AQA Psychology - Attachment

Reciprocity: Jaffe et al. (1973) demostrated that infants coordinated actions with caregivers in kind of coversation. Brazelton (1979) suggests basic rhythm is important as it allows caregiver to respond appropriately therefore laying foundation for attachment.

Interactional synchrony: Meltzoff & Moore (1977) found infants as young as two weeks imitated facial and hand gestures,  in (1983) they found three day old demonstrating synchrony, suggested behaviour was innate.

Real or pseudo-imitation?: Piaget (1962) rejected intentional imitation saying any response in the first year was 'response training' for the sake of reward, for pseudo-imitation, infant not aware of matching moment. Murray & Trevarthen (1985) showed two-month olds real time video, mother responding, and repeating video, not responding, triggering acute distress, show infant active partner in mother-infant interaction, supporting innate reciprocity.

1. Indiscriminate attachments: 0-2 months babies give similar responses to all objects, towards end of phase they show preference to social stimuli, caregiver-infant interactions, establishing attachment.

2. Beginnings of attachment: around 4 months they begin to prefer human company, and familar and unfamiliar people, but show general sociability

3. Discriminate attachment: by 7 months they show seperation and stranger anxiety, and show joy at reunion with particular person, they've formed primary attachment figure. Shaffer & Emerson concluded the quality of the relationship determined attachment strength, 65% mother primary attachment, 30% mother first joint object of attachement, 3% father primarly attachment, 27% father first joint object.

4. Multiple attachments: very soon after primary attachment formed, Shaffer & Emerson found 29% of infant within month of primary attachment, they attach to others, within 6 months 78%, majority by 1 year, 1/3 formed 5 or more.

Lorenz (1935): Procedure - divided clutch of gosling eggs in two groups, one left with mother, one in incubator so first moving object they saw was Lorenz, to test imprinting he them put the groups together Findings - one group followed Lorenz with no recolition of mother, and other group mother, found imprinting is restricted to critical period, imprinting similar to attachment that binds young and caregiver.

Long-lasting effects: Lorenz (1952) found process unreversible, long-lasting and said geese Martina slept on his bed everynight, and has effect on mating preferences.

Harlow (1959): Procedure - created two wire mothers, one wrapped in cloth8 rhesus monkeyrs studied for 165 days, 4 had milk on wire mother and other 4 with cloth, observed on time duration with mothers and response when scared. Findings - all spent most time with cloth, those with milk on wire spent brief time on wire to feed then returned, when frightened they clung to cloth mother, and kept one food on cloth when playing with new objects, suggest infants attach to those who offer contact comfort.

Long-lasting effects: Harlow (1959) motherless monkeys developed abnormally, socially and sexually, could recover of spent time with 'peers' within 3 months, having mother than 6 months with wire mother was unrecoverable

Classical conditioning: Pavlov used process of unconditioned stimulus, with unconditioned response, neural stimuli is regularly assosiated with unconditioned stimulus and will producec same response, so neural stimulus become conditioned stimulus with and produces conditioned response, this means person who fooeds infant move from being neural stimulus to conditioned stimulus, seeing perform gives conditioned response of pleasure, 'mother love'

Operant conditioning: first investigated by Skinner, Dollard & Miller (1950) offered explanation, drive motivates behaviour, when infant fed drive is reduced, and pleasure produced, rewarding with positive reinforcement, food becomes primary reinforcer, person who supplies food is assositated with avoiding discomes and becomes secondary reinoforce and soure of reward, attachment forms because child seek perform who provides reward

Social learning theory: development by Bandura, Hay & Vespo (1988) used modelling to explain attachment behaviours, children observe parents affection and imitate, parents would also instruct children on how to behave in relationships and reward hugging and kissing

Bowlby's monotropic theory (1969):

Why attachments form: Bowlby assumed attachment behaviour evolved for survival function, attachment must go both ways, parents who look after offspring more likely to produce subsequent genrations.

How attachment forms: Critcial period - 3-6 months, innate drive to become attachment, those who don't attach within struggle with attachments later on, Bowlby proposed attachment determined by sensitivity, Ainsworth found infants most attached to most responsive, cooperative mothers Social releasers - behaviour/characterisitc that elicits caregiving and leads to attachment,Bowly suggested these enure attachments form Monotropy - Bowlby proposed primary attachment relationship, infants alo form secondary attachments he provie emotional safety net, important for healthy psychological and socia development.

The conseqeunces of attachment: infant has internal working model which in short term gives child insignt onto caregiver's behaviour and enables them to influence their behaviour, so true partnership formed, and in long run acts as template for future relationships. Continuity hypothesis propose strongly attached individuals in infancy contiue to be socially and emotionally competent, whereas other suffer difficulties in child and adulthood.

The strange situation, Ainsworth (1971): Procedure - room in novel environment, eight episodes, key feature is carefiver and stranger alternately stay/leave with infant, observation of infants reponse to; seperation from caregiver, reunion with caregiver, response to strangerm the novel environment tests secure base. Date collcted by video recorder, record infant every 15s with categories: proximit and contact-seeking behaviours, contact-maintaing behaviour, proximity and interaction-avoiding behaviours, contact and interaction-resisting and search behaviours. Findings: combined of several studies, A insecure-avoidant: avoid social interaction and intmacy, show little response to seperation and don't seek proximity on reunion, doesn't resist being put down and happy to explore without caregiver, B secure attachment - harmonious and cooperative interactions with caregiver, don't cry when they leave, little distress with stranger, easily soothed by them when feeling anxious, uses caregiver as secure base when exploring, C Insecure-resistant - intense distress when caregiver leaves, similar behaviour to strangers, show conflicting desires for and against contact, risist being picked up but try and maintain proximity. 

Ijzendorn & Kroonenberg (1988): Procedure - meta-analyis of 32 studies, 8 countries, looking for inter-cultural differences Findings - differences small, secure attachment most common, insecure-avoidant next common, except Israel and Japan, supports secure attachment 'best' for health socia and emotional development, support innate process. 

Cultural similarities: Tronick et al. (1992) studies African tribe, infants looked after and feed across woen but slept with own mothera, despite differences in childrearing practics, at 6 months, stilled showed primary attachment. 

Cultural differences: Grossman & Grossman (1991) found German infants insecurely attached due to difference childrearing preacticies, keeping interpersonal distance, so infants don't proximity seek. Takahashi (1990) used Strange Situation, 60 middle-cass Japanese infants, same secure attachment rates, no evidence of insecure-avoidant, high insecure-resistant 32%. 

Conclusion: strongest attachment formed with mother, differences in patterns of attachment related to differences in cultural attitudes and practices. 

Value of maternal care: Bowlby believed 'mother-live in infancy and childhood is as importnt for mental healther as vitamins and proteins are for physical health.'

Critical period: Bowlby believes child denied such care due to seperations may become emotioanally disturbed, applied to a critical period in development, up to 2 years and if n sunstitute mother-person available there's continuing risk up to 5 years, potential damage avoided by sustitute emotional care provided by mother-substitute, seperation need no result in deprivation, deprivation potionally causes long-term harm

Long-term consequences: Bowlby suggested consequence of deprivation was emotional maladjustment or mental health problems 

44 juvenile thieves, Bowlby (1944): Procedure - analysed case histories of patiences in Child Guidance Clinic in London, all emotionally maladjusted, 44 caught stealing, 44 control group, some thieves effectionless psychopaths, lacked affction, shame and responsibility Findings - 12/14 effectionless thieves experiences fequences sepration from mothers 5/30 other thieves, alomost non of control group did, seperation were stays in foster homes or hospitals, suggesting sepration linked to emotionless psychopathy

Rutter & Sonuga-Barke (2010): Procedure - since 1990s, ERA (English and Romanian adoptees), 165 Romanians spent lives in institutions, 111 adopted before 2 and 54 before 4 years, twsted at ages 4,6,11,15 years, asses physical, cognitive and social development, interview conducted with parents and teachers, progress compared to control group of 52 British children adopted before 6 months. Findings - at adoption Romanians lagged on all measures, by 4 some caught up, all caught up adopted before 6 months, follow-ups show some adopted after 6 months have  significant deficits showing disinhibited attachment and problems with peer relationships, suggests consequences less severse is children have opportunity to form attachment, if don't severe consequences.

Other studies of Romanian orphans: LeMare & Audet (2006) reported on 36 Romanain orphans adopted in Canada, measuring physical growth and health, physical smaller than control group at 4 and 1/2 years but this dissapeared by 10 and 1/2 years. Zeanah et al. (2005) comapred 136 Romanian children, spent 90% od lives in institution, control group never, ages 12-31 months assesed in Strange Situation, institutionlied children showed signs of disinhibited attachment. 

Effects of institutionalisation: - Physical underdevelopment - Intellectual underfunctioning - Disinhibited attachment - Poor parenting

Role of internal working model: Bowlby's concept is similar to a schema, infant learns what relationshgips are and how paterners behave, operable model of self and ttachment baternet, based on joit history, used to predict behaviour of others in future.

Hazan & Shaver (1987): Procedure - placed 'love quiz' in publicaion, asking current attachment experiences and attachment history to idential current and childhood attachment types, also asked attitudes towards love, 620 responses, 205 men, 415 women Findings - 56% securely attached, 25% avoidant, 19% reisistant, found postive correlation between attachment type and love experiences, described experience as happy,friendly,trusting enduring 10 years on average, found relationship between conception of love and attachment type, securely attached had positive internal working model.

Behaviours influenced by internal working model: Childhood friendships - Minnesota child-parent study found individuals who were securely attached in infancy were highest rated social competence later, less isolated, more popular, and empathetic, explained by intternal working model Poor parenting - Harlow's reseach shows link with poor attachment and difficulties with parenting, Quinton et al. showed same in humans, lack of internal working model mean lack of refrence to form relationships with own children Romantic relationships - Hazan & Shaver showed link with early attachment type and later relationships, securely attachment had longer relationships Mental health - lack of attachment in critical period results in lack of internal working model, children with attachment disorder have no primary figure, inabiliy to interact and relate  to others, due to severe neglect and change of caregivers, classed at distince psychiatric condition.