Attachment Revision Cards
- Created by: millywhitehouse
- Created on: 07-12-20 17:36
A01 Infant Caregiver Interactions
Reciprocity - taking turns in a conversation (e.g) Jaffe et al)
Brazelton - mother anticipates infant signals, basis of attachment
Interactional synchrony - coordinated behaviour
Meltzoff and Moore - 3 day old babies imitate mothers
Piaget - behaviour is pseudo - imitation (operant conditioning)
Murray and Trevarthen - infant distress if no response (supports innateness)
AO3 Infant Caregiver Interactions
Testing infant behaviour is difficult as they are in constant motion
Failure to replicate Meltzoff and Moore e.g Marian et al
Intentionally supported - no response to inanimate object (Anravanel and Deyong)
Individual differences - security of attachment associated with interactional synchrony (Isabella et al)
'Like me' hypothesis *Meltzoff) - interactional synchrony leads to Theory of Mind
AO1 Development of Attachment
Schaffer and Emerson studied 60 infants and mothers from Glasgow and found 4 stages of attachments: indiscriminate attachments, beginnings of attachment, specific attachment, multiple attachment
The role of the father - changing social practices: increased exposure right lead to primary attachments
Biological factors - women have hormones which encourage caringness
Frank et al - men are primary attachment figures of share this role
Secondary attachment - fathers are more playful (Geiger) and problem solving (WHite and Woolett)
AO3 Development of Attachment
Unreliable data - mothers of less securely attached infants would be less sensitive and possibly less accurate in their reports (systematic bias)
Biased sample - working class population from 1960s, results may not generalise
Multiple attachments - Rutter argued that all relationships are equivalent
Cultural variations - Sagi et al
Stage theories of development - may be too inflexible
AO1 Animal Studies Attachment: Lorenz
Lorenz procedure - goose eggs incubated so first living they saw was their natural mother or Lorenz
Findings - goslings imprinted on Lorenz and followed him
Critical period - imprinting doesn't happen later it is innate
Long lasting effects - irreversible and related to mate choice (sexual imprinting)
AO3 Animal Studies Attachment: Lorenz
Research support - Guiton et al
Imprinting issues - may not be irreversible and may be more than just learning
AO1 Animal Studies Attachment: Harlow
Procedure - wire 'mothers', one cloth covered. Feeding bottle attached to one or other
Findings - monkeys spent the most time with cloth-covered 'mother', whether or not feeding bottle was attached
Critical period - attachments must be formed before six months
Long-lasting effects - all motherless monkeys were abnormal socially and sexually
AO3 Animal Attachment Studies: Harlow
Confounding variable - wire mothers faces were different, varied systematically with independent variable
Generalising to humans may not be justified but the findings were confirmed e.g Schaffer and Emerson
Ethics - benefits may outweigh costs, but does not challenge findings
AO1 Explanations of Attachment: Learning Theory
Learning theory (behaviourism) - all behaviours are learned rather than inherited
Classical conditioning - new conditioned response learned through association between a neutral stimulus (mother) and an unconditioned stimulus (food)
Operant conditioning - the reduction of discomfort created by hunger is rewarding so food becomes a primary reinforcer, associated with mother who becomes a secondary reinforcer
Social learning - children model parents' attachment behaviours (Hay and Vespo
AO3 Explanations of Attachment: Learning Theory
Animal studies - lack external validity because simplified view of human attachment
Attachment is not based on food - Harlow showed it was contact comfort; supported by Schaffer and Emerson
Learning theory can explain some aspects of attachment - attention and responsiveness are rewards
Drive reduction - reducing discomfort does not explain secondary reinforcers
Alternative explanation - Bowlby's theory
AO1 Explanations of Attachment: Bowlby's Monotropi
Bowlby's attachment theory (1969) - critical period - attachments form around 3-6 months and become increasingly difficult
Primary attachment figure - determined by caregiver sensitivity (Ainsworth)
Social releases elicit caregiving and ensure attachment from parent to infant
Monotropy - primary attachment has a special emotional role, secondary attachment provide safety net
Internal working model - acts as a template for future relationships, creating continuity (continuity hypothesis)
AO3 Explanations of Attachment: Bowlby's Monotropi
Attachment is adaptive
A sensitive period rather than a critical period (Rutter et al)
Multiple attachments - Bowlby's views are not contradictory because secondary attachments contribute to one single internal working model
Continuity hypothesis (Sroufe et al)
Temperament hypothesis - Kagan suggested that innate emotional personality determines attachment
AO1 Ainsworth's Strange Situation
Ainsworth et al - a systermatic test of attachment to one caregiver, situation of mild stress and novelty
Procedure - observations every 15 seconds of behaviours e.g contact seeking or contact avoidance
Behaviours assessed - separation anxiety, reunion behaviour, stranger anxiety, secure base
Findings, types of attachment - secure (65% type B), insecure avoidant (22% type A), insecure resistant (12% type C)
AO3 Ainsworth's Strange Situation
Other types of attachment - disorganised (type D)
High reliability - inter-observer reliability > 0.94
Real world application - Circle of security project
Low internal validity
Maternal reflexive functioning (Raval et al)
AO1 Cultural Variations in Attachment
Key Study - Van Ijzendoom and Kroonenberg - meta analysis of 32 studies using the Strange Situation from 8 countries
Findings - secure attachment was the norm in all countries, greater variation within countries than between them
Cultural similarities - Efe infants (Tronick et al)
Cultural differences - more insecure attachment in German sample (Grossmann and Grossmann)
Cultural differences - no avoidant attachment in Japan sample (Takahashi)
AO3 Cultural Variations in Attachment
Similarities may be due to global culture (Van Ijzendoom and Kronenberg)
Within countries there are cultural differences e.g rural versus urban Japanese (Van Ijzendoom and Sagi)
Cross cultural research - uses tools developed in one country in a different setting where it has a different meaning (imposed etic)
Culture bias - Rothbaum argues that attachment theory generally has a Western bias
Indigenous theories - may be the solution though Posada and Jacobs suggest that there are universal attachment behaviours
AO1 Bowlby's Theory of Maternal Deprivation
Value of maternal care - children need a warm, intimate and continuous relationship with a mother or mother-substitute
Critical period - frequent and/or prolonged separations from a mother will have negative effects if they occur before the age of 2 and a half (critical period) or up to age 5 (sensitive period) if there is no mother substitute
Long term consequences - include emotional maladjustments or mental disorder such as depression
Key Study - 44 juvenile thieves
Findings - 86% of affectionless thieves had frequent separation before 2 compared with 17% of other thieves and 2% of control group
AO3 Bowbly's Theory of Maternal Deprivation
Emotional rather than physical separation is harmful (Radke-Yarrow)
Support for long terms effects (Bifulco et al)
Real world application - films of Laura brought about social change (Bowlby anf Robertson)
Individual differences - some children more resilient e.g securely attached children in TB hospital (Bowlby et al)
Deprivation vs privation - loss of care (deprivation) may not have as serious consequences as total lack of attachment (privation) (Rutter)
AO1 Romanian Orphan Studies: Effects of Institutio
Key Study: Rutter et al, (ERA) - 165 Romanian orphans, physcial, cognitive and social development tested at regular intervals
Findings - at age 11, those children adopted before 6 months showed good recovery, older adoptions associated with disinhibited attachment
Canadian study: Le Mare and Audet - Romanian orphans physically smaller at adoption by recovered by age 10
Romanian study: Zeanah et al - institutionalised Romanian orphans compared to control group more likely to display disinhibited attachment
Effects of institutionalization - physical underdevelopment (deprivation dwarfism, Gardner), intellectual underfuntioning (Skodak and Skeels), disinhibited attachment, poor parenting (Quinton et al)
AO3 Romanian Orphan Studies: Effect of Institution
Individual differences - some children appear to recover despite no apparent attachments within sensitive period
Real life application - adoption should be as early as possible and then infants securely attached (Singer et al)
Longitudinal studies - show that some changes take a while to become apparent, current studies show some recovery possible
Deprivation is only one factor - most institutionalised children experience multiple 'risks', thus maternal deprivation should not be over exaggerated
Institutionalisation may be slow development - the fact that children do appear to recover in time suggests that the effects simply slow down development
AO1 The Influence of Early Attachment
Internal working model - model of self and attachment partner based on their joint attachment history which generates expectations about current and future relationships
Key Study: Hazan and Shaver - place 'love quiz' in newspaper and analysed 620 responses
Findings - positive relationship between attachemtn type and love experiences/attitudes
Behaviours influenced by internal working model - childhood friendships (Minnesota child parent study), poor parenting (Quinton et al) romantic relationships (Hazan and Shaver) and mental health (attachment disorder)
AO3 The Influence of Early Attachment
Correlational research - internal working model may not cause later relationship experiences, temperament may be intervening variable
Retrospective classification - childhood attachment type based on memory of childhood which may be inaccurate, though support from longitudinal study (Simpson et al)
Overly determinstic - past attachment experiences do not always determine the course of future relationships
Low correlations - a meta analysis of studies suggest correlations between early attachments and later relationships may be as low as 0.10
Alternative explanation - adult relationships guided by self-verification
Related discussions on The Student Room
- GYG by a procrastinating year 13 »
- Psychology »
- libby app »
- Revision Struggles?! Join the 2023 TSR All Day Revision Thread! »
- advice for C in a level bio and chem? »
- AQA Sociology A LEVEL »
- as level chemistry help »
- Uni card »
- Student ID Cards at Kingston University »
- Cumulative Frequency A level Question »
Comments
No comments have yet been made