Please enable JavaScript.
Coggle requires JavaScript to display documents.
PL3234 Week 6 Emotions Attachment Morality (EMOTIONS (Attachment…
PL3234
Week 6
Emotions
Attachment
Morality
EMOTIONS
Function
Communication
e.g. The Still Face Experiment
(Tronick, 1975)
Develop attachment with caregiver
matter of survival
Health
Stressed infants
emotional neglect in certain orphanages
Fatal failure to thrive
Infants monitor caregivers' affect
social referencing
judge situations
Emotional Intelligence
Social referencing
Empathy
Pride & Embarassment
Cultural
Emotional Scripts
Ethnic variations
Development of Emotions
Types
PRIMARY
What are they?
Sadness
< commonly displayed than anger
Often as a response
Disruption in caregiver-infant communication
Happiness
Smile: Since birth
Duchenne Smiles
Social smile: 6 to 10 weeks
Laugh: 3 to 4 months
Fear
1st fears: 6 to 12 months
Stranger anxiety: 8 to 12 months
Temperament plays a role
individual differences
of unfamiliar events/persons
True fears: 9 months
Separation anxiety: 15 months
Surprise
Disgust
Interest
Anger
General distress: since birth
Anger: 4 to 6 months
Increases with age
Evident early on
SECONDARY
Require input from environment
e.g. Differentiating between pride & shame
task performance
responses from others
Require scripting
Social referencing
Need adult instruction on when to feel them
Socialisation
Emerge later
Involves an element of self-consciousness
#
Concept of the self
Reflection on performance
Requires external input (cues from parents)
What are they?
Shame
Embarassment
Pride
Guilt
personal responsibility
individual has a degree of control over a given situation
Jealousy
commonly surface in response to siblings
disproportionate amount of attention received from caregivers
Perspectives
Genetic-maturational
Emotions develop in a continuous fashion
Genetic predisposition matters
Heritable traits mature
Emotions have biological underpinnings
Individual differences in temperament surface
Shown through twins research
Learning
Our emotions develop through learning
matching with caregivers
Social referencing
Observing adults
#
Observing peers
Behaviourism
Conditioning
Reinforcement
Cognition meets emotions
Social Referencing
e.g. Cliff Experiment
process where infant takes cues from others in the environment
infants observe the behaviour of others
emulate their actions and behaviours
choose their next course of action accordingly
to determine which emotions & actions are appropriate in a certain context / situation
Emotional 'Scripts'
Children learn to
match
emotional reactions to specific events through emotional 'scripts'
Based on Silvan Tomkins script and affect theory
gets more complex as children mature
complex scripts include desires, goals and intentions of others
realise conflicting feelings can be experienced at the same time
victorious / joyous feeling of winning war
sadness at seeing death of compatriots
"self-"
regulation
Conscious
Cognition meets emotions, when we start to need a "self"
Involves thinking about you, awareness and reflection
meta-
Attachment
Linking
Emotions and Attachment
(Silvers & Haidt, 2008)
Elevation increases oxytocin in nursing mothers
mothers more likely to nurse or cuddle their babies
links feelings of elevation (emotion) to physiological mechanism / behaviour
suggests possible physiological mechanism underlying feelings of elevation
witnessing virtuous acts of moral goodness
Theory
John Bowlby
A strong emotional and physical
attachment
to at least one caregiver is critical to personal development
Children come into this world
biologically
pre-programmed
to form attachments with others
because this helps them
survive
inspired by ethological theory of imprinting
Sigmund Freud
Psychoanalytic
Attachment is linked to the gratification of our innate drives / desires
Nativist position
Albert Bandura
Social learning theory
Our primary drive of hunger is reduced by primary reinforcer (food)
Observational learning
Jean Piaget
Cognitive development
Linked to object permanence
4 to 9 months
Experiments
The Strange Situation
Mary Ainsworth (1965)
#
Why?
Test the quality of a child's attachment with the caregiver
How?
Structured behavioural observation
Role of Stranger - Induce anxiety
"Reunion"
Argue what?
Secure
responsive / sensitive caregiver
Insecure
Avoidant
Unresponsive / insensitive caregiver
Resistant /
Ambivalent
Inconsistency of caregiver in responding to needs of infant
Disorganised
Unpredictable caregiver
Separation Anxiety (child/mother)
almost universal
Kids will cry when mothers leave around 10 to 35 months
Criticism
Poor sample selection
Only American Middle Class families
Poor validation
Reactions of infant may reflect
transient
moods rather than enduring patterns of relationship
Emphasise
too
much
on mother /
caregiver
not easy to show strong
links
between variations in type of attachment and
later characteristics
Harlow's Monkeys
need for attachment supersedes need for food
Primate instinct - comfort
Habituation Testing
Securely attached infant looks longer at unresponsive caregiver
Because the scenario was abnormal/uncommon to him/her
Parent's Role
Parent's emotional state & well-being has a big impact on attachment style
Emotional Attunement
Healthy Parents
Responsive to child's emotional state
Depressed mothers
(Field, et. al., 1990)
Subtypes
Intrusive
Disengaged
Mixed
Results
Less synchrony in baby's states and mother's state (behaviour-state matching)
More protests by babies of depressed mothers
Adult
John Gottman
Negative patterns predicting divorce
Critcism
Contempt
Defensiveness
Stonewalling
Emotional withdrawal from an interaction
Factors affecting
parenting style
Internal working models of attachment
cyclical impact of attachment & parenting style
cultural influences
MORAL DEVELOPMENT
Lawrence Kohlberg's Stages (1971)
PRE
1) Punishment & Obedience Orientation
2) Instrumental Relativist
CONVENTIONAL
3) Interpersonal concordance / "good boy - nice girl" orientation
4) "Law and Order" Orientation
POST
5) Social contract legalistic Orientation
6) Universal Ethical Principle Orientation
Heinz's Dilemma (Stolen Drug)
Early Morality
Implications
Age of Criminal Responsibility
Who's responsible?
Who's at fault?
Nature vs. Nurture
Nativist vs. Empiricist