Unit 1: Attachment

Unit 1: Attachment

1. Learning Theory

   • Dollard & Miller
     • Classical & Operant conditioning
   • Schaffer & Emerson
     • 60 babies, separation situation, 39% mother not the main attachment figure
   • Harlow's Monkey
     • Monkeys chooses comfort over food
   • Fox
     • Babies have attachment with mother who does not feed them

2. Bowlby's evolutionary theory

   • Harlow
   • Schaffer & Emerson
   • Lamb
     • Different attachment serve different purpose. Refute monotropy attachment

3. Stranger situation paradiym

   • Ainsworth
   • Van Ijzendoorn & Schuengel
     • Support their findings: parental sensitivity causes attachment security
   • Brofenbrenner
     • Attachment behaviour at Lab > Home
   • Main & Weston
     • Depends on quality of relationship, relationship is measured instead of attachment

4. Cultural Variations

   • Van Ijzendoorn & Kroonenberg
     • 32 SSP, 8 countries, 2000 children: Secure attachment as common type
     • Japan & Isarel: Insecure resistant as common
   • Kyoung
     • Diff. child rearing still can lead to secure attachment: Korean
   • Grossmann & Grossmann
     • German child rearing practice: distance between P&C: Insecure

5. Maternal deprivation hypothesis

   • Bowlby
     • 44 thieves. 32% affectionless psychopath. 86% experienced separation
   • Deprivation
     • ST: Robertson & Robertson
       • John: Extreme distress while mother was hospitalised
     • Institutionalisation of Romanian infants
     • Hetherington & Stanley-Hagan
       • Individual differences of children to separation
   • Privation
     • Curtiss & Rymer
       • Genie
     • Koluchova
       • Czech twins

6. Day Care

   • Aggression
     • Durkin
       • Children in DC since infancy=more aggressive
     • Egeland & Heister
       • Insecure=Progressed well Secure=aggressive
     • NICHD(2003)
       • Amount of time spent in DC related to aggression level. 30hr/wk
     • NICHD(2004)
       • Longest time in DC=Lowest level of aggression
     • Doherty
       • High quality DC=Low level aggression
     • Hagekull & Bohlin
       • High quality group care, DC has compensatory effect on aggression level
   • Social Development
     • Andersson
       • Higher socio-emotional competence, more sociable with peers
     • Hartup & Moore
       • Interact more with peers, achieve +ve relationships
     • Rubenstein & Howes
       • Psychologically healthy outcomes. More interaction with familiar peers, less anxiety with unfamiliar peers
     • Gunner et al
       • DC challenging for children who had -ve interactions, harm peer relationship
     • Campbell, Lamb, Hwang
       • Longer time/day in DC=lower social competence
     • Guralnich et al
       • Children with disabilities, less interaction not accepted--DC not beneficial for all