Please enable JavaScript.
Coggle requires JavaScript to display documents.
Attachment theory - Y2 - Coggle Diagram
Attachment theory - Y2
-
-
-
Attachment and childcare
Belsky - children in daycare are more aggressive (refer to attachment lectures in Y1)
- McCartney - children in daycare have higher language and cognitive outcomes - interaction is positive
-> Difference could be due to more exposure to sharing behaviors and exposure to constantly stimulating environments, but also more competition in attachment bonding / confusion
NICHD (1997) - compared children in greater than 30 hours of childcare to those in fewer than 10 hours a week between 4 months and 12 months; very thorough study and very comprehensive, and data is still reusable
- Strange situation at 15 months
- Strange situation predicted by maternal sensitivity and responsiveness
- Due to the sample size, the effect is sure, and the lack of difference between the two groups showed that childcare may not be detrimental
NICHD Longitudinal study - Studied children who were in early child care at 4.5, 7, 9, 11 and 12 years old
- Cognitive language development - higher the quality of day care, the better the outcomes, but all detriment is solved by 11 in terms of language and academic achievement
- Social development - quantity of day care leads to more aggression and disobedience, effects do decrease but often stay significant until 12 years old at least
- Positive and negative outcomes of daycare are highest for centre based daycare rather than hom based care - no adverse effects from paternal or grandparental care (Linting and IV 2009)
- Effects sizes outweighed by quality of parenting quality
Impacts of the day care in relation to the child:
Temperament interactions:
- Pluess and Belsky - interaction effect; children with difficult temperament show more behaviour problems in low quality day care than high quality day care
Group effects:
- Dmitrieva (2007) - ECLS study found contagion or diffusion effect; the more children with extensive exposure to childcare, the more teacher-rater externalising behaviour there was
- Same for achievement - the group follows the majority behaviour
- Many children may be affected, but individual aggression etc is increased by group
Genetic moderation - Belsky and Pluess (2013) -
- NICHD sample - diathesis stress model best explains effects as those externalizing poor behaviour had poor childcare quality (7 repeat allele)
- Teacher reported social skills in kindergarten showed a significant crossover interaction supporting a differential susceptibility model
- Better quality childcare predicts better social skills in kindergarten, but children with the repeat 7 allele do noticeably worse when experiencing poor quality childcare, and better with higher quality
NICHD - early childcare research network (Brooks-Gunn et al, 2010)
- Social and emotional including attachment - no differences between FT employmeny, PT, and no employment in first year - inverse correlation to maternal sensitivity
- Aggressive play - less maternal sensitivity led to more aggression
- Self-assertion - females, higher language, results with attachment are not strong; both positive and negative of FT and PT maternal employment in the first years
- Results with attachment are not strong - both positive and negative effects of FT and PT maternal employment in first years
-> No relationship between maternal employment and attachment
- Very robust findings due to sample size
Effects of childcare (Jaffe, Van Hulle, and Rodgers, 2011) -
- 49% white, 30% black, 21% Latino - over 5000 children; diverse sample
- Between families - entry before 1 year to no entry by age 3 years - daycare is better for the child
- Within families - no significant effect of childcare, better because you can control maternal sensitivity etc
-> Better maths and literacy at age 5-7
-> Fewer conduct problems at 11-13
- Bleiker, Gampe and Daum (2019) - Switzerland
-> Domains (fine and gross motor skills, language skills, cognitive skills and social skills
-> Children were cared for exclusively by their parents and relatives (home-care group) or they attended a daycare center for 2 up to 5 days a week (center-care group)
-> Two age groups (18 months or 24 months old)
-> Older children performed better (expected)
-> Childcare does not have any effect - No effects for age at entry, hours attended
- European country and culture generalisability
-
However, institutional rearing in which infants are faced with more than 10 attachment figures have short-term attachment and caregiving, and find forming long term attachment very difficult as a result of this (Tizard et al)
- Rutter et al (2006) - comparison of orphans adopted at different stages; higher quality and earlier care led to less deprivation effects
- Developmental dwarfism, low IQ, poor parenting, low emotional understanding, language deficits, Type D attachment and poor social understanding
Summary -
- There are several different theories of attachment - however, there is little support for those suggesting attachment results from feeding or hunger reduction, eliminating the importance of behaviourist and drive reduction theories
- The first attachment begins to form when the infant can discriminate a particular caregiver from others
- Infants and children are capable of forming attachments to several people with whom they have sustained and frequently contacted
- Differences in quality attachment are influenced by several factors (e.g. parenting and child characteristics)
- There may be cross-cultural differences in attachment
- Childcare in of itself is not related to attachment
Other attachment figures
Fathers - Lewis and Lamb (2007) - father involvement dimensions
- Engagement - direct interactions
- Accessibility - potential availability for interaction
- Responsibility - providing resources and care for child’s needs
Evidence in Western societies that father engagement has shown some increase (Dette-HangenMeyer, Erzinger and Reichle, 2014)
- However, due working hours and social expectations women still did the majority of childcare
- Improvement is patchy and slow
- Also, women tend to maintain their areas of expertise - lack of trust in husband
- Heteronormative theory
Child outcomes -
- In normal and functioning families, there is evidence that more father involvement leads to better child outcomes
- Some factors, such as the child’s behaviour pushing away the father, or poverty may impact the causal nature of this, but longitudinal studies from Flouri (2005) reported the following -
-> Mother and father involvement covaries, and so in some families both parents are more involved, and some less so, but it is possible to separate out the father effects that are independent to the mother
-> Some positive effects were found for child mental health, but only significant for daughters
-> Father involvement had positive effects on academic development
-> Father involvement led to less aggression with peers, and less delinquency in adolescence from sons
Non-resident and absent fathers -
- Dunn (2004) - positive adjustment outcomes are related to 4 factors
-> Economic support provided by non-resident father
-> Quality of the father-child relationship (involvement, closeness and authoritative parenting style)
-> Frequency of father-child contact
-> Quality of mother-father relationship
- Borkowski et al, 2007 - support of families is crucial to the healthy development of the children -
-> If absent father maintains contact with the child, there is greater emotional health in children
-> Absent father’s involvement in adolescence is also a protective factor against psychological distress
- Lanz et al, 1999 - non-intact families find it harder to talk to their parents about fears and anxieties, and are more likely to be aggressive
- Early absent-father girls also are more likely to have teenage pregnancies
- Social context of absenteeism and the constructions placed on it - some of the outcomes of the situation can be similar and some will be different, but in presence of the father (or second parent) is important to protect against emotional distress
- Lesbian and gay families - As long as parental roles are filled, attachment suffers no consequence
Grandparents
- Indirect influence - parent-child interaction is impacted by how the parent was raised and intergenerational attachment (Trute, 2003) and family functioning can be helped by grandparents supporting parents more directly than children
- Direct influence - children often see them as a source of support, not authority or discipline (Lavers and Sonuga-Burke, 1997) - suggests that parental satisfaction is high in these circumstances, but can be low if they seem to be uninvolved or overinvolved
Grandparents as surrogates and in divorced families -
- Surrogates - provide babysitting most commonly, and when cared for by a family member educational outcomes can be improved (Falbo, 1991)
-> Radin et al (1991) - families of teen mothers often have grandmother involved, and grandfather involvements can have a direct positive influence on young children
- Act as a positive support system in divorce situations - however, sometimes the child can lose multiple attachments if divorce is not amicable
-> Can provide stability for child during divorce if grandparents are amicably involved
- Parental divorce impacts children’s development, especially in the short term, and a number of factors influence long-term outcomes
-