AQA Psychology- Attatchment (imported)

Reciprocity

Interations between cafegiver + infant involving mutual respnsivness( when caregiver doesnt respond infant is confused + upset suggesting reciprocity is important in developing relationships

Evidence for reciprocity

Tronick et al (1975)- still face. After 3 mins of attempted interaction with a non- responsive expressionless Mum baby's rapidly grow wary and make repeated attempts to get usual reaction. When it failed they withdrew and turned their face and body away from Mum with a hopeless expression

interactional synchrony

Interactions between caregiver and infant are synchronised to sustain communication (mirroring or responding in a coordinated way

Evidence for interactional synchrony

Meltzoff and Moore (1997)- 6 babies aged 12-27 days + 12 16-21 days. There shown facial gestures and manual gestures in order to investigate their abilities to imitate. The 12-21 could imitate gestures suggesting this ability is present from birth and has important function

What was the Stages of attachment study

Schaffer and Emerson 1964. Longitudinal- in Scotland-60 infants every 4 weeks for a year and again at 18 months. Attachment was measured by levels of protest (measures by asking mums on a 4-point scale) and stranger anxiety ( measured by assessing how infants responded to interviewer at each visit )

Strengths and weaknesses of Schaffer and Emerson 1964

St- Naturalistic- high validity.

We- large differences in when attachment formed doubt over process of attachment formation begging exclusively biological

We- data was collected by direct observation or mums with both being prone to bias and inaccuracy

Results of Schaffer and Emerson

1- most started to show separation anxiety at 6-8m + stranger anxiety 1 m later

2- strongly attached infants had mums who responded to need quickly + gave more opportunities for interaction

3- most developed multiple attachments. 87% at 18m,31% had more than 5

4- attachments to different people were of a similar nature with infants behaving in same way

5- 39% of infants prime attachment was not main caregiver

Pre-attachment

Birth- 3 months.

From 6 weeks infants became attracted to other humans preferring them over objects which is demonstrated by smiling at people

indiscriminate

3-7/8 m

Infants discriminated between familiar and unfamiliar people smiling at known but still aloe strangers to hold and look after them. (Evidence separation anxiety)

discriminate

7/8 m

Infants develop specific attachments staying close to particular people and being distressed when separated. Avoid unfamiliar people + protest when strangers hold them ( evidence - stranger anxiety)

Multiple attachments

9 months onward. Infants form strong emotional ties with other major caregivers. Fear of strangers weakens but attachment to Mum stays strongest( evidence -87% has a least two attachments)

Conclusions from Schaffer and Emerson

Common attachment formation process- biologically controlled. Attachments are easily made in quality time than a lot of time. Multiple attachments are the norm- opposed bowlby- sensitive, redoing and recon finishing children's needs

Evaluating Schaffer and Emerson

Temporal validity- overtime yes suggests biological process

Population validity- weak ,good external validity as it was at own home so behaviour is more natural

Useful- for interventions, assessment and support

Hrdy 1997

Found that dads were less able than mums to detect low levels of infants distress suggesting they're less suitable as primary caregivers

Lamb 1987

Found dads who became main caregivers quickly developed more sensitivity to children's needs. This suggests that sensitive responsiveness isn't biologically limited to women

Frodi et al 1978

Showed videos of infants crying and found no difference in the physiological responses of men and women suggesting that biological factors might not explain the gender differences in attachment relationships

Geiger 1996

Found dads play interactions are more exciting and pleasurable than mums whilst mums are more nurturing and affectionate suggesting they have different roles

Evaluating the role of father in attachment

Social sensitivity- could suggest dads have less important role (hrdy)

Application to real life- advice , attachment training to help secure attachments (lamb)

Ethnocentrism- based on ideology that mums are primary attachment may not be case for all cultures (hrdy, lamb, frodi)

Lorenz 1935 aim and procedure

A- investigate process of imprinting.

P- 1- randomly split goose eggs 1(iv) naturally hatched by Mum 2 hatched in incubator Lorenz was first moving object they saw (dv)

2- hatched 2 groups and placed them together in upturned box and recorded behaviour

Lorenz results

Naturally hatched followed Mum. Incubator followed Lorenz. When realised no recognition of natural Mum. Critical period of 1st 2 days persistent present moving object: irreversible and long lasting. Sexual imprinting

Evaluation of Lorenz

St- highly influential. Attachment function is biological and irreversible. Led to others developing theory's (bowlby)

We- later found that it's reversible - chicken and rubber glove

We- generalisability- animals to humans

Lorenz generalisability

No. Extrapolation. Humans and animals are physically different and human attachment is more emotional

Lorenz reliability

Yes high control setup and it has been repeated with animals

Lorenz applications

Helped develop bowlby theory of attachment - critical period and this is influential in childcare

Lorenz Validity

It measured the process of imprinting which is what it intended and it's a field experiment so high ev could question incubator - lab?

Lorenz ethical issues

Could the pursuit of academic-conclusions for human benefit be detrimental to animals

Harlow 1959 aim and conditions

A- test learning theory by comparing attachment behaviours

Background- are attachment primarily made through food?(no)

2 types of surrogate mother - wire and cloth

4 conditions:

- 2 surrogates with milk

- wire, no milk, towelling milk

- wire mother- milk

- cloth / towelling Mum - milk

Harlow dv

Amount of time spent with each mother and feeding

- frightened with noise to test for mother preference

- exploration

Harlow implications

Early attachment experiences predict long term social development - childcare physical needs alone not enough

Monkey with wire Mum alone had diarrhoea (stress)

Harlow results

Preferred towelling mother regardless of milk

Cling to towelling Mum when scared

More exploration when cloth Mum present

Innate/ unlearned need for contact/comfort

Emotional security for attachment

Evaluation Harlow

Generalisability- monkeys are more similar to humans that geese

Reliability- controlled experiment

Applications - in a childcare setting meet all needs

Validity- heads of 2 wire monkeys different could affect internal validity

Ethical issues -Harlow study's created lasting emotional harm as monkeys later found it difficult to form relationships and some died

classical conditioning refers to learning through

Association

operant conditioning refers to learning through

Rewards/ punishment

classical conditioning and attachment

Unconditioned stimulus = pleasure

Neutral stimulus = no response

Ns + ucs = pleasure

Conditioned stimulus = pleasure

Food to a child is a

Primary reinforcer as it fulfils a biological need

The child caregiver becomes a

Secondary reinforcer because they provide the source of pleasure reinforcer

When the caregiver feeds the child the crying an undesirable action stop this acts as

Negative reinforcement for the caregiver and in the future when the child cries they will comfort it in the same way because this removed the negative experience in the past

Evaluating learning theory face validity

Oversimplified version of human behaviour as largely based on animals. Some value as we do learn things through association and reinforcement but not just food

Evaluating learning theory contradictory evidence

Harlow attachment doesn't develop because of feeding monkeys attached to cloth monkeys with no food.

Schaffer and Emerson best quality attachments are with sensitive caregiver reciprocity and interactional synchrony

Evaluating learning theory how does nowlbhs explanation differ

Only need food occasionally but constantly require love food and learning theory is not the main reason for formation of attachment

Evaluating learning the theory is psych a science

Observable behaviours

can set up

Evaluating learning theory

Reductionist

Bowlbys monotropic attachment theory

His theory believe that attachment behaviours serve an evolutionary advantage and are coded in our genetic structure. This theory believes in nature not nurture and attachment is a set of behaviours that have aided our survival and allowed our genes to continue

Bowlbys theory

1- attachment is innate and adaptive- maintain proximity to Mum

2- cafe giving is also innate and adaptive

3. Attachment is monotropic - inbuilt tendency to attach to 1 figure most important relationship

4- has a critical period - where attachments must occur 2-5years

5- attachment provides a secure base

6- attachment forms out internal working model- a template for future relationships based on primary attachment - cognitive model

Monotropic strengths and weakness

Strengths - need for monotropic appears to be universal but (weakness) it's over emphasised

Bowlby monotropic evaluation supporting evidence

Lorenz imprinting is innate and with a critical period - geese's 1 person which is monotropic behaviour

Harlow- need for emotional security and early development affect later development

Bowlby monotropic evaluation methodological problems with supporting evidence

Use of animals can't be generalised

Bowlby monotropic evaluation supporting eveidence

The Minnesota longitudinal study (sroufe at al 2005) found support for the continuity hypothesis with secure infants being rated as more socially competent less isolated and more popular in late adolescence than insecurely attaches infants

Bowlby monotropic evaluation real world applications

Importance of primary care giver

Bowlby monotropic evaluation contradictory evidence

Schaffer and Emerson multiple attachment seen at some time

Bowlby monotropic evaluation is monotropic socially sensitive

For workin mums? And if things go wrong is it the mums fault

Strange situation behavioural categories

Proximity seeking

Reunion behaviour

Exploration and secure base behaviour

Separation anxiety

Stranger anxiety

Strange situation insecure attachment avoidant (type a)

15% of uk studies

Proximity seeking - ignored Mum and was indifferent to her presence

Reunion behaviour - ignored or avoided when she returned

Exploration and secure base - willing to explore

Separation anxiety -little stress when she left

Stranger anxiety- low

Strange situations securely attached (type B)

70% of uk studies

P- played contently , explore

R- daughter comfort and calmed down

E- keen to explore

S-distressed when Mum left

S- stranger anxiety stranger treaded differently to Mum

Strange situation Type c- insecurely attached resistant

15% of uk studies

P- unwilling to explore, fussy , wary

R- reject contact at return of caregiver anger but daughter contact

E- unwilling

S- distressed

Main and Solomon

Review the strange situation research and felt that not all children could be allocated to one of Ainsworth three categories of attachment type. They identified a fourth type- insecure disorganised attachment wherein the infant shows no consistent patterns of social behaviour lacks a coherent strategy for dealing with separation and shows a combination of strong attachment behaviour and avoidance or fear

Kagan (1987)

Suggested that Ainsworth theory overplays the sensitivity of the mother and ignores the child's temperament

Evaluating Ainsworth's strange situation reliability

High control standardised behaviour. High inter rater -94%

Evaluating Ainsworth's strange situation reductionist

Maternal sensitivity may not be the only factor to help explain different attachment types

Evaluating Ainsworth's strange situation validity

Predictive validity - yes predictive of later developments (varies with parent m/f)

Ecological- low as it's artificial - lab which could affect ps behaviour

Evaluating Ainsworth's strange situation ethics

Deliberately stressed infants but stress caused is no greater that of everyday life

Evaluating Ainsworth's strange situation generalisability

Could be culture based. Some cultures don tk ave children with stranger. Child reciprocity style vary across cultures

Culture means

Customs and social behaviour of a particular group or society

Van ijzendoorn and kroonenberg (1988) aim

Assessed the extent of between and within cultural differences in attachment types. Assess similarity's and differences in amount of a,b and c types

Van ijzendoorn and kroonenberg (1988) procedure

32 studies , 8 countries used strange situation 1990 Mum and child pairs

Van ijzendoorn and kroonenberg (1988) findings

65% secure, 21% avoidant 14% resistant

Between cultural differences 15* greater than cross cultural. This means differences in attachments types a- more western cultures and type c- found more in Israel China and Japan

Van ijzendoorn and kroonenberg (1988) conclusions

Difference in cross cultural groups

Interculture difference are higher

Van ijzendoorn and kroonenberg (1988) disadvantage

USA dominated the sample 1230 pairs

Takahashi et al 1990 procedure

60 middle class Japanese infants and mothers same strange situation

Takahashi et al 1990 findings

68% secure- b

32% insecure - resistant -c

Takahashi et al 1990 explanation

90% of infants alone had to be shipped anxiety and ethics

Child rearing different in Japan - cultural differences

Rarely separated from mums and middle class?

Attachment patterns vary cross culturally

Evaluation of research into cultural variations in attachment - positive

Research into cultural variation in attachment supports an arid approach to explaining attachment for example van ljzendoorn and kroonenberg found secure attachment to be the most common attachment type across all cultures they studies suggesting that that is the norm

Evaluation of research into cultural variations in attachment- positive

The research into cultural variations in attachment can be considered high reliability because it uses the strange situation procedure. This is highly replicable because it uses standardised procedures for example standardised episodes, 16 square room and video recorded. This means we can use the same procedure to check the consistently of findings such as van and kronnenberg

Evaluation of research into cultural variations in attachment- negative

However it could be argued that the findings of research into cultural variations in attachment lacks validity as it can be seen as using an imposed etic. This means that researchers study human behaviour in different parts of the world using theories and studies developed in western cultures. Therefore the findings of this research may not actually show meaningful differences and could be harmful assuming western ideas on attachment are best

Evaluation of research into cultural variations in attachment- negative

In addition it is hard to generalise the findings of the research to the whole culture being studied. China only had a total of 25 infants in one study included in the data and this does not represent such a huge country.

Bowlbys explanation of attachment

Evaluating - genetically programmed to behave towards their mothers in a way that increases survival chances

Inbuilt tendency to make an initial attachment to 1 figure usually mother

Bowlbys explanation of attachment

Bowlby proposed that attachment was innate. According for bowlby infants use social realisers to elicit caregiving these include characteristics or behaviours which encourage caregiver to respond to banana needs. Bowlby suggest there is a critical period during the first 3 years of a child life during which attachment must develop to avoid negative effect. This was previously viewed a —- period suggesting attachments could not happen after this time but this was later changed to an ideal sensitive period after which attachment would be very didficult. Bowlby also beloved in the concept of monotropic the idea that infants have one primary attachment that is more importnat that all other secondary attachments . Attachments provide a secure base do the child to explore he works this means the child is happy to venture off on their own knowing their caregiver is there to return to when they need them. It also provides an internal working model or internalised concept about how relationships work which acts as a template for all later live relationships. The continuity hypothesis suggests that there is a clear link between early attachment and later emotional behaviour.

self esteem

An individually emotional evaluation of his/her own worth

Interpersonal trust which is

Perception you have that other went do anything to harm you Interests

Type B Attachment

The child uses the care giver as a safe base from which to explore

They show moderate distress on separation but clearly welcome the caregiver when she returns

They can be settled down easily and they are wary of strangers

Type C attachment

Very distressed on separation and not easily comforted when the caregiver returns

They can appear angry and often reject attempts to comfort them

They seem to expect the relationship to be difficult and alternate between closeness and maintaining distance from the care giver

Type A attachment

The infant does not seem to orientate themselves around the caregiver

They can show distress on separation but they don't rush to the caregiver in their return

They often keep a safe distance and avoid closeness

Evaluating the influence of early attachment on childhood and adult relationships positive

There is research evidence to support the influence of attachment types on childhood relationships for example Stroud found attachment quality shaped laser individual personality and social type. In addition Myron - mason and smith (1998) assessed attachment type and bullying involvement using standardised questionnaires in 196 children aged 7-11 from London. They found securely attached children were very unlikely to be involved in bullying where as insecure avoidant children were the most likely to be victims and insecure resistant children were most likely to be bullies

Evaluating the influence of early attachment on childhood and adult relationships- positive

There is supportin evidence for the influence of early attachment on adult relationships in a landmark tidy by hazen and shaver (1987) the love Quickendon. Attachment types correlated with relationship quality and behaviours ev B = healthy c= clingy and insecure. Supports theory that childhood attachments affect adult relationships

Evaluating the influence of early attachment on childhood and adult relationships negative

However there are methodological problems wih hazen and shavers study. No way of