Please enable JavaScript.
Coggle requires JavaScript to display documents.
Attachment summary (CAREGIVER-INFANT INTERACTIONS (DESCRIPTION…
Attachment summary
CAREGIVER-INFANT INTERACTIONS
DESCRIPTION
Reciprocity - Reciprocity is responding to the actions of another with similar action, where the actions of one partner elicit a response from another partner.The responses are not necessarily similar as in interactional synchrony
Brazelton - The mother anticipates infant signals, basis of attachment
Interactional Synchrony - When two people interact they tend to mirror what the other person is doing in terms of their facial expressions and body movement. This includes imitating emotions as well as behaviours. This is described as synchrony
Meltzoff and Moore - 3 day old babies imitate mothers
Piaget - Behaviour is pseudo-imitation (operant conditioning)
Murray and Trevarthen - Infant distress if no response, supports innateness (frozen face)
EVALUATION
Testing infant behaviour is difficult as they are in constant motion
Failure to replicate Meltzoff and Moore (Marian et al, live VS taped interactions)
Intentionally supported - No response to inanimate object (Anravanel and DeYoung)
FURTHER EVALUATION -
Individual differences - Security of attachment associated with interactional synchrony (Isabelle et al)
'Like me' hypothesis (Meltzoff) - Interactional synchrony leads to theory of mind
THE DEVELOPMENT OF ATTACHMENT
DESCRIPTION
Schaffer and Emerson studied 60 infants and mothers from Glasgow
Stage 1 : Indiscriminate attachment
Stage 2 : Beginnings of attachment
Stage 3 : Specific attachment
Stage 4 : Multiple attachment
The role of the father - Changing social practices, increased exposure might lead to primary attachment
Biological factors - Women have hormones which encourage caringness
Nethertheless men are primary attachment figures or share this role (Frank et al)
Secondary attachment - fathers more playful (Geiger), problem solving (White and Woollett)
EVALUATION
Unreliable data - mothers of less securely attached infants would be less sensitive and possibly less accurate in their reports, a systematic bias
Attachment is not based on food - Harlow showed it was contact comfort, supported by Schaffer and Emerson
Learning theory can explain some aspects of attachment - attention and responsiveness are rewards
FURTHER EVALUATION
Cultural variations - Sagi et al
Stage theories of development may be to flexible
ANIMAL STUDIES OF ATTACHMENT
DESCRIPTION
Harlow Procedure - wire mothers, one cloth covered. Feeding bottle attached to one or other
Findings - monkey spent most time with the cloth covered mother, wether or not the feeding bottle was attached
Critical period - attachments must be formed before six months
Long lasting effects - all motherless monkeys were abnormally both socially and sexually
EVALUATION
Confounding variable - wire mother faces different, varied systematically with independent variable
Generalising to humans may not be justified but findings confirmed (Schaffer and Emerson)
FURTHER EVALUATION
Ethics - benefits may outweigh costs, but does not challenge findings
CULTURAL VARIATIONS IN ATTACHMENT
DESCRIPTION
Key study - Van Ijzendoorn and Kroonenburg did a meta analysis of 32 studies using the strange situation, from 8 countries
Findings - Secure attachment with the norm in all countries, greater variation within countries than between them
Cultural similarities - Efe infants (Tronick et al)
Cultural differences - more insecure attachment in German sample (Grossmann and Grossmann)
Cultural differences - no avoidant attachment in Japan sample (Takahshi)
EVALUATION
Similarities may be due to global culture (Van Ijzendoorn and Kronenburg)
Within countries there are cultural differences, rural versus urban Japanese (Van Ijzendoorn and Sagi)
Cross cultural research - uses tools developed in one country in a different setting where is has a different meaning (imposed etic)
FURTHER EVALUATION
Cultural bias - Rothbaum argues that attachment theory generally has a Western bias
Indigenous theories - may be the solution, through Posada and Jacobs suggest that there are universal attachment behaviours
AINSWORTH'S STRANGE SITUATION - TYPES OF ATACHMENT
DESCRIPTION
Ainsworth et al - A systematic test of attachment to one caregiver, situation of mild stress and novelty
Procedure - Observations every 15 secs of behaviours, contact seeking or contact avoidance
Behaviours assessed - separation anxiety, reunion behaviour, stranger anxiety, secure base
Findings - Types of attachment; secure (65%, type B), insecure avoidant (22%, type A) and insecure resistant (12%, type C)
EVALUATION
Other types of attachment - disorganised (type D)
Hight reliability - Inter observer reliability >94
Real world application - Circle of security project
FURTHER EVALUATION
Low internal validity
Maternal reflexive functioning (Raval et al)
BOWLBY'S THEORY OF MATERNAL DEPRIVATION
DESCRIPTION
Value of maternal care - children need a warm, intimate and continuous relationship with a mother or mother substitute
Critical period - frequent and/or prolonged separations from a mother will have negative effects if they occur before the age of 2.5 (critical period) or up to age 5 (sensitive period) if there is no mother substitute
Long term consequences - include emotional maladjustment or mental disorder such as depression
Key study - 44 juvenile thieves
Findings - 86% of affection less thieves had frequent separation before 2 compared with 17% of other thieves and just 2% of the control group
EVALUATION
Emotional rather than physical separation is harmful (Radke-Yarow)
Support for long term effects (Bifulco et al)
Real world application - films of Laura brought about social change (Bowlby and Robertson)
FURTHER EVALUATION
Individual differences - some children are more resilient, securely attached children in TB hospital (Bowlby et al)
Deprivation versus privation - loss of care (deprivation) may not have as serious consequences as total lack of attachment (privation)(Rutter)
THE INFLUENCE OF EARLY ATTACHMENT
DESCRIPTION
Internal working model - model of self and attachment partner based on their joint attachment history which generates expectations about current and future relationships
Key study - Hazan and Shaver placed a 'love quiz' in newspaper and analysed 620 responses
Findings - positive relationship between attachment type (childhood and current one) and love experiences/attitudes (internal working model)
Behaviours influenced by internal working model, childhood friendships (Minnesota child parent study), poor parenting (Quinton et al), romantic relationships (Hazan and Shaver) and mental health (attachment disorder)
EVALUATION
Correlation research - internal working model may not causer later relationship experiences, temperament may be inverting variable
Retrospective classification - childhood attachment type based on memory of childhood which may be inaccurate, through support from longitudinal study (Simpson et al)
Overly determinist - past attachment experiences do not always determine the course of future relationships
FURTHER EVALUATION
Low correlations - A meta analysis of studies suggest correlations between early attachments and later relationships may be as low as 10
Alternate explanations - adult relationships guided by self-verification
EXPLANATIONS OF ATTACHMENT
LEARNING THEORY
DESCRIPTION
Learning theory (behaviourism) - all behaviours are learned rather than inherited
Classical conditioning - new conditioned response learned through association between a neutral stimulus (mother) and an unconditioned stimulus (food)
Operant conditioning - the reduction of discomfort created by hunger is rewarding os food becomes a primary reinforcer, associated with a mother who becomes secondary reinforcer
Social learning - children model parents attachment behaviours (Hay and Vespo)
EVALUATION
Animal Studies - lack external validity because simplified view of human attachment
Attachment is not based on food - Harlow showed it was contact comfort, supported by Schaffer and Emerson
Learning theory can explain some aspects of attachment - attention and responsiveness are rewards
FURTHER EVALUATION
Drive reduction - reducing discomfort does not explain secondary reinforcers
Alternative explanations - Bowlby's theory
BOWLBY'S MONOTROPIC THEORY
DESCRIPTION
Bowlby's attachment theory (1969); critical period - Attachments form around 3-6 months afterwards this becomes increasingly difficult
Primary attachment figure - Determined by caregiver sensitivity (Ainsworth)
Social releasers elicit caregiving and ensure attachment from parent to infant
Monotropy - Primary attachment has special emotional role, secondary attachments provide safety net
Internal working model - acts as template for future relationships, creating continuity (continuity hypothesis)
EVALUATION
Attachment is adaptive
A sensitive period rather than a critical one (Rutter et al)
Multiple attachments - Bowlby's views are not contradictory because secondary attachments contribute to one single internal working model
FURTHER EVALUATION
Continuity hypothesis (Sroufe et al)
Temperament hypothesis - Kagan suggested that inane emotional personality determines attachment
ROMANIAN ORPHAN STUDIES - EFFECTS OF INSTITUTIONALISATION
DESCRIPTION
Key study - Rutter at al did a study with 165 Romanian orphans, physical, cognitive and social development tested at regular intervals
Findings - At age 11 those children adopted before 6 months showed good recovery, older adoptions associated with disinhibited attachment
Canadian study (Le Mere and Audet) - Romanian orphan physically smaller at adoption but recovered by 10.5
Romanian study (Zeanah et al) - institutionalised Romanian orphans compared to control group more likely to display disinhibited attachment