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 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.
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 (1950’s)/Dollard & Miller (1950)
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’
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
Evaluating Bowlbys evolutionary theory of attachment:• Backed up by Harlow and • Harlow’s Monkeys Harlow (1962) – monkey’s 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?
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.
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: - 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…
Evaluating Van Ijzendoorn and Kroonenberg• Consistency throughout • The sample size isn’t 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
• Cultural relativism: • Cultural differences:Whether the behaviour is Whether cultures are therelative to that particular same or similar or not…culture 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, • Longitudinal study, so it’s 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.
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.
Rutteret al (‘98-2007) Romanian Children – evaluation.• Backs up • Children were all Bowlby’s/Lorenz’s 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 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 bementally disabled, lived with psychologists, didnot 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 aremarried and live ‘normal’ lives.
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, can’t replicate• High eco. Validity • Psychologists can exploit these case studies • Reliant on anecdotal evidence (passing on of stories)
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- Don’t form attachments. - Not reliable- Privation.- Adopt, return home, remain. Bias: - SubjectiveCzech Twins – Koluchová ‘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.
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.
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, 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.
EPPE Evaluation:• Children were tested • Critics argued it wasn’t 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 couldn’t find tested. childcare when needed.
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 hadn’t received day care.
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.