Please enable JavaScript.

Coggle requires JavaScript to display documents.

Attachment, Maternal Deprivation, Influence on early attachment on…

- - - - His studies on war orphans meant they were also dealing with trauma from atrocities of war, not just maternal deprivation.
        
        Trauma could have been the cause of later developmental difficulties, not maternal separation
  - - - Interpretation of results would be subjective as Bowlby made the decisions. He could have perceived the children who he knew had been separated as affectionless psychopaths to match his hypothesis.
        
        Validity of such research reduced
  - - - Lewis (1954) found no relationship between early childhood separation and criminality amongst a sample of 500 children
        
        Shows that there are other factors that affect maternal deprivation
  - - - Shows that the period is more of a sensitive period rather than a critical one
- - - - Families were also interviewed to see if thieves had prolonged early separations from their mothers
        
        Findings
        
        14/44 thieves were Affectionless Psychopaths
        
        12/14 had experienced long term separation (deprivation) from mothers in the first 2 years of their lives
        
        5/30 of the remaining only experienced separations
        
        Conclusion
        
        1 more item...
        
        Control group: 2/44 emotionally disturbed individuals had experienced long term separation
- - - - Goldfarb (1947) found children who remained in institutions had a lower IQ compared to children that were fostered
  - - - This is when they cannot experience guilt/remorse/empathy. Prevents them from forming normal relationships and is often linked to crime
- - - - 196 children (7-11 years) were given questionnaires about bullying
        
        Findings:
        
        Secure children: Unlikely to be involved in bullying
        
        Insecure-avoidant: Most likely to be the victims
        
        Insecure-resistant: Most likely to be the bullies
- - - - A child with a responsive and sensitive PCG will be more secure and develop a positive IWM.
      - A child with a negative IWM will be insecure. They will feel unacceptable and unworthy
      - Overall, this explains how early attachment experiences are mirrored in later child/adult relationship characteristics
- - - - The 3 sections of the love quiz
        
        Current/important relationship
        
        Assessed attachment type
        
        Number of love experiences - number of partners
        
        Findings:
        
        56%: Secure
        
        Most likely to be in a good, long-lasting relationship
        
        25%: Insecure-avoidant
        
        Tend to be jealous and fear intimacy
        
        19%: Insecure-resistant
        
        Most likely to be single and experience divorce
- - - - Ptts are being asked to recall details many years back
        
        Some important details about relationship with PCG might have been forgotten
        
        Validity also reduced because of this inaccurate recall, limiting the value of insight the study gives us into understanding the influence of early attachment on later relationships
  - - - Temperament: Child's genetically influenced personality
        
        Some babies are born more anxious or more sociable than others
        
        Suggests that temperament could have an effect on attachment type & parenting style
        
        Temperamental differences could explain later social behaviour rather than early attachment experiences with montropy
  - - - Issue of social desirability occurs when asking ptts about their relationships instead of directly observing them
        
        Ptts may lie to present their relationships in a better light, especially given the sensitive nature of the topic
  - - - IWM said to be too deterministic
        
        IWM suggests that it is inevitable and people are doomed to always have bad relationships if they had attachment problems with their monotropy in the past
        
        Ignores role of free will and assumes individual has no autonomy over their own behaviour
        
        Clarke suggests people with a negative IWM are simply at greater risk of relationship problems and NOT guaranteed
        
        Explanation is more plausible & less pessimistic as it takes into account individual differences amongst people
- - - - Child can grow up unable to trust or love others
        
        Isolated, selfish, lack empathy & aggressive
        
        Can be come sociopathic
  - - - Behave in an overly familiar fashion with strangers
        
        Caused by long periods of institutionalisation in early life
        
        Behavioural disorders like attention seeking
- - - - Instead of different caregivers every time, children are given key workers which increase the chances of attachments developing
        
        Reduces chances of DAD developing
  - - - Increased internal validity so cause & effect relationship can be better inferred
  - - - Unusual situational variables can be created because of this e.g: low intellectual stimulation & very bad care from staff
  - - - Samples could have been made unrepresentative
        
        Value of insight into effects of institutionalisation reduced
  - - - Self-reports are prone to social desirability. Ptts could lie about their families to present themselves in the best possible light
        
        Lowers internal validity
- - - - 15 returned to biological parents
        
        Children assessed at 4, 8 & 16 years old
        
        Findings
        
        All institutionalised children showed RDD & DAD
        
        Conclusion
        
        Effects of institutionalisation can be overcome if the child has a supportive environment
        
        1 more item...
      - 26 remained in institutional care
      - 24 children adopted
- - - - 60 babies - 31 male and 29 female. From Glasgow & skilled working class families
        
        Psychologists visited participants' homes once a month for the 1st year, then once again at 18 months
        
        Mothers were interviewed about these 2 variables -->
        
        Separation anxiety: How the child reacts when the mother leaves
        
        Stranger anxiety: How the child reacts to being along with a stranger
    - - 25-32 weeks: 50% of babies showed separation anxiety towards adults, usually the mother (specific attachment)
        
        Attachments were formed with the adults who were the most sensitive/responsive to babies' signals (reciprocity)
        
        40 weeks: 80% of babies had a specific attachment. 30% displayed multiple attachments
    - - Stage 2: Indiscriminate attachment
        
        Stage 3: Specific attachment
        
        Stage 4: Multiple attachments
        
        8 months +
        
        Baby forms secondary attachments to adults who they regularly spend time with
        
        29% of the children had secondary attachments within a month of forming primary (specific) attachment
        
        1 more item...
        
        7 months
        
        Start to display stranger anxiety
        
        Separation anxiety shown to one adult (65% biological mother) = Specific attachment
        
        Adult = primary attachment figure
        
        1 more item...
        
        2-7 months
        
        Baby shows a preference for human objects
        
        Recognise and prefer familiar adults. Accepts cuddles and affection from any adult
        
        Doesn't show separation or stranger anxiety yet
      - First 6 weeks
        
        Baby's behaviour towards inanimate objects and humans is similar
        
        Show preference for adults (adults can calm them)
        
        Happier when other humans are present
    - - Weakness: Temporal validity
        
        Study is 50+ years old
        
        Child rearing practices may differ from one culture to another & one historical period to another
        
        Findings lack temporal validity as it's difficult to generalise results to other social & historical contexts
      - Weakness: Low population validity
        
        Study only used 60 babies who were all from Glasgow
        
        Difficult to generalise findings about 'stages of attachment' to the rest of the target population
      - Strength: Ecological validity
        
        Schaffer observed babies in their natural environment (home)
        
        Findings about stages of attachment can be easily generalised beyond the study setting to other infants
      - Weakness: Attrition
        
        Same children were tracked over time
        
        Attrition: Ptts may drop out over the course of the study, reducing the sample size
        
        Sample becomes even less representative of the target population
        
        Findings are less generalisable to other children's stages of development
- - - - Suggests that fathers may take on the role of main caregiver
  - - - PCG fathers & mothers spent more time smiling, imitating and holding infants than SCG fathers
        
        Shows that level of responsiveness is what's important. Not gender of caregiver
  - - - Suggests that role of the father is more to do with "play and stimulation" (rough and tumble play) and less to do with nurturing
  - - - 18 months: 75% of the babies had an attachment with their father. Showed separation anxiety when the fathers walked away
  - - - Biological differences between males & females could explain why females are often the PCG
        
        Oestrogen & oxytocin create higher levels of nurturing behaviour
        
        Suggests women are pre-disposed to be the primary attachment figure
        
        Fathers might prefer to be SCGs as they could feel like mothers would naturally do a better job at taking care of the child
    - - Research into caregiver-infant interactions is controversial
        
        Suggests that some children will be disadvantage by certain child-rearing practices
        
        e.g: Mothers who return to work after their child is born. Making the father become the PCG could influence child's attachment style
        
        Suggests that mothers shouldn't go to work and husbands shouldn't be house-husbands. Employers could use this excuse to not hire women
    - - MacCallum & Golombrok (2004) found that children who grow up in single or same-sex parents did NOT develop differently than those from hetero-sexual families
        
        Suggests father's role as SCG is not important
    - - Some psychologists focused on the father as a secondary attachment figure. Others focused on fathers as a primary attachment figure
        
        Difficult to draw conclusions about role of the father
- - - - Procedure:
        
        Clutch of goose eggs was divided into 2 groups
        
        Half were hatched with the mother goose
        
        Other half were in an incubator where Lorenz was the first moving object they would see
      - Findings:
        
        Incubator group followed Lorenz everywhere. Control group that hatched with the mother stayed with the mother
        
        When the 2 groups were mixed, the ducklings continued to stay with who they hatched in front of
        
        Conclusion:
        
        Lorenz suggested that there was a critical period of a few hours (depending on species) for imprinting to occur
        
        If imprinting doesn't occur, then the chicks did not attach to the mother figure
      - AO3:
        
        Animal Bias: Hard to extrapolate findings to humans as we are qualitatively different
        
        Mammalian mothers show more affection and emotional attachment to their offspring than birds do
        
        Mammals have been shown to be able to attach at any time, not just within the critical period
  - - - AO3:
        
        Strength: Practical applications
        
        Valuable insight into caregiver-infant attachment provided
        
        Shows that attachment doesn't develop just by being fed
        
        PCG must also provide contact comfort
        
        Weakness: Ethical issues
        
        Monkeys suffered greatly with irreversible effects of being reared in isolation
        
        As monkeys are closely related to humans, critics argue that emotions the monkeys felt during the experiment would be similar if a human was used instead
        
        Counter-argument
        
        Value of insight given by the research is enough to justify effects on the monkeys
      - Procedure:
        
        16 baby Rhesus monkeys were reared with 2 wire model mothers
        
        Condition 1:
        
        Milk given by plain wire mother
        
        Condition 2:
        
        Milk given by cloth-covered mother
      - Findings:
        
        Monkeys preferred cloth mother instead of the wire mother for comfort when frightened
        
        Cloth mother: 22 hours
        
        Shows that contact comfort was more important than drive reduction (food) when forming attachments
        
        The Critical Period
        
        Harlow suggested there was a critical period of 90 days for monkeys (2.5 years for humans)
        
        1 more item...
        
        Wire mother: 2 hours
- - - - Will elicit a response from the other person
        
        e.g: Mother smiles & the child smiles back
        
        Feldman & Eidelman (2007)
        
        Babies have periods of 'alert phases' that signal to parents that they are ready to interact
        
        Mothers pick up on these signals 2/3 of the time
        
        At 3 months, interaction is more frequent
        
        1 more item...
  - - - Meltzoff & Moore (1977)
        
        Method:
        
        2 week old babies observed
        
        Adults show 1/3 facial expressions/gestures
        
        Child's response was filmed & identified by independent observers
        
        Findings:
        
        Association was found between action the adult displayed & action of the babies
        
        Isabella (1989)
        
        Observed 30 mothers and infants
        
        Findings: High levels of synchrony were associated with better quality mother-infant attachment
  - - - Standardised procedures & operationalised behaviour categories
        
        Behaviour filmed from multiple angles. Allows for fine details to be captured and analysed
        
        Observations have high reliability as they can be easily repeated to check the consistency of findings
    - - Observations are less prone to demand characteristics
        
        Babies don't know or care that they are being watched
        
        Behaviour and interactions with caregiver captured would be natural
        
        Increases internal validity of research
    - - Observations still require subjective interpretation from researcher
        
        Researcher might misinterpret behaviour to match their hypothesis
        
        Validity of studies into caregiver-infant interactions reduced
    - - Observations only looks at changes in movement & gestures to measure if synchrony/reciprocity is taking place
        
        Hard to tell if infant is moving deliberately to respond to caregiver or accidentally
        
        Reduces value of insight into explaining caregiver-infant interactions
- - - - Child's reaction judged in following situations:
        
        Reunion behaviour: How the child behaves when the mother returns
        
        Separation anxiety: how the child reacts when the mother leaves
        
        Stranger anxiety: How the child reacts to being alone with a stranger
  - - - Stranger joins parent and infant, talks to mother (---[}])
        
        Parent leaves infant with stranger = separation anxiety (<--[-])
        
        Parent returns and stranger leaves. Parent settles the infant. Parent leaves again (---[>] + {--[-] + <--[-])
        
        Stranger returns = Stranger anxiety (---[}])
        
        Parent returns and stranger leaves = Reunion behaviour (---[>] + {--[-])
    - - ---[>] = Parent enters room
      - <--[-] = Parent exits room
      - ---[}] = Stranger enters room
      - {--[-] = Stranger exits room
  - - - Separation anxiety
        
        Unconcerned by mother's absence
        
        Stranger anxiety
        
        Strongly avoidant of stranger and mother
        
        Reunion behaviour
        
        Unresponsive when mother returns
        
        1 more item...
    - - Separation anxiety
        
        Intensely distressed when mother left
        
        Stranger anxiety
        
        Fear of stranger
        
        Reunion behaviour
        
        Clinginess mixed with rejection when mother returns
        
        1 more item...
    - - Separation anxiety
        
        Upset when mother leaves
        
        Stranger anxiety
        
        Avoidant of stranger
        
        BUT curious when mother is present
        
        Reunion behaviour
        
        1 more item...
- - - - Set in a fake environment with a fake task (controlled observation)
        
        Difficult to generalise findings about the 3 attachment types to how attachment styles develop in the real world
  - - - Cultural norms & practices in collectivist, non-Western cultures are ignored
        
        Shows that SS is not a suitable/appropriate test to measure attachment in other cultures
  - - - Other studies suggests that there are individual differences in children within the attachment style
        
        Research suggests a minority of students display atypical attachment types e.g: disorganised attachment
        
        Disorganised: Children display a mix of resistant & avoidant behaviours
  - - - Hard to generalise findings to rest of the target population
- - - - Consistency in distribution of attachment types shows there may be universal characteristics that underpin infant-caregiver interactions
        
        Attachment types:
        
        Insecure-avoidant: Most common in Western cultures
        
        35% (Germany 🇩🇪)
        
        Insecure-resistant: Most common in Non-Western
        
        32% (Japan 🇯🇵 & Israel 🇮🇱)
        
        Secure: Most common in all 8 countries
        
        Range: 75% (UK 🇬🇧) - 50% (China 🇨🇳)
        
        Other findings
        
        150% greater variation of attachment styles within cultures than between
        
        Conclusion
        
        Differences in child-rearing practices across cultures exist
        
        however there are similarities e.g: Secure is the most common in all cultures
    - - Germany 🇩🇪
      - UK 🇬🇧
      - Sweden 🇸🇪
      - China 🇨🇳
      - Netherlands 🇳🇱
      - Israel 🇮🇱
      - Japan 🇯🇵
      - US 🇺🇸
  - - - Large sample size of 1990 infants used. High population validity
        
        Results on cultural variations in attachment styles can be generalised to the rest of the target population
    - - Half of the studies (18/32) were in the US alone. Only 3 countries were collectivist cultures (Non-Western)
        
        Cultures bias means difficult to generalise findings to other cultures. Value of insight limited
    - - Strange Situation has been criticised for imposed etic
        
        Procedure is based around individualistic, Western child-rearing practices. Cultural norms and practises in collectivist cultures are ignored
        
        Strange Situation may not be an appropriate way to measure attachment styles in non-western countries.
        
        Germany - insecure avoidace: Unconcerned during separation anxiety could be seen as independent rather than avoidance, making it a strength rather than an insecurity
    - - Role of temperament - child's genetically influenced personality - not taken into account.
        
        Some babies have been shown to be born more anxious or more sociable than others.
        
        Temperamental differences could explain differences in behaviour of children. Therefore SS might just be measuring anxiety and not attachment style
- - - - Child's primary caregiver
      - Bowlby's theory is monotropic as it suggests that the child only attaches to one particular caregiver
        
        Other attachments are less important
        
        The 'special one' is the mother but not necessarily the biological mother
      - Law of continuity: more consistent a child's care = better quality of attachment
      - Law of accumulated separation: Separations from mother add up, affecting attachment
    - - Innate programmed behaviours which encourage caregiver interaction
      - Ensures interaction takes place
        
        They are behaviours that acquire care giving attention e.g: Smiling, crying, cooing
        
        Social Releasers are innate and critical parts of forming attachments
    - - If attachment doesn't take place within a set developmental period then it may not take place at all
      - Bowlby suggested that 2.5 years is the critical period to form an attachment if attachment is considered to be innate (biological)
      - Time when biological process of attachment takes place
    - - Infants's relationship with their monotropy provides it with an Internal Working Model
        
        This is a template of self-worth that they will apply to all future relationships
        
        E.g: Child who has a responsive and sensitive PCG will be secure (positive IWM)
        
        Child who has a rejecting and unresponsive PCG will be insecure so they will feel unacceptable and unworthy (negative IWM)
        
        This helps explain how early attachment experiences are mirrored in later child/adult relationship characteristics
        
        Also shows how these children could act as parents to their own children e.g: generational trauma
      - Attachment plays major role in later development
  - - - Lamb: Infants show a preference towards their father (15-24 months)
        
        Shows that father can take on the role of PCG too
      - Shaffer & Emerson: Found evidence that children form multiple attachments
        
        Having multiple attachments helps children develop superior social, emotional & cognitive skills compared to children with one main attachment figure
    - - Brazleton (1975) observed mothers & babies interact
        
        Interactional synchrony occured
        
        PCG was instructed to ignore the babies signals (social releasers)
        
        After some distress, babies curled up & remained motionless
        
        Children's strong response supports Bowlby's idea about the impartance of infant social behaviour in eliciting caregiving
    - - Bowlby criticised for not considering temperament
        
        Temperament: Child's genetically influenced personality
        
        Some babies are born more anxious or more sociable than others
        
        Temperamental differences could explain later social behaviour rather than early attachment experiences with monotropy
    - - Hazan & Shaver (1987) create the 'love quiz' in a news paper
        
        Information collected included:
        
        Early attachment experiences
        
        Secure: Happy & long lasting relationships
        
        Insecure: Hard to form relationships. Many ptts were divorced
        
        Supports IWM as future adult hood relationship experiences mirrored childhood experiences
        
        Romantic attitudes and experiences
- - - - Behaviours that switch off something unpleasant will also be repeated (negative reinforcment)
        
        A behaviour will become extinct if the reward is swapped for something unpleasant (Punishment)
        
        e.g: skinner swapped food for an electric shock. Animal stopped pressing the lever
        
        Human application
        
        Infant will experience a drive state if it's hungry
        
        Drive state motivates the baby to find a way to reduce discomfort from being hungry
        
        1 more item...
  - - - Main phases of conditioning
        
        Before conditioning
        
        During conditioning
        
        After conditioning
        
        Keywords:
        
        Neutral Stimulus
        
        Conditioned stimulus
        
        Unconditioned Response
        
        Conditioned Response
        
        Unconditioned Stimulus
        
        Classical Conditioning equation
        
        Human application
        
        Cupboard Love Theory
        
        Milk (UCS)
        
        Relief from drinking the milk (UCR)
        
        2 more items...
        
        UCR
        
        NS
        
        NS
        
        UCS
        
        UCS
  - - - Hay & Vespo (1988) create the Social Learning Theory
        
        Suggests that parents teach children how to love by modelling attachment behaviour (hugs & kisses)
        
        Children are rewarded when they imitate the attachment behaviour
    - - Lorenz: showed that animals imprint on caregivers even if they don't feed them
      - Harlow: Monkeys showed that contact comfort was more important that just food (drive reduction)
    - - Schaffer & Emerson: Showed babies develop a primary attachment to their biological mother even if other caregivers did most of the feeding
        
        Suggests that food, unconditioned stimulus or primary reinforcer are not involved
    - - Learning theory ignores other factors associated with forming attachments
        
        e.g: Reciprocity & interactional synchrony
        
        Studies have shown that the best quality attachments are when the caregiver is responsive & sensitive
        
        Allows them to pick up signals from infants and respond appropriately
- - - - Children assessed at 4, 6, 11 & 15 years old
        
        Findings
        
        Age 11: Differences in the children's recovery started to show
        
        Assessed development of:
        
        Physical
        
        Children were malnourished
        
        Cognitive
        
        50% showed signs of mental retardation (IQ <70)
        
        1 more item...
        
        Emotional
        
        Children adopted after 6 months were more likely to show signs of RDD & DAD