Please enable JavaScript.

Coggle requires JavaScript to display documents.

Attachment - Coggle Diagram

- - - - Evaluation for learning theory of attachment
        
        Counter-Evidence from animal research - a range of animal studies have shown that young animals do not necessarily attach to those who feed them. Lorenz's geese imprinted before they had been fed, and Harlow's monkey preferred those who provided comfort rather than food. The same must be true for animals as learning theorists believed that non-human animals and humans were equivalent
        
        Counter evidence from human research - research with human infants also show that feeding is not an important factor in humans. For example, Schaffer and Emerson showed that the babies developed an attachment to their biological mother even though the carers did most of the feeding. This shows that feeding is not a key element in attachment and so there is no unconditioned stimulus or primary drive involved
        
        Learning theory ignores other factors involved with forming attachments - Research into early caregiver-infant interaction suggest that attachment is developed through factors such as reciprocity and good levels of international synchrony. Studies have also shown that the best caregiver-infant attachment is those who respond correctly to infants signals. Therefore if attachment was developed purely due to feeding there would be no purpose for complex interactions and we would not expect to find relationships between them and the quality of infant-caregiver interaction
        
        New learning theory explanation - social learning theory suggest that we learn to observe and imitate others behaviours. Suggests that parents teach their children to love them by modelling attachment eg. hugging them and instructing and rewarding them when they dispay attachment behaviour of their own
- - - - Evaluation -
        Generalisability to humans - Although one of the findings have influenced our knowledge of human development, there is a problem with gernralising findings from birds to humans. It seems that the mamalian attachment system is quite different from that in birds. = findings not generalisable to humans
        Some of Lorenz's observations have been questioned - the idea that imprinting has a permanent effect on mating behaviour has been questioned. Guiton et. al 1966 found that chickens who imprinted on yellow washing up gloves would try to mate with them as adults, as Lorenz predicted, but then with that experience they learned to prefer mating with other chickens. Therefore, the influence that imprinting has on mating behaviour is not as permanent as Lorenz believed
        However, the fact that imprinting only occurs within a critical time period is similar to Bowlby’s idea of a critical period within human infants. This suggests that Lorenz's study does have external validity and can be generalised to humans as there so key similarities within humans. This may help us to better understand human attachment and the importance of early development for children
  - - - Evaluation -
        Theoretical value - Harlow's findings have had a profound effect on psychologists understandings on mother-infant attachment. Harlow found that attachment does not develop as a result of being fed by a mother figure but by contact comfort. Harlow also showed us the importance of the quality of early relationships for later social development including the ability to hold down adult relationships and rear children
        Practical value - the insight into attachment from Harlow's research has had important applications in a range of practical contexts. It has helped social workers understand risk factors in child neglect and abuse and so intervene to prevent it. We also now understand the importance of proper attachment figures for baby monkeys in zoos and also in breeding programmes in the wild
        Ethical issues - The monkeys suffered greatly as a result of Harlow's procedures Although this species is considered similar enough to humans to generalise the findings, their suffering was presumably quite human-like. Harlow was well aware of the suffering he caused. The counter-argument is that Harlow's research was sufficiently important to justify the effects
- - - - Evaluation -
        Large samples - a strength of combining attachment studies done in different countries is that end up with a very large sample. Large samples increase internal validity by reducing the impact of anomalous results caused by bad mythology or very unusual participants
        Samples tend to be unrepresentative of culture - Claimed to study cultural variations whereas the results were between countries, not cultures. Within any country, there are many different cultures using different child-rearing pratices. This means that comparisons between countries may have very little meaning
        Method of assessment is biased - Cross cultural psychology includes ideas of etic and emic. Etic means cultural universals and emic means cultural uniqueness. The strange situation was designed by an American researcher based on the idea of a British psychologist (Bowlby). There is question whether theories/ideas proposed by those of one culture can also be applied to those of other cultures (known as imposed etic). The lack of separation anxiety may be seen in one culture as an attachment to an individual whereas in another culture it may be seen as independence
        Alternative explanation for cultural similarity - Bowlby's explanations for cultural similarities is that they are due to the fact that attachment is innate and universal and thus produces the same kind of behaviours all over the world. This study suggests that small cross-cultural differences may reflect the effects of mass media in which similar notions of parenting are disseminated across countries