week 4: sensitivity hypothesis

week 4: sensitivity hypothesis

1. examining key hypothesis in Bowlby and Ainsworths attachment theory

   • examining = SSP, AQS, CAS. Hypothesis - universal bonds, normativity hypothesis (majority are secure)

2. WHAT PREDICTS THE SECURITY OF ATTACHMENT RELATIONSHIPS? The relative influence of adult (mother) and infant characteristics

   • infant temperament e.g. proneness to be distressed, irritability - biological personality
     • Maternal caregiving e.g. extent to which the caregiver is able to promptly + appropriately respond to infants needs
       • what role do children play in their developement? is it active? how do biological and environmental influences affect social development e..g passive or active
     • disorganised attachment = child does not have an organised strategy for gaining proximity to their caregiver. Show a host of behaviours which show it is overwhelming for them

3. The Temperament Hypothesis = In SS we see a display of childs personality and nothing more. The difficult temperament will therefore be classified as anxious ambivalent

   • The temperamentally happy babies (easy to soothe) will be secure
   • therefore, not a test of attachment. GOLDSMITH + ALANSKY meta-analysis found proneness to distress predicted resistance behaviours. Link between irritable newborns and insecure attachments
     • however, modest genetic contibution. 70% of MZ twins and 64% of DZ twins share same attachment type >>> Environment
       • Different attachment style with different caregivers - if it was temperament you would not expect to find this variation
       • which temperament leads to which type? many different temperaments, how do we work out which ones is linked to attachment types

4. The sensitivity hypothesis = parental sensitive caregiving >> infants attachment type. child is more passive as the caregiver shapes the childs outcome. Secure rels result largely from sensitive, responsive caregiving

   • Insecure come when the caregiving is insensitive, failure to meet childs needs
   • focuses on maternal caregiving: likely to bc bias females have to respond to infant. infant have certain features/cuteness to inhibit aggression and fosters nurturing.
     • we look this way at birth to promote adults to care for us. Sex differences in perception of cuteness, females better at detecting > males
       • linked to levels of progesterone/oestrogen (reproductive hormones).Older women who had gone through menopause at the same level as men
   • secure children = consistent, warm, sensitive caregivers.
     • Anxious-Ambivalent = inconsistent, lack affection
       • Anxious-Avoidant =impatient, unresponsive, overstimulating
         • Disorganised = failure to provide basic security and protection. (substance abuse/trauma which compromise ability to care for child)
           • child is both in need of and frightened of caregiver

5. Experimental Evidence. 1. AINSFIELD ET AL 1990: baby carriers> car seats. randomly assigned to either, those in carriers were more likely to be secure in SS test as held their child closer. no avoidant attachments in those who were held closer... fosters security

   • 2. VAN DE BOOM 1994- enhanced mothers sensitivty. children were distressed, mothers low income. Those whose sensitivity enhanced in intervention >> more secure in SS tests
     • samples outside America and Europe predict same outcome for sensitivity
       • attachment quality assessed with SSP and AQS. Sensitivity predicts attachment Q sort
       • Parental sensitivity, link in fathers too, sensitivty predicts attachment style with child but the effect is smaller than mothers

6. What influences sensitivity? 'children who suffer deprivation become adults who lack the ability to care'

   • parents own attachment pattern can be assessed with an adult attachment assessment, indication of IWM (internal working model). Based on your attachment state of mind in adulthood >> predicts paternal sensitivity >> infants attachment pattern
     • concordant-attachment patterns - secure childhood = higher sensitivity. 64% infant=mother, 63% infant-father
     • between grandparent, parent and infant. 75% grandmother-mother-infant, 47% grandfather-father-infant
     • adverse life experiences >> children/adults who have experienced childhood maltreatment + loss of parent

7. sample of 209 mothers in America. assessed maternal sensitivity, dealing with distress/emotion capability. assessed genetic inheritance DRD4 = dopaminergic gene associated with signalling emotion and complex behaviour

   • coherance of mind = sensitivty
     • if mother had not had adverse life experiences = greater security/sensitivty. mothers who had adverse life experiences and presence of gene were more likely to be LESS sensiitve to their children
       • adverse life experiences but no gene = not more likely to be less sensitive. THEREFORE, GENETIC COMPONENTS INVOLVED

8. AINSWORTH - gave greater power to the mother, support for normativity hypothesis with the normal samples = greater insecurity, lower insecurity. for children with problems (deaf) = support again for the normativity hypothesis

   • when the problem aligned with the caregiver there was a slightly larger proportion of chldren as insecure, MATERNAL = GREATER INSECURITY
     • CRITICAL EVALUATION- evidence largely consistent with sensitivity hypothesis, transmission gap = parents sensitivty only accounts for a small proportion of the intergenerational transmission. Effect size = small to moderate. Developmental influences do not occur in isolation
       • only things that matter = personality characteristic of the caregiver, caregivers psychological attributes relates to the ability to provide sensitive care. context of which the rels is happening e.g. role of father supporting the mother. CAREGIVER ALLIANCE. support network/ family circumstances. Proffesional intervention - greater attachment security

9. genetic contibutions: return to DRD4 influence on emotionaries of the brain. recruited only mothers who had life trauma and classified their attachment pattern with interviews. unresolved = adult equivalent to disorganised. make non-coherant and non-logical reasoning. likely to compromise care of child. When the mother didnt have the unresolved type and the child carried the gene = low levels of disorganisation

   • same level of disorganisation for children without the gene who had an unresolved attachment type mother. both the caregiving environment and genes matter

10. number of factors which matter, a supportive partner can reduce the effects of unresolved attachment types, infants temperaments can effect attachment type.

    • Autism spectrum disorders compared to children who did not. An example of where sensitivity does not influence attachment pattern. VAN IJZENDOORN= put these children through SS and assessed paternal sensitivty, for the children in non ASD group, low sensitivity - low security.
      • autism group =sensitivity did not predict outcome

11. Ainsworth was convinced the relationship between child and adult was shaped equally by the 2 participants

Imagens e arquivos do mapa