PSYA1 Psychology - Attachment. Including Bowlby, Ainsworth, Hodges and Tizard, Rutter et al and more !
Citation preview
1. Attachment:
2. Definition of attachment:A strong emotional bond that is
reciprocated between two people (e.g. infant and caregiver).
Attachments are there for infants to maintain proximity with their
caregiver, as they feel distress without one another.
3. Learning Theory of attachment Dollard and Miller (1950)
POSSIBLAYYY Attachment is based on the principles of classical and
operant conditioning.OPERANT: Any behaviour that creates apositive
reinforcement is repeated. E.g.Crying gets you food, therefore
babies cry.CLASSICAL: The thing that gives pleasure, e.g.food,
becomes the conditioned stimulus The caregiver becomes a
conditionedstimulus by association.
4. Learning theory Harlow and Harlow16 Rhesus monkeys! (1962)-
Not repeatable.- Went for comfort over food.- When reintroduced
with monkeys, they were outcast.- Ethical issues.- Not
generalisable to humans- Links to Bowlby (1950s)/Dollard &
Miller (1950)
5. Konrad Lorenz (1952)Imprinting a reciprocated mental imageof
infant and caregiverCritical period 2 years for humans, 17hours for
geese.the time in which an attachment mustbe made
6. Bowlby (1952)- Evolutionary explanation of attachment Innate
ability to attach Innate = born with it Important to survival
Evolutionary explanation of attachment Internal working model
(Taken from Freud) where later relationships are Social releasers
developed by primary attachment + Parental instinct Monotropy
attachment to one person (Taken from Lorenz) ATTACHMENT Maintaining
close proximity to avoid predation
7. Evaluating Bowlbys evolutionary theory of attachment: Backed
up by Harlow and Harlows Monkeys Harlow (1962) monkeys demonstrated
privation and showed secure attachment. isolation and not
deprivation Schaffer and Emerson (1964) Glasgow babies. 87% of the
children were attached to more than one parents. THEREFORE NOT
MONOTROPY However Glasgow Babies was subjective, so is it
reliable?
8. Evaluating Bowlby (1952):SUPPORTS GOES AGAINST Reductionist
Explains complex Backed up by Dollard and behaviours in narrow
terms. Miller cupboard love Schaffer and Emerson (1964) Glasgow
theory (1950) babies. Backed up by Harlow and 87% of the children
were attached to more than one parents. THEREFORE NOT Harlow with
their monkeys. MONOTROPY However Glasgow Babies was subjective, so
(1958) is it reliable? Backed up by Schaffer and Rutteret al
(1998-2007) found orphans Emerson (1964) who went into
institutionalised care, who were able to form attachments after
being adopted. After the 1st year of life ARGUES CRITICAL
PERIOD.
9. Maccoby: (1980)1. Proximity seeking2. Distress on
seperation3. Joy at reunion4. General orientation towards each
other.
10. Ainsworth (1970s) Strange situation Baltimore 1970s 100 x
12-18 month children 7 stages- Parent, child, enter, explore -
Stranger enter, talk to parent - Parent leaves - Parent returns,
stranger leaves - Parent leaves - Stranger returns - Parents
returns, stranger leaves 3 types of attachment:- Securely attached
WAAAAAAAAAH Oh, mommy!!!- Insecure avoidant DONT CARE - Insecure
resistant I HATE YOU BUT I LOVE YOU
11. 65% securely attached. 21% insecure-avoidant. 14%
insecure-resistant. Shows that most of N. American children were
securely attached. Association between mothers behaviour &
infants attachment type, suggesting the mothers behaviour may help
to determine attachment type.
12. Evaluating Ainsworth: - Demand characteristics+ Controlled
- Lacks ecological validityobservation (COUNTER ARGUE as it+ Lab
study COULD happen in real life)+ Easily replicated = - Ethical
issues (protectionreliable from harm/lack of+ Interrater
reliability consent)due to repeats, and - Ethnocentric
withpsychologists with Americans.similar opinions. - (COUNTER
ARGUE) as was repeated in different countries which leads to
14. Evaluating Van Ijzendoorn and Kroonenberg Consistency
throughout The sample size isnt the nations. stated for example,
Chinese study only had 36 ppts. Cultures and classes of the ppts
may not be generalizable due to cultural relativism. Demand
characteristics due to setting
15. Cultural relativism: Cultural differences:Whether the
behaviour is Whether cultures are therelative to that particular
same or similar or notculture or not.
16. Key terms:Disruption of attachment/separation:If the infant
is separated from his/hers attachment figure.Privation:Lack of
something. Emotional privation lack of attachment. Physical
privation lack of basic need. Food/shelter.Deprivation:Deprived of
something. Not having something. Could be LOSS of
attachment/breaking of an emotional
bond.Institutionalisation/institutional care:To put someone in
care.Separation:Being physically set apart from something e.g. ones
caregiver.
17. Hodges and Tizard (1989)Aim: Effects of privation
&instatutionalise care.Procedure: Longitudinal, natural
experiment. 65 children whod been institutionalised from less than
4 months. No attachments were formed. When the children were 4:- 24
had been adopted- 15 returned home- Rest remained in institution
(control group)At ages 8 and 16, the children were interviewed
those who were adopted, and those whod returned home.Findings:
Adopted children generally had close attachments & good
relationships. However adopted & home groups both seeked
approval from adults more so than the control group.Conc: Shows
recovery is possible in the right circumstances.
18. Hodges and Tizard (1989) evaluation: In a natural
experiment, Longitudinal study, so its easy to conduct. there may
have been There are no ethical attrition. Leaving a bias issues
with natural sample, and not experiment not very necessarily
invasive. generalisable. Proves Bowlby as it Random allocation of
shows that early children more privation effects attractive, or
more relationships. sociable may have been picked first.
19. Rutteret al (98-2007) Romanian orphans.Aim: To see whether
attachments are effected by institutionalisation.Procedure: 100
Romanian orphans were assessed at 4, 6 and 11.Adopted at either:6
months6-24 monthsOr after 24 months.Findings: Children adopted by
British families before the age of six months showed normal
development. However, children adopted after six months, showed
disinhibited attachment.Conclusion: Long term consequences are less
severe if the child has a chance to form an attachment.
20. Rutteret al (98-2007) Romanian Children evaluation. Backs
up Children were all Bowlbys/Lorenzs originally from critical
period, as Romania. Ethnocentric? stronger attachments Adopted all
by British were formed with the families. Culturally bias? children
adopted before 6 months. Created: disinhibited attachments =
Children who dont form one strong attachment, and just form lots of
little ones.
21. Long term privation:1) Curtiss Genie (1977)- Beaten, tied
to a potty, thought of to bementally disabled, lived with
psychologists, didnot recover.2) Koluchov Czech Twins(1972, 77,
91)- They had each other, 18 months in institute,then step mum, who
locked them away.Deprived of food etc. Small, could barely
talk.HOWEVER, recovered well, and both aremarried and live normal
lives.
22. Evaluate long term privation studies: Qualitative data MAY
NOT be generalizable High validity Genie went to live with
psychologist Links to critical period Ethical issues no consent,
Bowlby. no right to withdraw,- Evolutionary (Genie) protection from
harm.- Against evolutionary Confidentiality Genie theory. (Twins)
Not reliable, cant replicate High eco. Validity Psychologists can
exploit these case studies Reliant on anecdotal evidence (passing
on of stories)
23. 6 pt. rule for privation and deprivation:A01: A02:Genie
Curtiss 77: Genie:- Locked in room. Thought to be retarded. -
Confidentiality.- Lacks speech. - No right to withdraw.- IQ
remained low.- Lived with psychologist. Case studies: - Lots of
detailHodges and Tizard: - May not be generalizable- 65 British
children under 4. - Ecologically valid- Dont form attachments. -
Not reliable- Privation.- Adopt, return home, remain. Bias: -
SubjectiveCzech Twins Koluchov 72-91: - Objective- Left in basement
for 18 months, emotional privation at adopted family SUBJECTIVE =
Opinions/thoughts house.- Special case (twins had each other)
OBJECTIVE = Scientific.- Goes against internal working model.
24. DAY CARE!Day Care: Nursery: Any care given by someone 26-40
children. other than your primary Aged 2-5. caregiver. Divided into
groups based on age.
25. Good quality day care: High staff:children ratio. Low staff
turnover. Penelope Leach! High quality training. Good physical
provisions for the children. Mixed ages of children.
26. Penelope Leach a study into good day care FCCC (families,
children, childcare) (1998) 1200 Children (+ families) N. London
& Oxfordshire. (varied from near-poverty to more wealthy
families = a good range!) Longitudinal. Conclusion: Children looked
after by mothers do better. Babies and toddlers in nursery did
worst, and kids looked after by a childminder did second best.
Clarke-Stewart et al (1994) found children in group based day care
were better at negotiation. Harvey (1999) reached similar
conclusions. Only tested N.London& Oxfordshire, not
generalizable. Longitudinal = attrition.
27. EPPE Project Effective provision of pre- school education
Sylvia et al (2003):Aim: Studying impact of intellectual and social
development of children.Procedures: Studied 3000 children, from 141
pre-school centres (day-care, volenteernurserys etc)Children
assessed at 3 and 4 years old.Findings: Pre-school children
improved cognitive development compared to home children. Risks of
anti-social behaviours at high-quality pre- school. Disadvantaged
children did best along side variations of advantaged and
disadvantaged children.Conclusion: Pre-school can have a positive
impact on intellectual and social development.
28. EPPE Evaluation: Children were tested Critics argued it
wasnt from suburban and widespread enough rural areas, giving a
(only in N.London and good range of ethnic Oxford) diversity and
Bryson et al (2006) backgrounds. found 1.3million Locally and
nationally families couldnt find tested. childcare when
needed.
29. Does Day Care cause aggression?No Yes Jay Belsky was
counter Cole and Cole (1996) argued by NICHD 1991, as suggested
children are more they stated that the 17% of aggressive.
aggression was within the Jay Belsky (2001), showed normal range.
that 17% of children Campbell and Brownell also receiving day care
were questioned the true aggressive as opposed to definition of
aggression. the 6% who hadnt received day care.
30. Does day care effect peer relationships?Better peer
relationships: Worse peer relationships: Clarke-Stewart (1994) day-
Unless securely attached care children = better at Securely
attached = more negotiation. popular (Sroufeet al 2005). Creps and
Vernon (1999) 20+ hours of day-care start day care before 6 before
the age of 1 = more months = more sociable likely to be insecure.
peer relationships.