Please enable JavaScript.
Coggle requires JavaScript to display documents.
Attachment pt.2 (Ainsworth's strange situation: types of attachment…
Attachment pt.2
Ainsworth's strange situation: types of attachment
Description
Ainsworth et al. - a systematic test of attachment to one caregiver, situation of mild stress and novelty.
Procedure - observations every 15 seconds of behaviours, e.g. 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), insecure-resistant (12% type C).
Evaluation
Other types of attachment - disorganised (type D).
High reliability - inter-observer reliability > .94.
Real-world application - Circle of Security Project
Further Evaluation
Low internal validity
Maternal reflexive functioning - Ravel et al.
Cultural Variations in Attachment
Description
Key study: Van Ijzendoorn and Kroonenberg - meta-analysis of 32 studies using the Strange Situation from 8 countries
Findings - secure attachment was the norm in all 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 (Takahashi).
Evaluation
Similarities may be due to global culture (Van Ijzendoorn and Kroonenberg).
Within countries there are cultural differences, e.g. rural versus urban Japanese (Van Ijzendoorn and Sagi).
Cross-cultural research - use tools developed in one country in a different meaning (imposed etic).
Further Evaluation
Culture 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
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 and half (critical period) up to age of 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 affectionless thieves had frequent separations before 2 compared with 17% of other thieves and just 2% of the control group
Evaluation
Emotional rather than physical separation is harmful (Radke-Yarrow)
Support for long-term effects (Bifulco et al).
Real-world application - films of Laura brought about social change (Bowbly and Robertson).
Further Evaluation
Individual differences - some children more resilient, e.g. securely attachment children TB hospital (Bowbly et al.).
Deprivation versus privation - loss of care (deprivation) may not have as serious consequences as total lack of attachment (privation) (Rutter).
Explanations of attachment
Learning theory
Description
Learning theory (behaviourism): all behaviours are learned rather than inherited.
Classical conditioning - new conditional response learned through association between a neutral stimulus (mother) and an unconditional stimulus.
Operant conditioning - the reduction of discomfort created by hunger is rewarding so food becomes a primary reinforcer, associated with mother who becomes secondary reinforcerer
Social learning - children model parents' attachment behaviours (Hay and Vespo).
Evaluation
Animal studies - lack of 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 explanation - 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
Temperament hypothesis - Kagan suggested that innate emotional personality determines attachment