ATTACHMENT 2

ATTACHMENT 2

1. Explanation of Attachment: Learning Theory

   • Behaviourism: all behaviours are learned rather than inherited
   • Classical Conditioning - new CR learned through association between a NS (mother) and an UCS (food)
     • Operation Conditioning - the reduction of discomfort created by hunger is rewarding so food becomes a primary reinforcer, associated with mother who becomes secondary reinforcer
     • Social Learning - children model parents' attachment behaviours (hugging) - Hay & Vespo
   • Evaluation
     • 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 & Emerson
     • Learning theory can explain some aspects of attachment - attention and responsiveness are rewards
     • Drive reduction - reducing discomfort does not explain secondary reinforcers
     • Alternative explanations - Bowlby's Monotropic Theory

2. Bowlby's Monotropic Theory

   • Bowlby's attachment theory 1969: critical period of 3-6 months and becomes increasingly difficult after this
   • Primary attachment figure - determined by caregiver sensitivity (Ainsworth)
   • Social releasers elicit caregiving and ensure attachment from parent to infant
   • Monotropy - primary attachment has special emotional role, secondary attachment provided safety net
     • Internal Working Model - acts as a template for future relationships, creating continuity (continuity hypothesis)
   • Evaluation
     • Attachment is adaptive
     • A sensitive period rather than a critical one - Rutter
     • Multiple attachments - Bowlby's views are not contradictory because secondary attachments contribute to one single internal working model
       • Continuity hypothesis - Sroufe
         • Temperament hypothesis - Kagan suggested the innate emotional personality determines attachment

3. Ainsworth's Strange Situation Types of Attachment

   • Systematic test of attachment to one caregiver, situation of mild stress and novelty
     • Procedure: observations made every 15 seconds of behaviours, e.g. contact-seeking or contact-avoidance
       • Findings: Type B Secure 65%, Insecure-Avoidant Type A 22%, Insecure-Resistant Type C 12%
         • Type A - avoid social interaction and intimacy with others, little response to separation and not seek proximity to caregiver on reunion, if picked up no tendency to cling or resist being put down, happy to explore without caregiver, high levels of anxiousness
         • Type B - harmonious cooperative attachment, not likely to cry if caregiver leaves room but show some distress when left with stranger, seek contact, easily calmed, independent
         • Type C - both seeks and resits intimacy and social interaction, immediate and intense distress when caregiver leaves room, likewise with strangers, on reunion display conflicting desires, angrily resist being picked up but maintain proximity
       • Behaviours assessed - separation anxiety, reunion behaviour, stranger anxiety, secure base
       • Other types of attachment - Disorganised Type D
       • High reliability - inter-observer reliability >.94
       • Real world application - Circle of Security Project
         • 2005 taught caregivers to better understand their infants' signals of distress
       • Low internal validity
       • Material reflexive functioning (Raval)