AS Psychology Unit 1

Attachment

Attachment

• A strong, reciprocal, emotional bond between an infant on primary care giver

• Two way

• Primary care giver is normally the mother

• Nature vs. Nurture argument

Learning Approach• Attachment is behaviour learnt from the environment through conditioning• Operant conditioning

– Learning through consequence– Caregiver is seen as a reward– When the child cries, caregiver responds by fulfilling needs which reinforces the behaviour

to continue• If the caregiver doesn’t respond, the child is less likely to repeat the behaviour as it is seen as

punishment

• Classical conditioning– Learning through association– When the same person fulfils the child’s needs they associate that person with the feeling of

comfort• Once this happens several times, the caregiver becomes the conditioned stimulus to which the child

responds with comfort

• Dollard and Miller– Combines the two types of conditioning– Cupboard love

• The need of food for survival• Not having food creates distress

– Reinforced behaviours that produce desirable responses• Food, warmth, etc.• Operant conditioning

– Learn to associate caregiver with feeling of pleasure• Classical conditioning

Learning Approach

• Evaluation– Shaffer and Emerson

• Attachments are formed to responsive individuals– As opposed to those who provide care

• Challenges learning theory as children form attachments to people who don’t feed them

– Harlow• Rhesus monkeys formed attachments with comforting dummy rather

than feeding dummy

– Research suggests that it may not be to do with food but rather comfort

Bowlby’s Evolutionary Theory

• Attachment has evolved due to a survival value• Evolutionary trait which is always genetically

transmitted– It is pre-programmed

– Children born with drive to attach to a caregiver• It is innate

• Lorenz– Goslings become attached to the first moving thing

they see when out of the egg• Called imprinting• Influenced Bowlby’s theory

Bowlby’s Evolutionary Theory• Most innate characteristics develop best in a limited time period

– Sensitive period• 6-9 months

– Can develop later but is much more difficult

• Infants born with certain characteristics which elicit care giving– Social releasers

• Appearance, crying, cooing, smiling, etc.

• Attachment provides a secure base– Allows the child to explore the world but return when they feel threatened

• Even in adult hood, you return to the secure base

– Attachment creates independence instead of dependence

• You form a number of attachments but one of them is different– Called the primary attachment monotropy

• Relation between child and primary caregiver creates a template– Internal working model

• What the child will base all future relationships off of

• Link between early attachment relationships and later emotional behaviour– Continuity hypothesis

Bowlby’s Evolutionary Theory• Evaluation

– Shaffer and Emerson• Attachments formed to responsive individuals rather than ones that

provide care• Develop multiple attachments earlier than Bowlby predicted• Primary attachment can be father

– Challenges Bowlby’s theory

– Harlow• Rhesus monkeys attached to comforting dummy mother rather than

feeding dummy– Shows attachment is probably innate rather than learnt

• Study carried out on animals– Cannot extrapolate results to humans

» We are cognitively and physiologically different

Harlow• Done in 1950’s

– Not affectionate era

• Bred monkeys– Took away from mothers so became attached to nappies

• Sought out physical contact and attachment• Were given a wire dummy mother and a cloth dummy mother

– Wire dummy provided food, cloth dummy didn’t– Became attached to cloth dummy despite not giving food

• Monkeys attached to cloth mother experienced privation• They never learnt to socialise

– No model to imitate– Internal working model

• Evaluation– Chose to experiment on monkeys due to closeness to humans– Moral obligations– Anthropomorphism

• Animals given human characteristics

– Shows comfort is basis for attachment• Not survival (food)• Contact comfort

Measuring Attachment – The Strange Situation• Mary Ainsworth

– Explore different types of attachment between child and mother– Controlled observation

• Child and mother observed interacting

– Four main behaviours observed• Exploration behaviour

– Is mother considered a secure base

• Stranger anxiety• Separation anxiety

• Reunion behaviour

– Procedure• Experimenter introduces mother and child to room and leaves• Parent seated while baby plays with toys

– Exploration behaviour

• Stranger enters, sits and talks with parent– Stranger anxiety

• Parent leaves room, stranger responds to child and comforts if upset– Separation anxiety/stranger anxiety

• Parent returns, greets and offers comfort of necessary to child, stranger leaves– Reunion behaviour

• Parent leaves room– Separation anxiety

• Stranger enters, offers comfort of necessary– Stranger anxiety

• Parent returns, comforts if necessary, and tries to get baby re-interested in toys– Reunion behaviour

Measuring Attachment – The Strange Situation

• Secure attachment– Nearly 70% showed these behaviours

• Uses mother as a secure base• Stranger anxiety• Separation anxiety• Happiness upon reunion

• Insecure avoidant– 15-20%

• Not worried when left• Treat mother and stranger in a similar manner• Avoids mother on reunion

• Insecure resistant/ambivalent– 10-15%

• Extremely distressed when left• Stranger anxiety• Difficult to comfort upon reunion

– Both seeking and rejecting mother

Measuring Attachment – The Strange Situation

• Evaluation– Procedure is easy to replicate

• Similar results have been found• Results are reliable

– Lack of mundane realism• Infants and mothers in an unfamiliar environment• This type of situation happens regularly in real life

– Going to a child minders

– Ethics• Children may have been stressed when mother left room• Procedure was discontinued if child showed intense distress

– Population validity• Original done on middle class, white Americans

– Might have different ways of bringing up children– Could influence results– Cannot generalise to wider audience

• Could be ethnocentric as well– Only looked at attachment between mother and child

• Child may have primary attachment to father

• Different types of attachment occur through sensitivity of mother– Mothers who are sensitive and read child’s moods and feelings, more likely to

have a secure attachment to children• Van Ijzendoorn and De Wolff

– Found a weak positive correlation between sensitivity and attachment• Kagan

– Argued child’s temperament must be taken into account

Measuring Attachment – The Strange Situation

• Temperament hypothesis– Different aspects of temperament

• Activity– How much time the child spends awake

• Emotionality– How the child becomes upset and aroused by events

• Sociability– How much the child seeks human company

– Different temperaments require different types of care• Belsky and Rovine

– Individual differences in attachment relate to the temperament of child and sensitivity of carer

• Hazan and Shaver– Type of attachment in early childhood predicts the type of relationships

in adulthood• Backs up continuity hypothesis by Bowlby

– Some people with a poor attachment in early childhood develop secure relationships in later life

• Challenges the continuity hypothesis

Measuring Attachment – Cross Cultural Variations (Van Ijzendoorn and Kroonenberg)

• Meta-analysis– Looked at 8 countries– 32 studies done– Over 1000 strange situations

• Didn’t do all studies themselves

• Evaluation– Large meta-analysis

• Includes collectivist and individualistic cultures

• 27 took place in Western cultures– Largest sample was America

• Sample is biased and may not be representative

– Procedure developed in US• May not be suitable for other

cultures– Japanese children never

separated from parents before age of 2

» React very differently to a child used to separation

– Ethical issues• Children got so distressed,

procedure had to be stopped

Country No. of Studies

Secure Avoidant Resistant

Germany 3 56.6 35.3 8.1

Israel 2 64.4 6.8 28.8

Japan 2 67.7 5.2 27.1

China 1 50 25 25

USA 18 64.8 21.1 14.1

Great Britain 1 75 22.2 2.8

Disruption of Attachment• Separation

– Child separated from attachment figure for a short amount of time• Deprivation

– Child formed attachment but experiences loss of attachment figure• Loss is long term/permanent and attachment bond is broken

• Privation– Child has never been able to form an attachment with any one caregiver

• PDD model– Little John’s mother in hospital and was left in hospital crèche for 9 days

• Father visited everyday but nurses ignored him– Protest

• Child protests at separation by crying, calling for primary caregiver and shows signs of panic

– Despair• After approximately 1 day, child looses interest in surroundings, becomes withdrawn,

cries less, eats and sleeps poorly– Detachment

• Child cries less, appears to have recovered, more alert and interested in surroundings• If caregiver reappears, child may not show interest• Attachment between child and caregiver may be damaged

– Most children re-establish attachment over time• Bond may be permanently broken for some

• 4 children were fostered while mother was in hospital– Maintained contact with primary caregiver

• Did not go through PDD model and happily went back to mother– Quality of care is critical

Effects of Privation• Koluchova twins

– Found at age 7– No recognisable speech– Placed with foster carers who provided secure home

• Developed strong attachment to foster family• Cognitive and social development normal once in foster care

– Doesn’t support Bowlby• Formed attachment to foster carers• Cognitive development caught up to normal norms• Could have attached to one another when in isolation

• Genie– Found at age 13– No speech found

• Never developed past basic communication– Formed attachment to David Rigler

• Bond broken when moved to foster care– Supports Bowlby

• Effects of deprivation were long lasting• Could have been retarded from birth• Cannot draw accurate conclusions

• Evaluation– Case study so very small sample

• Cannot generalise to wider population– Results may have been influenced by individual characteristics

– Ethical issues• Results cannot be replicated so not reliable

– Retrospective data• Impossible to check what happened before children were found

Effects of Institutionalisation (Hodges and Tizard)

• Natural experiment• 65 children brought up in children’s home until age 4

– Unable to form attachment until then– Provided good physical care and intellectual stimulation– No emotional support

• 25 returned to family, 33 adopted, 7 remained in care• Followed up at age 8 and 16• Results

– Most adoptees formed close attachments to adoptive parents• Difficulties with peer relations

– Less than half restored children had close attachments to parents• Difficulties with peer relations

– Supports Bowlby’s critical period theory• Children had difficulties developing peer relationships

– Challenges Bowlby’s critical period theory• Adopted and nearly half restored able to form strong bonds with parents

• Evaluation– Natural study

• Lack of control of extraneous variables– Attrition– High ecological validity– High mundane realism

Effects of Institutionalisation• Rutter

– On-going longitudinal study– Adopted Romanian orphans– Assessed them at ages 4, 6 and 11– Children spent early years in physical and emotional privation

• Adopted children at 6 months showed normal levels of development– Compared to UK adopted children of a similar age

• Adopted after 6 months showed disinhibited behaviour– Superficially accepting anyone as a caregiver– Problems with peers

– Shows children could recover from effects of early privation and institutional care

• Early adoptions had a more positive outcome– Evaluation

• Used a variety of research methods– Makes research more detailed– Responses could have been influenced by social desirability

• Attrition of sample– Some participants dropped out of study

• Natural experiment– Extraneous variables may have influenced results

Day Care• Day nurseries

– Provide for a large number of children– Children divided into smaller groups depending on age– Inspected regularly– Have to employ qualified staff– More children per staff member the older that are

• Childminders– Maximum of 6 children

• No more than 3 under age 3• Childminders own children count

– Usually look after them in a home environment– Must be registered and inspected by Ofsted– Not all childminders are qualified

• The best one for a child differs– Age of the child

• If they have formed an attachment– Type of existing attachment

• If it is a secure attachment, if an attachment has been formed– Childs temperament

• Easy-going or shy– Quality of the day care

Quality of Day Care

• 4 main things to be of good quality– Low children to staff ratio

• Child can form a bond• Affect the anger/happiness of child• Quality over quantity

– Low staff turnover• Longer staff work at nursery the better• Consistency for the child

– Stimulating environment• Clean and tidy• Warm and light• Plenty of stimulating toys and activities• Children need stimulation to develop properly

– Well trained staff• Care for children• Good at interacting in an appropriate way• Know how to encourage and support

Social Development – Peer Relations• Clarke-Stewart

– Studied 150 children attending school for the first time• Experienced different forms of day care

– Children who attended nurseries coped better in social situations and able to interact better with peers

• Compared to children looked after in family settings– Being in day care helps social relations and improves peer relations– Evaluation

• Small study– Can generalise findings but with caution

• Andersson– Studied social and cognitive progress of children attending Swedish day care– Children who attended day care got along better with peers and had better

abilities to play with other children who did not attend day care– Being in day care help social development and improves peer relations– Evaluation

• Swedish day care is particularly good quality• Findings are supported by other studies

• DiLalla– Correlational study into time spent in day care and pro-social behaviour– Found a negative correlation between amount of time spent in day care and pro-

social behaviour• Children who spent more time in day care were less cooperative and helpful

– Day care can harm peer relations– Evaluation

• Correlation so cannot infer cause and effect

Social Development – Aggression• EPPE project

– Studied over 3000 children in UK aged 3-7– Slight risk of antisocial behaviour when children spend more than 20 hours per week in

nurseries• Risk noticeably increases when 40+ hours a week spent in care• Increased aggression amongst children’s carers who were constantly changing

– Day care can increase anti-social and aggressive behaviour• Longer child spends in day care, more apparent aggressive behaviour is

– Evaluation• Supported by other research

– NICHD study found increased aggression among children in day care

• Baker– Analysed data on 33,000 children of 2 parent families

• Day care for all in Quebec introduced• 0-4 year olds in day care increased by 14% and number of married women returning to work

increased– After day care for all introduced, aggression in 2-4 year olds increased by 24% in Quebec

• Compared to the rest of Canada• Well being of parents also decreased

– Greater incidence of hostile parenting and dissatisfaction with spouse

– Day care can increase aggressive behaviour– Evaluation

• Relations between parents and parents attitudes also changed– Difficult to know whether day care directly caused aggressiveness or if partly through parent behaviours at home

• Shea– Video-taped children aged 3-4 during first 10 weeks of nursery school– Children became more sociable the longer they were in nursery

• Amount of aggressive behaviour decreased• Changes were greater in children attending 5 days a week compared to those attending 2 days a

week– Day care can increase sociability and decrease aggressive behaviour– Evaluation

• Aggression reduced more in children attending for 5 days compared to 2 days– Suggests that it was day care that caused this rather than the children