Please enable JavaScript.
Coggle requires JavaScript to display documents.
Attachment 1 - Coggle Diagram
Attachment 1
Explanations of attachment
The learning theory
Bowlby's monotropic theory
Millar + Dollard
All infants are born as a blank slate
and behaviour is learnt and not innate.
Learns the caregiver will meet their
physiological needs (food, bottle, etc)
through classical conditioning (association)
Before:
UCS (food) = UCR (pleasure)
During:
UCS (food) + NS (caregiver) = UCR (pleasure)
After:
CS (caregiver) = CR (pleasure)
Evaluation:
:check: Learning theory can provide an adequate explanation of how attachments form.
:red_cross: Attachments aren't made instantly, but over time with care (Schaffer + Emerson)
:red_cross: Harlow's study contradicts the learning theory
Attachment is adaptive, innate and promotes survival.
Babies are born with a gene that causes them
to display behaviours that increase their
chances of receiving care
(social releasers = crying, laughing, screaming, etc)
Parents gene instinctively cares for infant.
This first attachment provides an
internal working model / template
for future relationships.
Monotropy:
One main attachment with caregiver.
Continuity hypothesis:
Continues in future relationships.
Evaluation:
:check: Bowlby's theory is supported by Lorenz's research.
:check: There are research questionnaires which support the internal working model and continuity hypothesis
(Hazen + Shaver love quiz)
:red_cross: A study done by Schaffer + Emerson contradicts Bowlby's theory.
Animal studies of attachment
Harlow's monkeys
Lorenz's geese
Aim:
To see whether when separated from their mother, an infant would choose comfort or food.
Procedure:
He scared the monkeys with a machine and observed whether they would cling to the cloth mother for comfort or the wire mother for food.
Findings:
Distressed monkeys with wire mother suffered diarrhoea but not with cloth mother.
Cloth mother (comfort) was preferred.
Monkeys with cloth mother were more secure and explored the cage.
Conclusion:
When separated from their mothers and fed, monkeys prefer comfort over food and become distressed without it.
Evaluation:
:check: Lab setting meant what is fed, the amount, temperature, etc can be controlled, increasing internal validity.
:check: Easily replicated
:red_cross: Lab study = low ecological validity
:red_cross: Unethical
:red_cross: Extrapolation issues
Procedure:
Separated eggs into 2 conditions
Condition 1 = first thing they see is their mother
Condition 2 = first thing they see is Lorenz
Mix up geese
Findings:
They always followed the first person they saw (imprinting)
The bond was irreversible
Attachment with birds is permanent
Evaluation:
:check: Animal research can be used as the basis for human attachment theories
:red_cross: Extrapolation (generalisation issues)
:red_cross: Later research on chickens attaching to rubber gloves contradicts and found that imprinting was irreversible (Guiton et al)
Bowlby's maternal deprivation hypothesis
Early monotropic experiences of attachment may interfere with usual attachment formation
Aim:
to examine the link
between affection less
psychopathy and
maternal deprivation
44 Thieves study:
Field
experiment / correlation and a
control group of non criminals
Findings:
14/44 affection less psychopaths
12/44 experienced separation
during first 2 years of life
2/44 of control group experienced
separation
Conclusion:
prolonged
separation from mother
can cause affection
less psychopathy
Evaluation:
:check: High ecological
validity due to natural
environment
:red_cross: Findings criticised
for investigator bias
:red_cross: Lewis (1954)
research contradicts
Ainsworth's strange situation
Aim:
Investigate individual
differences in attachment
Procedure:
Lab study
Infants aged 12-18 months
observed 8 situations
mother, child and stranger
Seperation anxiety
Stranger anxiety
Reunion behaviour
Willingness to explore
Findings:
Secure = high
Insecure avoidant = low
Insecure resistant = high + low
Evaluation:
:check: Wartner et al study in Germany is supporting evidence
:check: Kokkinos et al supports Ainsworth's strange situation
:red_cross: Difficult to classify children into just type A,B or C