Evaluations for explanations of attachment
- Created by: MollyL20
- Created on: 02-11-20 18:03
View mindmap
- Evaluations- Explanations for attachment
- Counter evidence from animal research
- A range of animal studies show that young animals don't necessarily attach to who feeds them
- For example, Lorenz's geese imprinted on him before they were fed and maintained attachments regardless of who fed them.
- Another example being Harlow's monkeys. They imprinted on a soft surrogate mother in preference of the wire one that dispensed milk.
- In both of these, it is clear that attachment doesn't develop as a result of feeding. So the same must be true for humans
- Counter evidence from human research
- Research with human infants also shows that feeding doesn't seem to be important factor in humans.
- For example, Schaffer and Emerson's study, many babies developed an attachment to their biological mother, even though the cares did most of the feeding
- These findings are a problem because they show that feeding isn't the key element to attachment and so there isn't a unconditioned stimulus or primary drive
- Learning theory ignores the other factors associated with forming attachments
- Research into infant-caregiver interaction suggests that the quality of attachment is associated with factors like developing reciprocity and having good levels of interaction synchrony (Isabella et al 1989)
- In addition, studies have shown that the best quality attachments are with sensitive carers that pick up infant signals and respond appropriately.
- It is very hard to reconcile these findings with the idea of 'cupboard love'. Attachment developed purely or primarily as a result of feeding.
- There would be no purpose for these complex interactions and we would not expect to find relationships between them and the quality of infant-caregiver attachment
- Counter evidence from animal research
Comments
No comments have yet been made