2/27/2012

Attachment

Classical conditioning: Associates caregiver with feelings of pleasure through food. Over time caregiver produces same feelings. (Pavlovs dogs learnt to associate bell with meals). Food (UCS) produces pleasure (UCR). Mother becomes associated with pleasure and becomes conditioned stimulus. Operant conditioning: Learning through positive/negative reinforcement When baby cries, caregiver consoles so baby gets positive reinforcement, and caregiver gets negative reinforcement. Both repeat. Skinners box: learned schedules of reinforcement Food satisfies the infants hunger and makes it feel comfortable again (drive reduction). Food is therefore a primary reinforcer. The mother is associated with food and becomes a secondary reinforcer. The infant becomes attached to mother because she is the source of reward.

2/27/2012

shows attachment isnt based on feeding (although we do learn through conditioning, but attention and responsiveness may be more important reward) Schaffer and Emerson: first attachment wasnt to person who provided physical care but person who was sensitive and rewarding Harlow: Primate studies showed attachment was based on comfort. Monkeys showed attachment to soft mother (spending longer time clinging), not wire mother with food
Evidence

Argued attachment was evolved mechanism to ensure survival. Infants are innately programmed to form an attachment. This is a biological process and takes place during a critical period. The role of social releasers is emphasised. The childs relationship with a Primary Caregiver provides an Internal Working Model which influences later relationships. Attachment is innate: evolved through natural selection to ensure survival and reproduce. Babies display social releasers that parents respond to instinctively. Internal working model/continuity hypotheses: First relationship is template for future relationships. Model of self built up (as valuable or not valuable). Safe basemother figure providing security and comfort.

2/27/2012

Sensitive

period: First 3 years limited window; after, v difficult to form attachments. Shouldnt be disrupted.

Monotropy:

Single attachment to most important person (at top of hierarchy)

=] Continuity hypothesis: supported by Hazan and Shaver love quiz. Found strong link between past and future relationships, and found following three categories:

Secure: lasting love Avoidant: doubtful of love Ambivalent: fell in love easily but not true love.

=] Sensitive period: Tizard and Hodges found children who formed no attachments had difficulties with peers =( Continuity hypothesis: BUT doesnt always predict future relationships. Continuity only applies when life events have no impact. Future experiences may cause change, e.g. a rape or death

2/27/2012

=( Temperament hypothesis: Continuity can be explained by this. Some infants are better than others at forming attachments- children who are appealing to their parents are also likely to be appealing to other people and this can explain attachments. Innate personalities can shape mothers responsiveness and future adult relationships, rather than the first relationship being a template. Easy/difficult/slow to warm up are three personality types, (evidence in identical twins). Different babies present different challenges. =( Monotropy: Schaffer and Emerson found multiple attachments common; at 7 months, 1/3 had multiple attachments. (Strongest bond not always with mother; with mother, 1/3 with fathers at 18 months).

Strange

situation: series of standardised situations Observational technique Monitored: seperation anxiety, stranger anxiety, general behaviour towards mother: seeing if the baby used mother as safe base Validity: predictive validity shown by love quiz, and high reliability because can repeat.

2/27/2012

secure

Insecure avoidant

Insecure ambivalent

Willingness to explore

Used mother as safe base+ happy to explore. Returns regularly.

Happy to explore, doesnt use mother as safe base (doesnt orientate towards mother)

Not happy to explore

Stranger anxiety

HIGH- wary of stranger; clearly prefers mother to stranger

LOW: unconcerned. Shows little preference for mother over stranger. Often avoids both. Unconcerned. Any distress: caused by being alone, not mother

HIGH

Seperation anxiety

Distressed when left (but some easy to soothe)

Very distressed

Reunion behaviour

Happy on return: greets and makes physical contact.

Little reaction. Doesnt seek comfort, but doesnt resist. Relationship involves avoiding closeness.

Clings, but shows ambivalent behaviour. Angry+ rejecting, not easily comforted. Alternates between seeking closeness and wanting distance.

Percentage of infants in this category

70%

15%

15%

If

attachment is biological, like Bowlby said, secure attachment should be optimal for all. cultural similarities: Mothers of securely attached infants are more sensitive In African tribe where babies were looked after and fed by different women, had primary attachment Meta-analysis: global patterns similar, suggesting attachment is biological

Cross -

2/27/2012

Intercultural differences: 1.5x greater than crosscultural Cross cultural differences: Different countries encourage different qualities, depending on values. Childs reaction in SS reflects methods of childrearing in country E.g. in Japan, babies rarely seperated from mother so very distressed on seperation, causing ambivalent classification. Imposed etics- the SS has different meaning in different cultures. Attachment theory is rooted in US (individualists) culture, e.g. sensitivity/continuity/secure base, concepts not really recognized by collectivist cultures

Factors that affect response: Age: strongest upset between 12 and 18 months, and lowest under 7 months Who left with: multiple attachments, so if primary attachment leaves it, will still be fine Whether securely attached: securely attached copes better, b/c belief mother will return

2/27/2012

Disruption is when there is an attachment to start with and then this is disrupted. Peterson & peterson: John placed in residential nursery for 9 days while mother was having baby. In beginning, made attempts to get attention from nurses, but stopped trying and breaks down. Rejects mother after. However reversible: positive effects on IQ when children with disruption placed in home with mentally retarded adults who provided emotional care (not intellectual). Bifulco et l: women who lost mothers were more likely to become depressed

emotional deprivation can harm early social/emotional development But substitute emotional care can compensate But individual may be vulnerable to emotional disorders.
Early

2/27/2012

no attachment whatsoever is formed Czech twins: No speech, terrified of people. Adopted by sisters who provided substitute emotional care. Developed average intelligence and social functioning, and eventually intergrated into mainstream school.Suggests reversible. Genie: Never recovered socially. Disinterested in others.Suggests irreversible.
When

Tizard

and Hodges: all ex-institutional children had difficulties coping with peers despite good emotional care in some cases )(although restored group better). Disinhibited attachment was shown. orphans: Those adopted early showed normal emotional development. Those adopted after 6 months showed disinhibited/inhibited attachment and had peer difficulties.

Romanian

2/27/2012

Poor parenting: (Harlow). Monkeys raised by surrogate mother were poor mothers, and same found with humans Deprivation dwarfism: (Gardner). Mother didnt touch baby because tube. Returned to normal at hospital due to attention, despite no diet change Attachment disorder: (Romanian orphans) either inhibited (withdrawn, unable to cope with social situations) or disinhibited: attention seeking, lack of fear of strangers, crying when adult leaves despite no attachment to them, no selectivity in social relationships. Mental disorder: (spitz and Wolfe) depression Little LT effect: Czech twins

Poor parenting: Harlow

Little in size: Czech twins

Deprivation dwarfism: Genie and gardner Attachment disorder: Romanian orphans

Mental disorder: Spitz and wolf (depression)

2/27/2012

Privation and disruption

Privation Disruption
Effects: - Negative impact of social and emotional development (Peterson and peterson) - Can recover with emotional care (retardation) - Vulnerable to mental disorders: Depression (Bifulco)

General privation: - Czech twins (sisters/school) - Genie

Institutional care: - Tizard and Hodges (peers/restored attachment) - Romanian orphans (6m, peers,attachment)

Quality

of care at institution Age of child when removed from privation (e.g. Romanian orphans that were removed when less than 6 months) Quality of care after: if can form attachment. E.g. adopted children more strongly attached than restored because more effort.

10

2/27/2012

Retrospective Not

generalisable But provides rich data Cant usually manipulate these variables because unethical

Children

in daycare develop greater independence at earlier age. This may be more positive (more confident in social situations) or negative (more challenging of adults). Daycare children have more contact with children of same age, so increased opportunities to develop social skills such as sharing. Good daycare provides social stimulation; children at home feel isolated, and mothers may be depressed

11

2/27/2012

=/ Campbell Lee and Hwang: those who spent long days in daycare under 3 less socially competent, and those who attended more days per week but had shorter days were more socially competent. Long days are tiring and may lead to negative intercation. Those who attend more days but have shorter sessions gain more social benefit =] Campbell Lee and Hwang: those who attended HQ daycare before 3 had better social abilities, which continued into later life to 15 years. This implies childrens skills have developed by 3 and then remain constant across childhood. Study suggests that good quality early childhood care for children is important in the development of socially skilled children and that their level of social competence persists through childhood. =] Field: the amount of time spent in day care positively correlated to friends in school =] Daycare children more sociable and have better playskills, and more cooperative

NICHD:

1000 children. The more time spent in daycare from birth to 4 , the more aggressive, disobedient, and assertive between 2-6, both at school and at home. (rated by adults). 3x more behaviour problems. However for the majoirty of children, levels were within the normal range. Borge et al: aggression higher in home reared.

12

2/27/2012

Quality

of care important: NICHD Individual differences Childs age and number of hours

Evaluation is likely to focus on research methodology, findings and implications. Variations in findings are difficult to resolve because studies have:

focused on different forms of day care investigated different variables (duration of care in hours per week, quality of care, age of child), employed different data collection techniques (interview , ratings, observation) it is difficult to draw inference as the effects of day care are complicated by a number of variables and it is difficult to tease out the social effects as a result of day care and those as a result of other variables which may exist (eg separation or physical deprivation, mothers sensitivity, income and education of the parents) Mediating factors causal inferences cannot be drawn from the studies. Research does, however, suggest that improving the consistency of care and quality in terms of emotional sensitivity of carers is likely to benefit social development.

13

2/27/2012

Implications of attachment research Implications of daycare research

Visiting arrangements in hospitals Parenting: encouragement of maternal sensitivity Adoptions: earlier

Improve quality: sensitive emotional care, Low child: staff ratio, minimal staff turnover, qualified staff

14