Flashcards
Attachment - Key Studies
Cards in this deck (36)
- 1Feldman and Eiselman (2007) From birth babies and their mothers spend a lot of time in intense and pleasurable interaction. Babies have periodic 'already phases' and signal that they are ready for interaction. Mothers typically pick up and respond to infant alertness around two-thirds of the timeFeldman (2007)
From around three months this interaction tends to be increasingly frequent and involves close attention to each other's verbal signals and facial expressions - 2Brazleton et al (1975) Described this interaction as a 'dance' because it is just like a couple's dance where each partner responds to each other's movesMeltzoff and Moore (1977)
Observed the beginnings of interactional synchrony in infants as young as two weeks old. An adult displayed one of three facial expressions or one of three distinctive gestures. The child's response was filmed and identified by independent observers. An association was found between the expression or gesture the adult had displayed and the actions of the babies - 3Isabella et al (1989) Observed 30 mothers and infants together and assessed the degree of synchrony. The researchers assessed the quality of mother-infant attachment. They found that high levels of synchrony were associated with better quality mother-infant attachmentSchaffer and Emerson (1964)
Found that the majority of babies did become attached to their mother first (around 7 months) and within few weeks or months formed secondary attachments to other family members, including the father. In 75%of the infants studied an attachment was formed with the father by the age of 18 months. This was determined by the fact that the infants protested when their father walked away - a sign of attachment - 4Grossman (2002) Carried out a longitudinal study looking at both parents' behaviour and its relationship to the quality of children's attachment into their teens. Quality of infant attachment with mothers but not fathers was related to children's attachments in adolescence, suggesting that father attachment was less importantTiffany Field (1978)
Filmed 4-month-old babies in face-to-face interaction with the primary caregiver mothers, secondary caregiver fathers and primary caregiver fathers. Primary caregiver fathers, like mothers, spent more time smiling, imitating and holding infants than the secondary caregiver fathers. This behaviour appears to be important in building an attachment figure. The key to the attachment relationship is the level of responsiveness not just the gender of the parent - 5Feldman (2012) Points out that synchrony simply describes behaviours that occur at the same time. These are robust phenomena in the same that they can be reliably observed, but this may not be particularly useful as it does not tell us their purpose.MacCallum and Golombok (2004)
Have found that children growing up in single or same-sex parent families do not develop any differently from those in two-parent heterosexual families - 6Schaffer and Emerson (1964) Method Aimed to investigate the formation of early attachment, in particular, the age at which they developed their emotional intensity and to whom they were directed. The study involved 60 babies - 31 male, 29 female. All were from Glasgow and the majority were from skilled working-class families. The babies and mothers were visited at home every month for the first-year and again at 18 months. The researchers asked the mothers questions about the kind of protest their babies showed in seven everyday separations. This was designed to measure the infant's attachment. The researchers also assessed stranger anxiety - the infant's anxiety response to unfamiliar adultsSchaffer and Emerson (1964)
Findings
The data about attachments are shown in the table on the left. Between 25 and 32 weeks of age, about 50% of the babies showed signs of separation anxiety towards a particular adult, usually the mother. Attachment tended to be to the caregiver who was necessarily the person with whom the infant spent the most time. By the age of 40 weeks, 80% of babies had a specific attachment and almost 30% displayed multiple attachments - 7Schaffer and Emerson's stages of attachment Stage 1: Asocial stage (first few weeks) Stage 2: Indiscriminate attachment Stage 3: Specific attachment Stage 4: Multiple attachmentsBowlby (1969)
Some research seems to indicate that most if not all babies form attachments to a single main carer before they become capable of developing multiple attachments - 8van IJzendoorn et al (1993) Those who work in those cultural contexts where multiple caregivers are the norm, believe babies form multiple attachments from the outset.Bowlby (1969)
Pointed out that children have playmates as well as attachment figures and may get distressed when a playmate leaves the room but this doesn't signify attachment - 9Lorenz's research Method Lorenz set up a classic experiment in which he randomly divided a clutch of goose eggs. Half the eggs were hatched with the mother goose in their natural environment. The other half hatched in an incubator where the first moving object they saw was Lorenz.Lorenz's research
Findings
The incubator group followed Lorenz everywhere whereas the control group, hatched in the presence of their mother, followed her. When the two groups were mixed up the control group continued to follow the mother and the experimental group followed Lorenz. This phenomenon is called imprinting - whereby bird species that are mobile from birth attach to and follow the first moving object they see. Lorenz identified a critical period in which imprinting needs to take place. Depending on the species this can be as brief as a few hours after hatching. If imprinting doesn't occur within that time Lorenz found that chicks didn't attach themselves to a mother figure - 10Lorenz (1952) In a case study describes a peacock that had been reared in the reptile house of a zoo where the first moving objects the peacock saw after hatching were giant tortoises. As an adult, this bird would only direct courtship behaviour towards giant tortoises. Lorenz concluded that this meant he had undergone sexual imprintingHarlow (1958)
Tested the idea that a soft object serves some of the functions of a mother. In one experiment he reared 16 baby monkeys with two wire model 'mothers'. In one condition milk was dispensed by the plain wire mother whereas in a second condition the milk was displaced by the cloth-covered mother. It was found that the baby monkeys cuddled the soft object in preference to the wire one and sought comfort from the cloth one when frightened regardless of which dispensed milk. This showed that the contact comfort was of more importance to the monkey than food when it came to attachment behaviour - 11Guiton et al (1966) Found that chickens imprinted on yellow washing up gloves would try to mate with them as adults, but that with experience they eventually learned to prefer mating with other chickensDollard and Miller (1950)
Proposed that caregiver-infant attachment can be explained by the learning theory. Their approach is sometimes called 'cupboard love' approach because it emphasises the importance of the caregiver as a provider of food. Put simply they proposed that children learn to love whoever feeds them. - 12Sears et al (1957) Suggested that, as caregivers provide food, the primary driver of hunger becomes generalised to them. Attachment is thus a secondary drive learned by an association between the caregiver and the satisfaction of a primary driveHay and Vespo (1988)
Have proposed a newer explanation for infant-caregiver attachment based on SLT. SLT is based on the idea that social behaviour is acquired largely as a result of modelling and imitation of behaviour. They suggested that parents teach children to love them by modelling attachment behaviour and instructing and rewarding them with approval when they display attachment behaviour of their own - 13Bowlby's monotropic theory Part 1 Proposed an evolutionary explanation: that attachment an innate system that gave a survival advantage. Imprinting and attachment evolved because they ensure that young animals stay close to their caregiver and this protects them from hazards. Millions of years ago this might have been wild animals, today it is traffic and electricity. He described as monotropic because he placed great emphasis on a child's attachment to one particular caregiver and he believed that the child's attachment to this one caregiver is different and more important than othersBowlby's monotropic theory
Part 2
Bowlby called this person the 'mother' but was clear that it need not be the biological mother. Bowlby believed that the more time a baby spent with mother-figure - or primary attachment figure as we usually call them now - the better. He put forward two principles to clarify this:
- The law of continuity stated that the more constant and predictable a child's care, the better the quality of their attachment
- The law of accumulated separation stated that the effects of every separation from the mother add up 'and the safest dose is, therefore, a zero dose, - 14Bowbly's monotropic theory Part 3 Bowlby suggested that babies are born with a set of innate 'cute' behaviours like smiling, cooing and gripping that encourage attention from adults. He called these social releasers because their purpose is to activate the adult attachment system. He recognised that attachment was a reciprocal process. Both mother and baby have an innate predisposition to become attached and social releasers trigger that response in caregiver. The interaction between infant and adult attachment system gradually builds the relationship between infant and caregiver, beginning in the early weeks of life.Bowlby's monotropic theory
Part 4
Bowlby proposed that there is a critical period around 2 years when an infant attachment system is active. Bowlby viewed this as more of a sensitive period. a child is maximally sensitive at the age of two but, if an attachment is not formed at this time, a child will find it much harder to form one later. Bowlby proposed that a child forms a mental representation of their relationship with their primary caregiver. This is called the internal working model because it serves as a model for what relationships are like. - 15Bowlby's monotropic theory Part 5 It, therefore, has a powerful effect on the nature of child's future relationships are like. A child whose first experience is a loving relationship with a reliable caregiver will tend to form an expectation that all relationships are as loving and reliable, and they will bring these qualities to future relationships. However, a child whose first relationship involves poor treatment will tend to form further poor relationships in which they expect such treatment from others or treat others in that way.Bowlby's monotropic theory
Part 6
Most importantly the internal working model affects the child's later ability to be a parent themselves. People tend to base their parenting behaviour on their own experiences of being a parented. This explains why children from functional families tend to have similar families themselves - 16Brazleton et al (1975) Observed mothers and babies during their interactions, reporting the existence of interactional synchrony. They then extended the study from an observation to an experiment. Primary attachment figures were instructed to ignore their babies' signals. The babies initially showed some distress but, when the attachment figures continued to ignore the baby, some responded by curling up and lying motionlessBailey et al (2007)
They assessed 99 mothers with one-year-old babies on the quality of their attachment to their own mothers using a standard interview procedure. The researchers also assessed the attachment of the babies to their mothers by observation. It was found that the mothers who had reported poor attachments to their own parents in the interviews were much more likely to have children classified as poor attachment according to the observations - 17Burman (1994) Pointed out that the monotropic theory places a terrible burden of responsibility on mothers, setting them up to take the blame for anything that goes wrong in the rest of the child's life. It also pushes mothers, setting them into particular lifestyle choices like not returning to work when a child is bornKagan (1982)
Suggested that some babies are more anxious than others as a result of their genetic make-up. These temperamental differences explain later social experiences - 18Ainworth (1969/1978) The strange situation Procedure Part 1 The strange situation is a controlled observation procedure designed to measure the security of attachment a child displays towards a caregiver. It takes place in a room with quite controlled conditions (i.e. a laboratory) with a two-way mirror through which psychologists can observe the infant's behaviour. The behaviours used to judge attachment included proximity seeking, exploration and seeking-base behaviour, stranger anxiety, separation anxiety and response to a reunion.Ainsworth (1969/1978)
The strange situation
Procedure
Part 2
The procedure has 7 episodes, each of which lasts 3 minutes. In the beginning, the child and caregiver enter an unfamiliar playroom. then the procedure starts
1 - Then the child is encouraged to explore
2 - a stranger comes in and tries to interact with the child.
3 - The caregiver leaves the child and stranger together
4 - The caregiver returns and the stranger leaves
5 - The caregiver leaves the child alone
6 - The stranger returns
7 - The caregiver returns and is reunited with the child - 19Ainsworth (1969) The strange situation Findings Part 1 She found that there were distinct patterns in the way that infants behaved. She identified 3 main types of attachment. Secure attachment (Type B), these children explore happily but regularly go back to their caregiver (proximity seeking and secure base behaviour). They usually show moderate separation distress and moderate stranger anxiety. Securely attached children require and accept comfort from the caregiver in the reunion stage. About 60-75% of British toddlers are classified as secureAinsworth (1969)
The strange situation
Findings
Part 2
Insecure-avoidant attachment (Type A). These children explore freely but don't seek proximity or show secure base behaviour. They show little or no reaction when their caregiver leaves and they make little effort to make contact when the caregiver returns. They also show little stranger anxiety. They don't require comfort at the reunion stage. About 20-25% of toddlers are classified as insecure-avoidant. Insecure-resistance attachment (Type C). These children seek greater proximity than others and so explore less. They show huge stranger and separation distress but they resist comfort when reunited with their carer. Around 3% of British toddlers are classified as insecure-resistance. - 20Kokkinos (2007) Found that insecure-resistant attachment is associated with bullying in later childhoodWard et al (2006)
Found insecure-resistant is associated with adult mental health problems - 21Bick et al (2012) Looked at inter-rater reliability in a term of trained strange situation observers and found agreement ono attachment type for 94% of tested babiesTakahashi (1990)
Noted that the test doesn't really work in Japan because Japanese mothers are so rarely separated from their babies that, as we would expect, there are very high levels of separation anxiety. Also in reunion stage Japanese mothers rushed to the baby and scooped them up, meaning the child's response was hard to observe - 22Kagan (1982) Suggested that in fact, temperament is a more important influence on behaviour in the strange situation than attachmentMain and Soloman (1986)
Pointed out that a minority of children display atypical attachments that do not fall within types A, B or C behaviour. This atypical attachment is commonly known as disorganised attachment. Disorganised children display an odd mix of resistant and avoidant behaviours - 23van IJzendoorn and Kroonenberg (1988) The researchers located 32 studies of attachment where the Strange Situation had been used to investigate the proportions of infants with different attachment types. These 32 studies were conducted in 8 countries; 15 were in the USA. Overall the 32 studies yielded results for 1,990 children. The data for these 32 studies were mate-analysed, results were combined and weighted for sample size. They found there was wide variation between the proportions of attachment types in different studies. In all countries, type B was the most common classification. However, the proportion varied from 75% in Britain to 50% in China. Type C was overall least common although the proportions ranged from 3% in Britain to around 30% in Israel, Type A attachments were observed most commonly in Germany and least commonly in Japan. An interesting finding was that variations between results of studies within the same country were actually 150% greater than those between countries.Simonella et al (2014)
Conducted a study in Italy to see whether the proportions of babies of different attachment types still matches those found in previous studies. The researchers assessed 76 12-month olds using the Strange Situation. They found 50% were secure, with 36% insecure-avoidant. This is a lower rate of secure attachment that has been found in many studies. The researchers suggest this a because increasing numbers of mothers of very young children work long hours and use professional childcare. These findings suggest that cultural changes can make a dramatic difference in patterns of secure and insecure attachment - 24Jin et al (2012) Conducted a study to compare the proportions of attachment types in Korea to other studies. The strange situation was used to assess 87 children. The overall proportions of insecure and secure babies were similar to those in most countries, with most infants being secure. However, more of those classified to those as insecurely attached were resistant and only one child was avoidant. This distribution is similar to the distribution of attachment types found in Japan. Since Japan and Korea have quite similar child-rearing styles this similarity might be explained in terms of child-rearing styleVan Ijzendoorn and Sagi (2001)
Found that distributions of attachment type in Tokyo were similar to the Western studies, whereas a more rural sample had an over-representation of insecure-resistant individuals. This means that comparisons between countries may have little meaning; the particular cultural characteristics of the sample need to be specified - 25Grossman and Grossman (199) An example of imposed etic may be the idea that a lack of separation anxiety and lack of pleasure on reunion indicate an insecure attachment in the strange situation. In Germany, this behaviour might be seen more an independence than avoidance and hence not a sign of insecurity within that cultural contextKagan et al (1986)
suggested that attachment type is more related to temperament than to the relationship with the primary attachment figure. In which case the Strange Situation is not assessing attachment it is simply measuring anxiety - 26Bowlby's theory of maternal deprivation He proposed a theory of maternal deprivation in 1951. This earlier theory focused on the idea that the continual presence of a mother or mother-substitute is essential for the normal psychological development of babies and toddlers. According to him being separated from a mother in early childhood has serious consequences. He saw the first 30 months of life as a critical period for psychological development. If a child separated from their mother in the absence of suitable substitute care and so deprived of her emotional care for an extended period during this critical period then psychological damage was inevitableGoldfarb (1947)
Found lower IQ in children who had remained institutions as opposed to those who were fostered and thus had a higher standard of emotional care. - 27Bowlby's 44 thieves study (1944) The sample in this consisted of 44 criminal teenagers. All thieves were interviewed for signs of affectionless psychopathy; characterised as a lack of affection, lack of guilt about their actions and lack empathy for their victims. Their families were also interviewed in order to establish whether the 'thieves' had prolonged early separations from their mothers. A control group, picked by Bowlby, of non-criminal but emotionally disturbed young people was set up to see how often maternal deprivation occurred in the children who were not thieves. He found that 14 of the 44 thieves could be described as affectionless psychopaths. Of this 14, 12 had experienced prolonged separation from their mothers in the first 2 years of their lives. In contrast, only 5 of the remaining 30 'thieves' had experienced separations. Of the control group, only 2 out of 44 had experienced long separations.Lewis (1954)
Partially replicated the 44 thieves study on a larger scale, looking at 500 young people. In her sample history of early prolonged separation from the mother didn't predict criminality or difficulty forming close relationships - 28Koluchova (1976) Reported the case of twin boys from Czechoslovakia who were isolated from the age of 18 months until they were 7 seven years old (their stepmother kept them locked in a cupboard). Subsequently, they were looked after by two loving adults and appeared to recover fully. Cases like this show that the critical period identified by Bowlby may be a 'sensitive' one but it cannot be criticalLevy et al (2003)
Showed that separating baby rats from their mother for as little as a day had a permanent effect on their social development though not other aspects of development - 29Rutter (1976) Claimed that, when Bowlby talked of 'deprivation', he was muddling two concepts together. Rutter drew a distinction between deprivation, which really means the loss of the primary attachment figure after attachment has developed whereas privation is the failure to form any attachment in the first place. Rutter claimed that the severe long-term damage Bowlby associated with deprivation is actually more likely to be the result of privationRutter et al (2011)
Procedure
Followed a group of 165 Romanian orphans adopted in Britain to test what extent good care could make up for poor early experiences in institutions. Physical, cognitive and emotional development has been assessed at ages 4, 6, 11 and 15 years. A group of 52 British children adopted around the same time have served as a control group.
Findings
When they first arrived in the UK half the adoptees showed signs of mental retardation and the severely undernourished. At age 11 the adoptee children showed differential rates of recovery that were related to their age of adoption. Continued... - 30Rutter et al (2011) Findings Continued... The mean IQ of those children adopted before the age of 6 months was 102, compared with 86 for those adopted between 6 months and 2 years and 77 for those adopted after 2 years. These differences remained at the age 16 (Beckett et al 2010). There also appeared to be a difference in outcome related to whether adoption took place before or after 6 months. Those children adopted after they were 6 months showed signs of a particular attachment style called disinhibited attachment. Symptoms include attention seeking, clinginess and social behaviour directed indiscriminately towards all adults.Zeanah et al (2005)
Assessed attachment in 95 children aged 12-31 months who had spent most of their lives in institutional care. They were compared to a control group of 50 children who had never lived in an institution. Their attachment type was measured using the Strange Situation. In addition, carers were asked about unusual social behaviour including clingy, attention-seeking behaviour directly inappropriately at all adults. They found that 74% of the control came out as securely attached to the Strange Situation. However, only 19% of the institutional group were securely attached, with 65% being classified with disorganised attachment. The description of disinhibited attachment applied to 44% of institutionalised children as opposed to less than 20% of the controls - 31Rutter (2006) Has explained disinhibited attachment as an adaptation to living with multiple caregivers during the sensitive period for attachment formation. In poor quality institutions like those in Romania a child might have 50 carers none of whom they see enough to form a secure attachmentLangton (2006)
Demonstrated that the results of orphan studies have led to improvements in the way children are cared for in institutions such as having smaller numbers of carers working with the same child so instead of 10 carers looking after a child, it will be just 1 or 2 people. This means the child has a chance to form normal attachment and helps avoid disinhibited attachment - 32John Bowbly (1969) Suggested that a child having their first relationship with their primary attachment figure forms a mental representation of this relationship. This internal working acts as a template for future relationshipsKerns (1994)
Securely attached infants tend to go on form the best quality childhood friendships whereas insecurely attached infants later have friendship difficulties - 33Myron-Walker and Smith (1998) Assessed attachment type and bullying involvement using standard questionnaires in 196 children aged 7-11 from London. Secure children were unlikely to be involved in bullying. Insecure-avoidant children were the most likely to be victims and insecure-resistant children were most likely to be bulliesMcCarthy (1999)
Studied 40 adult women who had been assessed when they were infants to establish their early attachment type. Those assessed as securely attached infants had the best adult particular problems maintaining friendships whilst those classes as insecure-avoidant struggled with intimacy in romantic relationships - 34Hazan and Shaver (1987) Procedure They analysed 620 replies to a 'love quiz' printed in an American local newspaper. The quiz had 3 sections. The first assessed respondents' current or most important relationship. The 2nd part assessed general love experiences such as the number of partners. The 3rd section assessed attachment type by asking respondents to choose which of three statements best described their feelingsHazan and Shaver (1987)
Findings
56% of respondents were identified as securely attached with 25% insecure-avoidant and 19% insecure-resistant. Those reporting secure attachments were the most likely to have good and longer lasting romantic experiences. The avoidance respondents tended to reveal jealousy and fear of intimacy. These findings suggest that patterns of attachment behaviour are reflected in romantic relationships. - 35Bailey et al (2007) They considered the attachments of 99 mothers to their babies and to their own mothers. Mother-baby attachment was assessed using the Strange Situation and mother-own mother attachment was assessed using an adult attachment interview. The majority of women had the same attachment classification both to their babies and their own mothersZimmerman (2000)
Assessed infant attachment type and adolescent attachment to parents. There was a very little relationship between quality of infant and adolescent attachment - 36Clarke and Clarke (1998) Describe the influence of infant attachment on later attachment on later relationships as probabilistic. People are not doomed to always have bad relationships just because they had attachment problems. They have a greater risk of problems*blank*
Information
- Description
- AS level Psychology Flashcards on Attachment - Key Studies, created by Benjamin Smith on 23/02/2018.
- Created by
- Benjamin Smith
- Views
- 0
- Rating