, the better - (law of continuity and law of accumulated separation)
Internal working model
Infants form a mental representation of their relationship with their primary attachment figure during early childhood. This is known as the ‘internal working model’ as it is a model upon which the child will base all their future relationships. An individuals expectations of what a relationship should consist of is significantly influenced by the IWM. The ‘continuity hypothesis’ states that a child who has grown up in a secure, loving environment with a suitable primary attachment is more likely to enjoy positive relationships in the future and be a good parent. However a child who has not benefitted in this way, will have lower expectations and issues with forming and maintaining future relationships as well as parenting.
Critical period
Bowlby claimed that there was a ‘critical period’ of 6 months to 2.5 years in which attachments must form. He believed that this was a biologically determined period in which if an attachment did not form, then it may not develop at all which could lead to severe effects on social and emotional development.
Evolution
Attachment is an innate process that gives a survival advantage (it’s adaptive). Bowlby used the term ‘social releasers’ to describe a set of biologically predisposed behaviours, which included cute giggles and the grip reflex which encourage adults to feel love towards, attach to and care for the baby as part of a reciprocal process. Social releasers attract and maintain the attention of the caregiver which is therefore advantageous of the babies chances of survival.
What are the evaluation points of Bowlby’s monotropic theory?
+ support for continuity hypothesis and internal working model
- idea of monotropy is not supported by all research
- contradicted by the learning theory
- overlooks the role of the father & is sexist
+ support for continuity hypothesis and internal working model
A strength of Bowlby’s theory is that there is research to support the continuity hypothesis and the internal working model. Hazan and Schaffer created a ‘love quiz’ questionnaire to explore the idea if there was continuity between early attachment types and the quality of later adult romantic relationships. They collected data in terms of ppts early attachment types and their attitudes towards and experiences of later adult relationships. They found that those who were securely attached as infants tended to have longer lasting relationships as adults but those who were insecurely attached as infants found adult relationships more difficult and tended to divorce and believed that love was rare. This supports the the IWM and continuity hypothesis as valid.
However its only correlational.
- idea of monotropy is not supported by all research
A limitation of Bowlby’s theory is that there is evidence to suggest that monotropic relationships aren’t as common as Bowlby makes them out to be. Schaffer and Emerson found that whilst most babies did attach to one person first, a significant minority formed multiple attachments at the same time. 27% formed joint first attachments. This is a limitation of Bowlby’s theory as it contradicts his claim that babies naturally form one attachment to a primary caregiver (monotropy) and therefore limits the validity of his theory of attachment.
- contradicted by the learning theory
A limitation of Bowlby’s monotropic theory is that it ignores the nurture side of the nature-nurture debate. Bowlby’s theory claims that attachment evolved as a behaviour that would increase survival chances and is therefore innate (nature). This contradicts the learning theory that claims attachment is learnt through association/reinforcement (nurture). This is a limitation as it suggests that the theory may not be complete or a valid explanation of attachment.
- overlooks the role of the father & is sexist
A limitation of Bowlby’s monotropic theory is that it overlooks the role of the father and regards him as unimportant in the infants early stages of life - his only importance is his economic contribution. Grossman contradicts this view as he found that whilst mothers played a key role in the nurturing process, fathers often played an important role by engaging in play. In addition, in many families the father is the primary attachment caregiver and in others, there is a great emphasis on conjugal roles in childcare. Therefore Bowlby’s theory can be seen as both outdated and sexist.
Outline Ainsworth’s strange situation study
Ainsworth aimed to investigate key attachment behaviours as a means of assessing the quality of a child’s attachment to a caregiver. The sample consisted of 100 middle class American infants. Psychologists observed the infants behaviour using a controlled observation procedure and a two way mirror. The behavioural categories used to judge the type of caregiver-infant attachment included safe base behaviour, separation anxiety, stranger anxiety and reunion behaviour. The procedure had 8 stages, each lasting 3 minutes. They involved the infant being alone with the mother, the infant with the mother and the stranger, the infant alone with the stranger or the infant by themselves. 66% of the infants were found to be securely attached, 22% were classified as insecure avoidant and 12% as insecure resistant. It was concluded that there is a clear association between the mothers behaviour and the infants attachment type, which has been termed the ‘caregiver sensitivity hypothesis’.
Outline characterictics of secure attachment
safe base behaviour - stay fairly close to their caregiver and use them as a safe base whilst exploring, returning to them regularly
separation anxiety - subdued when caregiver leaves the room, showing some distress
stranger anxiety - wary of the stranger and move closer to the caregiver (moderate stranger anxiety)
reunion behaviour - easily comforted
Outline characteristics of insecure avoidant
safe base behaviour - move relatively far away from their caregiver, be willing to explore independently
separation anxiety - unconcerned when caregiver leaves the room
stranger anxiety - very low
reunion behaviour - avoid contact with the caregiver, ignore them and won’t seek comfort
Outline characteristics of insecure resistant
safe base behaviour - stay very close and in physical contact with their caregiver and not be willing to explore
separation anxiety - extremely distressed
stranger anxiety - very high/extreme
reunion behaviour - seek physical contact with their caregiver but will reject all attempts to be comforted by them
Explain the caregiver sensitivity hypothesis
There is a clear association between the mothers behaviour and the infants attachment type.
‘sensitive’ mothers - responsive to the childs needs and respond to their moods and feelings correctly. More likely to have securely attached children.
Mothers who are less sensitive to the needs of their children (eg respond incorrectly, impatient or ignore the child) are more likely to have insecurely attached children
Securely attached - sensitive and responsive primary care
Insecure avoidant - unresponsive primary care and believe that communication of needs has no influence on caregiver
Insecure resistant - inconsistent primary care. Sometimes needs are met, sometimes they are ignored.
How does Ainsworth and Bowlby link
securely attached children - positive internal working model, view themselves as worthy of respect
insecure avoidant - negative internal working model, view themselves unworthy and unacceptable - caused by rejectng primary caregiver
insecure resistant - negative internal working model, have a negative self-image and exaggerate their emotional responses to gain attention
What are the evaluation points of the strange situation
- Low ecological validity
+ High predictive validity
- Cultural bias
- Fourth type
- Low ecological validity
A limitation of the strange situation is that it has low ecological validity. The strange situation was carried out in a controlled unfamiliar environment to the child and not in their own homes. The findings of the observations may not represent the attachment type displayed when the infant is at home eg the child may have been distressed in the strange situation due to the new environment and not due to separation anixiety or stranger anxiety. This is a limiation because the findings may not be valid as the strange situation may not have been a valid method of assessing attachment types.
+ High predictive validity
A strength of the strange situation as a method of assessing attachment types is that its outcomes predict several aspects of the infants later life. A large body of research has shown that children assessed as being securely attached tend to have better outcomes than others, in both later childhood and in adulthood. McCormick et al and Kokkinos et al found that they had better achievements in school and less involvement in bullying. Ward et al also found that securely attached children went on to have better mental health in adulthood. However babies assessed insecurely attached tended to have the worst outcomes. This is a strength because it suggests that the strange situation has high predictive validity and measures something real and meaningful in a baby’s development.
- Cultural bias
A limitation of the strange situation is that it is culturally biased as it was developed in America. Cultural differences in childrens experiences may mean they respond differently in the strange situation and caregivers may have different beliefs about raising children and so also behave differently. Takahashi found that japanese babies were extremely distressed when their mothers left the room - but this is hardly surprising as they are traditionally very rarely separated from their mothers (thus displaying insecure resistant attachment type when they are actually securely attached). Children in Germany are encouraged to be independent and may appear to show insecure avoidant attachment when they are actually securely attached. This is a limiation of the strange situation to assess attachment types as it suggests that it may not be valid to use in cultures other than that of America.
- Fourth type
A limitation of the strange situation as a method of assessing attachment types is that its identification of the types of attachment may not be complete. Main and Cassidy identified a further category of attachment - Type D. It was characterised by infants showing inconsistent, confused, indecisive, disoriented behaviour as well as stereotypical signs of distress such as rocking. This suggests that original three-type classification system was incomplete. This therefore means that the strange situation may not be a valid measure of attachment types as it does not identify type D infants.
Define culture
Culture refers to all the rules, customs, morals and ways of interacting that bind together members of a society/a collection of people.
What is a collectivist culture
Collectivists cultures value interdependence. They emphasise the importance of the group and are characterised by sharing things eg task, belongings and child rearing.
Eg Japan and China
What is an individualistic culture
Individualistic cultures value independence and the importance of the individual. Western cultures tend to individualistic.
Eg USA and UK
What is meant by cultural variations
The way in which different groups of people vary in terms of their social practices and the effects these practices have on development and behaviour.
Outline Van Ijzendoorn and Kroonenberg’s study into cultural variations of attachment
To investigate the types of attachment across cultures and to see if attachment types are universal or culture bound. They conducted a meta analysis of 32 studies from 8 different countries including America, Great Britain, West Germany and Japan. The sample consisted of 1,990 children where the strange situation was used to investigate secure and insecure attachment. They found that secure attachment was the most common attachment type across all cultures studied, followed by insecure avoidant and then insecure resistant. Great Britain had the highest percentage of secure attachment and China had the lowest. Germany had the highest percentage of insecure-avoidant attachment and Japan the lowest. Israel had the highest for insecure-resistant attachment followed by Japan but Great Britain had the lowest. The variation within cultures was 1.5 times greater than the variation between cultures. They concluded that their are cross-cultural similarities (eg secure attachment being the the most common universally) suggesting that many aspects of attachment are innate but there are also cross-cultural differences (eg not all babies globally are securely attached) suggesting that some aspects of attachment are influenced by culturally specific child-rearing practices.
Outline Takahashi’s study into criticisms of investigating cultural variations in attachment using the strange situation
Takahashi aimed to investigate the validity of using the strange situation as a method of studying cultural variations in attachment. He replicated Ainsworth’s strange situation in Japan and China and found that these countries have a higher incidence of insecure resistant compared to western cultures. They concluded that the variation within cultures was greater than the variation between cultures. He concluded that although the study demonstrates cross cultural variations in attachment, the test of attachment did not have the same meaning for his sample of children as it did for American infants i.e. Japanese mothers rarely leave their children alone and therefore the Strange situation was particularly distressing.
What are the evaluations for cross cultural studies?
+ Large sample size
- Unrepresentative sample
+ Indigenous research
- Imposed etic
+ Large sample size
A strength of Ijzendoorn and Kroonenberg’s meta-analysis is that it has a very large sample size and therefore has high population validity. The sample consisted of 1,990 babies and their attachment figures. This is a strength because large sample size increases the internal validity of the findings because it reduces the impact of biased methodology or unusual ppts over the meta-analysis as a whole. Therefore this adds validity to the theory that there are cultural variations in attachment as the evidence is strong.
- Unrepresentative sample
A limitation of Van Ijzendoorn and Kroonenberg’s study is that the samples they used may not be representative of the attachment type typical in any given country. Since the samples from each country were so small, they do not take into account subcultures apparent within them such as social class, ethnicity, culture and religion or whether people came from rural or urban locations. Within any culture, there are many sub-cultures, each of which may have different child-rearing practices. This is a limitation because the findings of the meta-analysis relating to the attachment type typical in any given country may not apply to all groups within that country. This means that the findings of this meta-analysis may have low external validity.
+ Indigenous research
A strength of Ijzendoorn and Kroonenberg’s meta-analysis is that most of the studies were conducted by indigenous psychologists. For example the meta-analysis included research from a German team (Grossman et al) and Takahashi who is Japanese. This means that many of the potential problems when conducting cross-cultural research could be avoided eg misunderstanding the ppts language, having difficulty communicating instructions or even bias due to nations stereotypes. This is a strength because there is a high chance that researchers and ppts communicated successfully. Therefore this increases the validity of the data collected about cross cultural variations in attachment.
- Imposed etic
A limitation of cross-cultural research is imposed etic, which occurs when we impose an idea or technique that works in one cultural context to another. For example in Britain and the USA, lack of affection on reunion in the strange situation may indicate an avoidant attachment however in Germany this may be viewed and independence rather than insecurity. Therefore this part of the strange situation may not work in Germany. This is a limitation because it means that the behaviours measured by the strange situation may not have the same meanings in different cultural contexts. Therefore comparing them across cultures is meaningless and any conclusions drawn will not be valid.
Define maternal deprivation
Refers to a lack of adequate nurturing for a young child due to the absence of, premature loss of or neglect by its primary caregiver. Bowlby proposed that prolonged separation from this adult causes serious damage to the child’s emotional and intellectual development.
What is the difference between separation and deprivation
Outline and describe Bowlby’s theory of maternal deprivation
Maternal deprivation refers to the lack of adequate nurturing for a child due to the absence of, premature loss of or neglect by a caregiver. Bowlby argued that it was essential that a child has a ‘warm, intimate and continuous relationship’ with a mother to ensure continuing normal mental health. Bowlby believed that there was a critical period of 6 months to 2.5 years in which if a child was denied such maternal care due to frequent/prolonged separations, it could lead to the child becoming emotionally disturbed. He emphasised that the effects were permanent and that once the disruption had occurred, it was irreversible. The long term consequences include abnormally low IQ, emotional problems such as depression and mood swings, juvenile delinquency (criminal behaviours in youth such as theft) and affectionless psychopathy characterised by the inability to experience guilt for their actions or empathy for others. Maternal deprivation could impact their IWM, making it harder for children to develop good relationships with others and their own children in the future.
Long term consequences
Low IQ - maternal deprivation during the critical period causes learning difficulties characterised by an abnormally low IQ. (Goldfarb - found lower IQ levels in children who had remianed in institutions as opposed to those who were fostered and had a higher standard of emotional care)
Emotional problems - maternal deprivation during the critical period causes mood disorders such as depression
Juvenile delinquency - maternal deprivation during the critical period causes criminal behaviours in youth such as theft.
Affectionless psychopathy - maternal deprivation during the critical period causes ‘affectionless psychopathy’ characterised by the inability to experience guilt for their actions or feel empathy for others.
Outline Bowlby’s study on the effects of maternal deprivation (44 theives study)
Bowlby aimed to investigate the link between maternal deprivation and affectionless psychopathy. He interviewed ‘juvenile delinquents’. His sample consisted of 44 children ranging between the ages of 5 to 16. They had been referred to the clinic because they had been caught stealing. Within this group of thieves, Bowlby identified a subgroup who he described as affectionless psychopaths. He also used a control group of 44 children who were not thieves but who had been referred to the clinic for emotional problems. Bowlby interviewed the children and their parents collecting information about their early life, especially any extended separations during the critical period. It was found that 86% of the affectionless psychopaths had experienced prolonged separations from their mothers during the critical period as well as 17% of the other thieves and 4% of the control ppts. Almost none of the control ppts had experienced early separations whereas 39% of all the thieves had. Bowlby concluded that there was a link between maternal deprivation and affectionless psychopathy. A lack on continuous care can result in emotional maladjustment/mental disorder.
What are the evaluation points of Bowlby’s maternal deprivation theory
+ Supported by Harlow
- Conclusions drawn are correlational
+ Practical application
- Retrospective data social desirability
+ Supported by Harlow
One strength of the maternal deprivation study is that it is supported by Harlow. Harlow’s research showed that when baby rhesus monkeys were separated from their real mothers (maternal deprivation), this led to severe long term consequences. For example, they were more aggressive and were sexually and socially abnormal. They even neglected their own young. This is a strength because it shows that there are long term consequences for monkeys when separated from their mothers. However there are issues extrapolating animals to humans.
- Conclusions drawn are correlational
A limitation of Bowlby’s 44 thieves research is that the conclusions drawn from it are correlational. The research cannot establish cause and effect as we cant be sure that it was maternal deprivation that caused affectionless psychopathy as there may have been confounding variables which may have influenced the children to engage in criminal behaviour eg their peers. This is a limitation because the findings that maternal deprivation leads to problems later may not be internally valid. Therefore Bowlby’s study is weak evidence to support the material deprivation as a valid theory.
+ Practical application
A strength of Bowlby’s maternal deprivation study is that it has led to practical applications. For example it has led to dramatic change in the care for children’s in hospitals. For instance, parents are encouraged to visit their children and stay with them in hospitals. This is a strength because the theory has made a positive contribution to the real world and the development of a large proportion of children. This has also made an economic benefit as it has reduced costs of social services for children and adults.
- Retrospective data and social disarability
A limitation of Bowlby’s study is that it may have been subject to memory or social biases due to the self-report methodology. Bowlby interviewed children and their mothers collecting information about their early life, especially any extended separations during the critical period . This is a limitation because the mothers and especially the children had to think back to many years ago when their memories about extended separations may have been distorted. Moreover, mothers may have given socially desirable answers by painting their parenting in a more positive light by downplaying the length of the time the separation lasted for, the child’s reaction to it and the age their child was during it. This is a limitation because this would decrease the internal validity of the findings. Therefore Bowlby’s study is weak evidence to support the maternal deprivation as a valid theory.
Define institutionalisation
Institutionalisation refers to the effects of living in an institutional setting. The term ‘institution’ refers to a place like a hospital or an orphanage where children live for long continuous periods of time. In such places there is often very little emotional care provided.
Outline and explain the effects of institutionalisation
Disinhibited attachment
Attention seeking, clinginess and social behaviour directed indiscriminately towards all adults familiar and unfamiliar - may be due to the adaptation to multiple caregivers during their critical period - they were unable to form a secure attachment with any of them
intellectual delay (supported by Rutter)
Institutionalised children often show signs of intellectual delay (mental retardation) however this effect is not as pronounced if the child is adopted before the age of 6 months
Disorganised attachment (supported by zeanah)
They show signs of secure attachment and both insecure attachment types interchangeably
Outline Rutter’s english and romanian adoptee study
Rutter aimed to inevstigate to what extent good care could make up for poor early experiences in childhood. 165 Romanian orphans adopted in Britain were longitudinally assessed for physical, congnitive and emotional development at the ages of 4, 6, 11 and 15 years of age. There was also a control group of 52 British children adopted around the same time.
Half of the Romanian orphans showed intellectual delay when they came to the UK. At age 11, recovery rates were related to their age of adoption:
Those adopted before six months had a mean IQ of 102
Those adopted between 6 months and 2 years had a mean IQ of 86
Those adopted after 2 years had a mean IQ of 77
The frequency of disinhibited attachment related to the age of adoption:
Apparent in children adopted after they were 6 months old: clinginess, attention-seeking and indiscriminate affection to strangers
Rare in children adopted before the age of six months
Rutters findings concluded that there is a critical period in which an attachment should be formed and that failure to form an attachment before the age of 6 months appears to have long lasting effects in terms of a child’s IQ and their attachment.
Outline Zeanah’s study - The Bucharest early intervention project
Zeanah aimed to investigate the type of attachment in children who have been institutionalised. Researchers used the strange situation to assess the attachment type in 95 children aged between 12-31 months who had spent most of their lives in institutionalised care. They were compared to a control group of 50 children who had never experienced institutionalised care. They found that 74% of the control group were found to be securely attached as compared with only 19% of the institutional group. 44% of the institutionalised group were classified with ‘disinhibited attachment’, as compared with only 20% of the control group. 65% of the institutionalised group were classified with ‘disorganised attachment’. The findings support the view that children who are raised in institutions are less likely to show secure attachments maybe due to not having had a primary attachment figure or even secondary attachment figures.
What are the evaluations of orphan studies
+ Practical applications
+ Reliability of the findings
+ Fewer exxtraneous variables than other research
- Zeanah ethical issues
+ Practical applications
A strength of the Romanian orphan studies is that they have led to practical applications. The studies have led to significant improvements in how children are looked after in institutions. For instance, children are now only assigned one or two key workers each to look after them. Additionally, the adoption process has been shortened from an average of years to months, and long-term as opposed to short-term fostering placements are much more frequently achieved than in the past. This is a strength because the studies have made a positive contribution to the real world and have improved the well-being of thousands of children as they have more stable, long term substitute attachment bonds.
Note
Flashcard