Attachment:

PSYA1 Booster

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.

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 a positive 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 conditioned stimulus by association.

Learning theory – Harlow and Harlow (1962)16 Rhesus monkeys!

-Not repeatable. -Went for comfort over food.-When reintroduced with monkeys, they were outcast.- Ethical issues.-Not generalisable to humans-Links to Bowlby (1950’s)/Dollard & Miller (1950)

Konrad Lorenz (1952)

Imprinting – a reciprocated mental image of infant and caregiver

Critical period – 2 years for humans, 17 hours for geese.‘the time in which an attachment must be made’

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 developed by primary attachment

• Monotropy – attachment to one person (Taken from Lorenz)

• Maintaining close proximity to avoid predation

Social releasers+

Parental instinct

ATTACHMENT

Evaluating Bowlby’s evolutionary theory of attachment:

• Backed up by Harlow and Harlow (1962) – monkey’s showed secure attachment.

• Harlow’s Monkeys demonstrated privation and 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?

Evaluating Bowlby (1952):

SUPPORTS• Backed up by Dollard and

Miller ‘cupboard love theory’ (1950)

• Backed up by Harlow and Harlow with their monkeys. (1958)

• Backed up by Schaffer and Emerson (1964)

GOES AGAINST• Reductionist – Explains complex

behaviours in narrow terms.

• 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?

• Rutter et al (1998-2007) found orphans who went into institutionalised care, who were able to form attachments after being adopted. After the 1st year of life – ARGUES CRITICAL PERIOD.

Maccoby: (1980)

1. Proximity seeking2. Distress on seperation3. Joy at reunion4. General orientation towards

each other.

Ainsworth (1970’s)• Strange situation – Baltimore 1970’s• 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 – DON’T CARE- Insecure resistant – I HATE YOU BUT I LOVE YOU

• 65% securely attached.• 21% insecure-avoidant.• 14% insecure-resistant.

• Shows that most of N. American children were securely attached.

• Association between mother’s behaviour & infants attachment type, suggesting the mother’s behaviour may help to determine attachment type.

Evaluating Ainsworth:+ Controlled observation+ Lab study+ Easily replicated = reliable+ Interrater reliability due to repeats, and psychologists with similar opinions.

- Demand characteristics- Lacks ecological validity

(COUNTER ARGUE as it COULD happen in real life)

- Ethical issues (protection from harm/lack of consent)

- Ethnocentric with Americans.

- (COUNTER ARGUE) as was repeated in different countries which leads to…

Van Ijzendoorn & Kroonenberg 1988 – meta-analysis

Country Secure % Ins. Resistant % Ins. Avoidant %

USA 65 21 14

Great Brit. 75 22 3

Israel 64 7 29

Japan 68 5 27

China 50 25 25

Evaluating Van Ijzendoorn and Kroonenberg

• Consistency throughout the nations.

• The sample size isn’t 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

• Cultural relativism:Whether the behaviour is

relative to that particular culture or not.

• Cultural differences:Whether cultures are the

same or similar or not…

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. one’s caregiver.

Hodges and Tizard (1989)Aim: Effects of privation & instatutionalise care.Procedure: Longitudinal, natural experiment.

65 children who’d 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 who’d 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.

Hodges and Tizard (1989) evaluation:

• In a natural experiment, it’s easy to conduct.

• There are no ethical issues with natural experiment – not very invasive.

• Proves Bowlby as it shows that early privation effects relationships.

• Longitudinal study, so there may have been attrition. Leaving a bias sample, and not necessarily generalisable.

• Random allocation of children – more attractive, or more sociable may have been picked first.

Rutter et 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.

Rutter et al (‘98-2007) Romanian Children – evaluation.

• Backs up Bowlby’s/Lorenz’s critical period, as stronger attachments were formed with the children adopted before 6 months.

• Children were all originally from Romania. Ethnocentric?

• Adopted all by British families. Culturally bias?

Created: disinhibited attachments = Children who don’t form one strong attachment, and just form lots of little ones.

Long term privation:1) Curtiss – Genie (1977)- Beaten, tied to a potty, thought of to be

mentally disabled, lived with psychologists, did not recover.2) Koluchová – 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 are married and live ‘normal’ lives.

Evaluate long term privation studies:

• Qualitative data• High validity• Links to critical period –

Bowlby.- Evolutionary (Genie)- Against evolutionary

theory. (Twins)• High eco. Validity

• MAY NOT be generalizable• Genie went to live with

psychologist• Ethical issues – no consent,

no right to withdraw, protection from harm.

• Confidentiality – Genie• Not reliable, can’t replicate• Psychologists can exploit

these case studies• Reliant on anecdotal

evidence (passing on of stories)

6 pt. rule for privation and deprivation:

A01:Genie – Curtiss ‘77:-Locked in room. Thought to be retarded.-Lacks speech.-IQ remained low.-Lived with psychologist.

Hodges and Tizard:-65 British children under 4.-Don’t form attachments.-Privation.-Adopt, return home, remain.

Czech Twins – Koluchová ‘72-’91:-Left in basement for 18 months, emotional privation at adopted family house.-Special case (twins – had each other)-Goes against internal working model.

A02:Genie:-Confidentiality.-No right to withdraw.

Case studies:-Lots of detail-May not be generalizable-Ecologically valid-Not reliable

Bias:-Subjective-Objective

SUBJECTIVE = Opinions/thoughts

OBJECTIVE = Scientific.

DAY CARE!

Day Care:• Any care given by someone

other than your primary caregiver.

Nursery:• 26-40 children.• Aged 2-5.• Divided into groups based

on age.

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.

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.

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, volenteer nurserys 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.

EPPE Evaluation:

• Children were tested from suburban and rural areas, giving a good range of ethnic diversity and backgrounds.

• Locally and nationally tested.

• Critics argued it wasn’t widespread enough (only in N.London and Oxford)

• Bryson et al (2006) found 1.3million families couldn’t find childcare when needed.

Does Day Care cause aggression?

No• Jay Belsky was counter

argued by NICHD 1991, as they stated that the 17% of aggression was within the normal range.

• Campbell and Brownell also questioned the true definition of ‘aggression’.

Yes• Cole and Cole (1996)

suggested children are more aggressive.

• Jay Belsky (2001), showed that 17% of children receiving day care were aggressive as opposed to the 6% who hadn’t received day care.

Does day care effect peer relationships?

Better peer relationships:• Clarke-Stewart (1994) day-

care children = better at negotiation.

• Creps and Vernon (1999) start day care before 6 months = more sociable peer relationships.

Worse peer relationships:• Unless securely attached…

Securely attached = more popular (Sroufe et al 2005).

• 20+ hours of day-care before the age of 1 = more likely to be insecure.