Attachment Revision Sheet

HideShow resource information
Preview of Attachment Revision Sheet

First 1110 words of the document:

c/g-infant attachments learning theory
interactions: Babies have frequent
and important interactions w/ their
reciprocity:Mothers respond to
ATTACHMENT classical conditioning: C/g (neutral
stimulus) associated w/ food
(unconditioned stimulus). C/g
becomes conditioned stimulus.
Attachment becomes a secondary
infant alertness. >3 months close
attention between c/g and infant schaffer's stages of animal studies drive through association w/ hunger.
operant conditioning:Crying
Interactional synchrony:
Interactions become
attachment lorenz's procedure: Goslings saw behaviour reinforced positively for
him when hatched infant and negatively for c/g.
coordinated. Isabella et al (quality aims: To investigate age of attachment findings:Newly hatched chicks Animal studies (Lorenz + Harlow
of attachment related to formation + who attachments are showed that feeding is not the key to
synchrony) formed with attach to first moving object they see
Hard to know what is happening (imprinting) and, when adults, try to
(observe simple gesture and procedure:Mothers of 60 Glaswegian mate with that species
Human studies (S + E found most
babies reported monthly on primary attachment figures were
expression + assume infant's Generalisability (birds + mammals
separation anxiety mother even when others did most
intentions. Feldman: just have different attachment systems so
observations, purpose not Findings: Most babies showed Lorenz's results may not be relevant
Cannot count for importance of
entirely understood, controlled attachment to a primary c/g by 32 to humans). Some observations
sensitivity and interactional
observations capture fine detail weeks + developed multiple questioned (Guiton et al found birds
of interactions attachments soon after this imprinting on rubber gloves did later
role of father: Grossman et al: Limited sample characteristics (all prefer their own species).
attachment to fathers less families were from same area and
study was over 50 years ago). Good
cultural variations in
important but may have a harlow's procedure: Baby monkeys
different role (play + stimulation) external validity (observations were in
p's natural environments). Longitudinal given cloth/wire mother with feeding attachment
fathers as c/g: Fathers adopt design (same p's were observed at bottle attached van ijzendoorn: Compared rates of
attachment beh. more typical of each age, eliminating p's differences as findings: Monkeys clung to cloth attachment type in 8 countries.
mothers a confounding variable). surrogate rather than wire one, Found more variation within than
Inconsistent findings (different
regardless of which dispensed milk. between cultures.
research q's overall picture
unclear). Children w/out fathers asocial stage: Little observable The maternally deprived monkeys Simonella et al: Italian attachment
social behaviour grew up socially dysfunctional. After
not different (suggests father rates have changed perhaps due to
Social behaviour is hard to observe in 90 days, attachments wouldn't form
role is not important). changing practices
first few weeks but this doesn't (critical period).
mean the baby is asocial Theoretical value (demonstrated that Jin et al: Korean attachment rates
attachment depends more on similar to Japan, could be due to
bowlby's theory of indiscriminate attachment: More contact comfort than feeding). similar child-rearing styles
observable attachment behaviour, Practical value (Howe: informs
attachment accept comfort from any adult understanding of risk factors for
conclusions: Attachment is innate
Conflicting evidence: van child abuse). and universal and secure attachment
monotropy: One particular Ijzendoorn et al found multiple Ethical issues (suffering of monkeys is the norm.
attachment is different in quality + attachments may appear first would be human-like). Large samples reduce impact of
importance than others anomalous results so improve
Mixed evidence (some babies form
specific attachments: Stranger internal validity
multiple attachments w/out any anxiety and separation anxiety in Countries do not = cultures nor
primary attachment). Seuss et al:
other attachments ay contribute as
regard to one particular adult
Just because a child protests
ainsworth's strange culturally specific methods of child
much as a primary one. when an adult leaves does not
necessarily = attachment
situation Method of assessment is biased
(research using SS imposes a USA
social releasers + critical procedure: 7 stage controlled
multiple attachments: test on other cultures)
period:Innate `cute' behaviours in the Attachment behaviour directed observation. Assessed proximity
first 2 years towards more than one adult seeking, exploration and secure base,
Brazleton et al: when social releasers S + E used limited measures of stranger and separation anxiety,
were ignored, babies were upset attachment response to reunion.
internal working model: Mental findings: Infants showed consistent
representations of the primary patterns of attachment behaviour. bowlby's theory of maternal
attachment relationship are ROMANIAN ORPHAN STUDIES secure: Enthusiastic greeting,
templates for future relationships
Bailey et al: quality of attachment RUTTER'S ERA STUDY: 165 orphans generally content. Kerns: securely
is passed on through generations adopted in Britain. Some of those
attached children have better separation vs deprivation: Physical
friendships and less likely to be separation only leads to deprivation
in families adopted later show low IQ and
involved in bullying when the child loses emotional care
disinhibited attachment.
BUCHAREST EARLY INTERVENTION avoidant: Avoids reunion, generally critical period: The first 30 months
reduced responses. Fear of intimacy are critical and deprivation in that
PROJECT:Random allocation to in adult relationships. time causes damage
institutional care or fostering. Secure resistant: Resists reunion, generally
attachment in 19% of institutional effects on development: Goldfarb:
more distressed deprivation causes low IQ. Bowlby:
group vs 74% of controls.
Validity (attachment type predicts emotional development e.g.
effects of institutionalisation: later social + personal behaviour e.g. affectionless psychopathy
Disinhibited attachment and bullying) Evidence may be poor (orphans have
intellectual retardation if Good reliability (different observers experienced other traumas. Bowlby
institutionalisation is prolonged. agree >90% of the time on may be a biased observer).
Real-life application (both attachment types) Counter-evidence (Lewis: sample of
institutional care + adoption practice Culture-bound (attachment 500, no link between early separation
have been improved using lessons behaviour may have different and later criminality).
from RO. meanings in different cultures so the Sensitive period (Bowlby exaggerated
Fewer EV (RO had fewer negative SS may be measuring different things) importance of critical period).
influences before institutionalisations
than e.g. war orphans).
Romanian orphanages unusually bad.


No comments have yet been made

Similar Psychology resources:

See all Psychology resources »See all resources »