AS Module 1 Developmental

12,049 views
11,658 views

Published on

Published in: Technology, Business
2 Comments
14 Likes
Statistics
Notes
  • Many thanks - it is much appreciated!! ;)
       Reply 
    Are you sure you want to  Yes  No
    Your message goes here
  • best i'v seen great work
       Reply 
    Are you sure you want to  Yes  No
    Your message goes here
No Downloads
Views
Total views
12,049
On SlideShare
0
From Embeds
0
Number of Embeds
108
Actions
Shares
0
Downloads
0
Comments
2
Likes
14
Embeds 0
No embeds

No notes for slide

AS Module 1 Developmental

  1. 1. AS Module 1 Developmental - Attachments <ul><li>Candidates will be expected to have a general awareness of research </li></ul><ul><li>findings in the areas covered by the specification. They will be </li></ul><ul><li>expected to know specific details of studies (i.e. basic aims, procedures, </li></ul><ul><li>findings, conclusions and at least one point of evaluation ) only where </li></ul><ul><li>the term ‘research’ occurs in the specification content. </li></ul><ul><li>The list of such studies for Unit 1 is as follows: </li></ul><ul><li>Developmental </li></ul><ul><li>• A study of individual differences in attachments (e.g. Ainsworth & </li></ul><ul><li>Bell, 1971) </li></ul><ul><li>• A study of cross-cultural variations in attachments </li></ul><ul><li>( e.g. Van Ijzendoorn & Kroonenberg , 1988 ) </li></ul><ul><li>• A study into the effects of privation ( e.g. Hodges & Tizard, 1989 ) </li></ul>
  2. 2. AS Module 1 Developmental - Attachments <ul><li>Developmental Psychology </li></ul><ul><li>a. The development and variety of attachments </li></ul><ul><li>Stages in the formation of attachments ( e.g. Schaffer ). Research into </li></ul><ul><li>individual differences in attachment , including secure and insecure </li></ul><ul><li>attachments ( e.g. Ainsworth ) and cross-cultural variations . </li></ul><ul><li>Explanations of attachment (e.g. learning theory , Bowlby’s theory ). </li></ul><ul><li>Psychoanalytic explanation </li></ul><ul><li>b. Deprivation and privation </li></ul><ul><li>Bowlby’s maternal depr i vation hypothesis , including evidence which </li></ul><ul><li>supports the hypothesis. Research into the effects o f privation (e.g. </li></ul><ul><li>studies of extreme privation and institutionalisation), including the </li></ul><ul><li>extent to which the effects of privation can be reversed. </li></ul><ul><li>Critical issue: day care The effects of day care on children’s cognitive and effects of day care on social development </li></ul>
  3. 3. Ainsworth & Bell <ul><li>A im – to investigate individual differences in infants attachment behaviour by observing reactions to separation from care-giver, and towards a stranger. </li></ul><ul><li>P rocedure – Laboratory based clinical observation. Behaviour of the infant is observed over 8 separate episodes involving the presence/absence of care-giver and/or a stranger. For list of episodes click HERE </li></ul><ul><li>F indings – Infants reactions to the various ‘episodes’ varied in terms of the responses to separation; the stranger; return of the mother (care-giver). These reactions were originally classified into three distinct behaviours, Types A; B and C. For details of these ‘types’ click HERE </li></ul><ul><li>C onclusions – Attachment behaviour does vary between individuals. These differences can be further described as ‘Secure’ and ‘Insecure’. </li></ul><ul><li>C riticisms – </li></ul><ul><ul><ul><li>Created and tested in USA and is therefore culturally biased. </li></ul></ul></ul><ul><ul><ul><li>It is an artificial situation and may distort the behaviour of both child and carer. </li></ul></ul></ul><ul><ul><ul><li>It oversimplifies the process, it may well be that there are more sub divisions of attachment than Ainsworth and Bell identified. </li></ul></ul></ul><ul><ul><ul><li>Main & Solomon (1986) found evidence of a 4 th (disorganised) attachment. Still supported the original 3. </li></ul></ul></ul>Return to APFCC studies Return to Specification
  4. 4. Van Ijzedoorn & Kroonenberg <ul><li>A im – To investigate the varying patterns of attachment behaviour across cultures </li></ul><ul><li>P rocedure – Meta-analysis of over 30 studies carried out across a variety of cultures, each using the Strange Situation technique. </li></ul><ul><li>F indings – Although in most cultures ‘Secure’ was the most common behaviour there were substantial variations in the distribution of the 3 attachment types (A, B and C) within different cultures (click HERE for some differences). However there was a greater variation (1.5 times the size) within cultures. </li></ul><ul><li>C onclusions – Type B (secure) appears to be the ‘norm’ in most countries. The variations in the distributions suggest that there are cultural and/or social influences on the behaviour of the infant. There is not </li></ul><ul><li>C riticisms – </li></ul><ul><ul><li>a) There is an uneven distribution of research from each country (e.g. 5 reports from one country and only 1 from another) this makes equal comparisons difficult. </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>b) Cultures differ in the behaviour they are expecting from their infants, therefore the procedure is ethnocentric. </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>c) There may be a pressure to force the observed behaviour into one of the ‘known’ categories, this may mask some other differences. </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>d) Only published research can be assessed with this method, results which show other differences may not be available. </li></ul></ul>Return to APFCC studies Return to Specification
  5. 5. Hodges & Tizard <ul><li>A ims – To investigate whether the effects of privation are permanent (as suggested by Bowlby) </li></ul><ul><li>P rocedure – A natural experiment using a matched pairs design, the pairs being either one of 65 children taken in to care before the age of 4, or from a control group, not taken into care. The study lasted until the children were 16. The cared for children were looked after by around 24 different carers by the age of 2. 24 had been adopted by the age of 4, 15 had been returned to their natural home, and the rest remained in the institution. Children were assessed at age 4, 8, 16 on emotional and social competence, using interview and self report. </li></ul><ul><li>F indings – At 4 there were no attachments formed by the experimental group; by 8 there were significant differences between the adopted and restored children. At 8 & 16 the adopted children had formed close relationships to their caregivers and appeared as attached as the control group. Adopted group showed better emotional adjustment than restored group. Both restored and adopted groups had social difficulties at school. </li></ul><ul><li>C onclusions – Some effects of privation can be reversed (as shown by adopted group who formed attachments); but other effects (socialisation problems) were less reversible. There appears a need to investigate further the differences between the adopted and the restored children's progress. </li></ul><ul><li>C riticisms – Large drop-out rate with most longitudinal studies, this causes biased sample; I.V. could not be directly manipulated and so cause and effect difficult to establish; reasons for restoration/adoption not addressed. </li></ul>Return to APFCC studies Return to Specification
  6. 6. Schaffer and Emerson (1964) <ul><li>ASOCIAL STAGE – </li></ul><ul><li>0 – 6 weeks </li></ul><ul><li>Smiling and crying not directed at any special individuals </li></ul><ul><li>INDISCRIMINATE ATTACHMENT – </li></ul><ul><li>6 weeks – 7 months </li></ul><ul><li>Attention sought from different individuals </li></ul><ul><li>SPECIFIC ATTACHMENTS – </li></ul><ul><li>7 - 11 months </li></ul><ul><li>Strong attachment to one individual. Good attachments to others often follow. </li></ul>Return to Specification Click to view
  7. 7. <ul><li>Type B - Secure </li></ul><ul><li>Secure </li></ul><ul><li>In Original Study this represented 70% of Attachments </li></ul><ul><li>Infant is distressed by caregivers absence </li></ul><ul><li>Seeks contact with caregiver upon return </li></ul><ul><li>Different reactions to caregiver and stranger </li></ul><ul><li>Emotionally supportive carer </li></ul>Return to Specification Return to Ainsworth & Bell
  8. 8. <ul><li>Type A - Insecure </li></ul><ul><li>Avoidant; </li></ul><ul><li>In Original Study this represented 20% of Attachments; </li></ul><ul><li>Infant shows little distress when separated from caregiver; </li></ul><ul><li>Does not seek contact upon return of caregiver; </li></ul><ul><li>Treats stranger in same way as caregiver; </li></ul><ul><li>Highest form of attachment found in Germany </li></ul>Return to Specification Click for Type C Return to Ainsworth & Bell
  9. 9. <ul><li>Type C - Insecure </li></ul><ul><li>Resistant </li></ul><ul><li>In Original Study this represented 10% of Attachments </li></ul><ul><li>Infant shows much distress when caregiver leaves </li></ul><ul><li>Resists contact on return of caregiver </li></ul><ul><li>Is wary of the stranger </li></ul><ul><li>Inconsistent carer </li></ul>Return to Specification Return to Ainsworth & Bell
  10. 10. Learning Theory (Cupboard Love) Explanation <ul><li>Based on:- </li></ul><ul><li>Classical Conditioning (Associationist approach) </li></ul><ul><ul><li>Food (UCS) = Pleasure (UCR) </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Feeder (CS) + Food (UCS) = Pleasure (UCR) PPPPPPPPP </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Feeder (CS) = Pleasure (CR) I </li></ul></ul><ul><li>Operant Conditioning </li></ul><ul><ul><li>Food Relieves Discomfort so is REWARDING (Primary Reinforcer) </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Supplier associated with relief becomes REWARDING (Secondary) </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Supplier is REWARD in their own right! </li></ul></ul>Return to Specification Click to view
  11. 11. Evaluating Learning Theory <ul><li>Prime assertion is that food is the most essential factor in the formation of Attachments. </li></ul><ul><li>Harlow and Harlow (1959) </li></ul><ul><ul><li>found that, given the choice, infant monkeys preferred cloth covered to food-bearing surrogate. </li></ul></ul><ul><li>Schaffer and Emerson (1964) </li></ul><ul><ul><li>found that Attachment was more dependent on responsiveness and interaction than simply food supply, or even time spent. </li></ul></ul><ul><li>Fox (1977) </li></ul><ul><ul><li>Found that in Kibbutzim children were most closely attached to mother not metapelet. </li></ul></ul>Return to Specification Click to view
  12. 12. Bowlby’s Theory of Attachment <ul><li>COMBINATION OF TWO THEORIES:- </li></ul><ul><li>Psychoanalytic (based on Freud) </li></ul><ul><ul><li>attachment to Mother occurs as she satisfies a basic need of food </li></ul></ul><ul><li>and </li></ul><ul><li>Ethological </li></ul><ul><ul><li>based on research into animals in the ‘wild’ by e.g Lorenz; Guiton </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Baby animals have a natural instinct to IMPRINT (follow first moving object they see). </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>considered that Human Infants ‘imprint’ on their mothers and this develops attachment behaviour. </li></ul></ul>Return to Specification Click to view
  13. 13. Bowlby’s Theory of Attachment <ul><li>ATTACHMENT IS ADAPTIVE (Evolutionary) </li></ul><ul><li>Safety (nearness to ‘adult’) </li></ul><ul><li>Emotional learning ( Internal working Model and the development of Schemas) </li></ul><ul><li>Secure Base for exploration of the environment (Important for Cognitive Development) </li></ul><ul><li>ATTACHMENT IS INNATE </li></ul><ul><li>it is fostered by ‘Social Releasers’ which encourage the care-giving. </li></ul><ul><li>Needs to be reciprocated by adult. </li></ul><ul><li>Need for interaction </li></ul>Return to Specification Click to view
  14. 14. Bowlby’s Theory of Attachment <ul><li>TIMING IS IMPORTANT </li></ul><ul><ul><li>In Ethological Research a ‘Critical Period’ is a period in development in which a behaviour develops, if it does not appear in this period it never will. </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Konrad Lorenz identified a Critical Period in the development of Imprinting in Greylag Geese , this behaviour, he believed, was irreversible and had long-lasting effects. </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>However later research (Guiton) with other birds showed that such behaviour can be changed . </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>As a result the notion of a Critical Period is better replaced with a ‘ Sensitive’ Period , i.e. Imprinting has an ideal period to develop, but it will occur outside this time, however it may be weaker. </li></ul></ul><ul><li>Bowlby saw Attachment as operating in the same way and suggested a Critical Period of 1 – 3 years. </li></ul>Return to Specification Click to view
  15. 15. Bowlby’s Theory of Attachment <ul><li>Klaus and Kennell suggested a Sensitive Period immediately after Birth following some research, however this evidence is questioned by Durkin and cross-cultural evidence from Lozoff. </li></ul><ul><li>MONOTROPY </li></ul><ul><li>Bowlby (1953) proposed that there is a distinct hierarchy of attachment in an infants life with the central caregiver (often but not always the mother) being the most important . He termed this the ‘Monotropy Hypothesis’ </li></ul><ul><li>There is evidence to suggest that this is an exaggeration (e.g. Freud and Dann study of war orphans) </li></ul><ul><li>EFFECTS ON FUTURE RELATIONSHIPS </li></ul><ul><li>Research by Hazan and Shaver suggest that relationships in later life do correlate to types of attachment as infants. </li></ul>Return to Specification Click to view
  16. 16. Psychoanalytic Explanation <ul><li>Based on Freud’s Three Part Personality Theory </li></ul><ul><ul><ul><li>ID (Primitive, unsocial, instinctive); </li></ul></ul></ul><ul><ul><ul><li>EGO (Contact with Reality); </li></ul></ul></ul><ul><ul><ul><li>SUPER-EGO (Conscience). </li></ul></ul></ul><ul><li>First Stage of Development (Oral Stage) </li></ul><ul><ul><li>ID derives satisfaction through Mouth. </li></ul></ul><ul><li>Mother feeds and satisfies this ‘drive’ </li></ul><ul><li>Becomes ‘Love’ (Affection) object </li></ul><ul><li>Cupboard Love aspect again </li></ul>Return to Specification Click to view
  17. 17. Bowlby’s maternal deprivation hypothesis (1953) <ul><li>Research base for Bowlby’s theory:- </li></ul><ul><li>Bowlby's famous study of 44 ‘juvenile delinquents’ (1944):- </li></ul><ul><ul><li>A group of children, referred for stealing, were compared to a control group. </li></ul></ul>Control ‘ Thieves’ 86% experienced early separation 32% ‘Affectionless Psychopaths’ 17% experienced early separation 0% ‘Affectionless Psychopaths’ 68% NOT ‘Affectionless Psychopaths’ CONCLUSION – The ‘Affectionless Psychopathy’ is a result of the early separation. Return to Specification
  18. 18. Bowlby’s maternal deprivation hypothesis <ul><li>Bowlby believed that “mother love in infancy and childhood is as important for mental health as are vitamins and proteins are for physical health” </li></ul><ul><li>Frequent and/or long separation will emotionally disturb the child if this happens before the age of 2½ if there is no substitute mother-person available. </li></ul><ul><li>There was a continuing risk up to 5 years. </li></ul><ul><li>The results of such separation (without substitute emotional care) were seen as drastic (affectionless psychopathy; dwarfism etc.) and irreversible. </li></ul><ul><li>Mother was seen as referring to the natural mother or “..permanent mother-substitute – one person who steadily ‘mothers’ ..” </li></ul>Return to Specification
  19. 19. Bowlby’s maternal deprivation hypothesis <ul><li>Influences of the theory – </li></ul><ul><li>The need to allow frequent visiting in the case of e.g. hospitalisation of parents/children is a result of Bowlby’s research and theory. </li></ul><ul><li>There have been accusations that the theory has encouraged ‘Women should be at home and looking after the children” thinking. It was certainly true that the theory received a lot of attention in the 1950’s when there was concern over the number of jobs occupied by women (as a result of the war) as men were being de-mobbed from the armed forces. </li></ul>Return to Specification
  20. 20. Bowlby’s maternal deprivation hypothesis <ul><li>What are the Main Assumptions/Predictions of Bowlbys Maternal Deprivation Theory? </li></ul><ul><li>Affectionless Psychopathy </li></ul><ul><li>Analytic Depression </li></ul><ul><li>Deprivation ‘Dwarfism’ </li></ul><ul><li>Intellectual Retardation </li></ul><ul><li>Irreversible </li></ul>
  21. 21. Bowlby’s maternal deprivation hypothesis <ul><li>Evaluation </li></ul><ul><li>44 thieves – </li></ul><ul><ul><li>Wrong sample – Should have selected a sample of separated and not separated children and looked for behaviour problems. There was little research into the separation suffered by the control group. </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Some children had suffered separation and were not affectionless psychopaths. </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Data was collected retrospectively (the history was gained by interviews relying on respondents accuracy of memory). </li></ul></ul>Supporting Evidence – Spitz and Wolf (1946) – observed that children in institutions became severely depressed after a few months. Skeels and Dye (1939) – found institution children scored lower than expected on intelligence tests. These studies were important as they showed that it was the separation from parents which seemed to be important, the good physical care given was not sufficient to replace the loss of the caregiver. Contradicting Evidence - Rutter - studied Romanian orphans who came to this country before the age of 2 years, by age 4 any negative effects of earlier experiences had greatly diminished, presumably because of better care. This refutes Bowlby’s assertion that effects will be permanent. Hodges & Tizard (1989) – click here for details Return to Specification
  22. 22. Effects of Privation <ul><li>Privation refers to the lack of any attachment figure, it is different from deprivation which refers to the loss of an established attachment. In some research the 2 are used interchangeably. </li></ul><ul><li>The concern for psychology is the nature and duration of the effects of privation. </li></ul><ul><li>Bowlby’s Maternal Deprivation Hypothesis suggests that effects will be large and permanent. </li></ul>Return to Specification
  23. 23. Effects of Privation – Case Studies <ul><li>Genie – (reported by Curtiss et. al. 1989) </li></ul><ul><ul><li>Found in 1970 at age of 13½; had been locked in a room with no outside contact, and she had been given no chance to speak. </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>She was underfed, could not stand erect and lacked social skills. </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Genie was given a lot of support (including education) after being found. </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>She developed in areas requiring no language understanding (perception etc.). </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Her language skills never fully developed, she learned a large vocabulary but could not use it effectively. </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Her social development was also impaired (probably due to language problems) </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Shows that effects may be modified but that certain development is difficult to change after long privation </li></ul></ul>Return to Specification
  24. 24. Effects of Privation - Case Studies <ul><li>Freud and Dann – War Orphans (1951) </li></ul><ul><li>Studied 6 children who had been without parents since a few months old. They lived together in a camp for 2 years until they were around 3 years old. </li></ul><ul><li>They had witnessed great brutality (including executions) whilst in the camps. </li></ul><ul><li>They had little contact with anyone other than themselves. </li></ul><ul><li>When released from the camp (and flown to England) they had poor speech, were underweight and showed hostility towards adults. </li></ul><ul><li>They did show attachment behaviour to each other. </li></ul><ul><li>Over time they became attached to carers and showed improved social and language skills. </li></ul><ul><li>2 of them developed psychiatric problems, but this is roughly in line with the rate of problems in any adult group. </li></ul><ul><li>This suggests that children can attach to people other than caregivers. </li></ul><ul><li>It also shows that the effects of privation are reversible to some degree. </li></ul>Return to Specification
  25. 25. Effects of Privation – Case Studies <ul><li>Koluchova (1976) – ‘Czech Twins’ </li></ul><ul><ul><li>Identical twins who spent the first 7 years locked in a cellar. They were regularly beaten and treated badly. </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>They were barely able to talk and used their own sign language to communicate. </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Fostered at 9 years old by 2 loving sisters. </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>By 14 their behaviour was nearly normal. </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>By 20 they were above average intelligence and had good relationships with their foster family. </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Shows that effects are reversible. </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Shows that language and social behaviour are first to be affected by privation. </li></ul></ul>Return to Specification
  26. 26. <ul><li>Day Care:- </li></ul><ul><ul><li>Any facility which provides care for children other than within their own immediate family. </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Is distinct from institutional care in that it does attempt to provide permanent substitute care. </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Can take one of many forms e.g. nurseries; childminders; play groups. </li></ul></ul>Day Care Return to Specification
  27. 27. Day Care <ul><li>Effects of Day Care:- </li></ul><ul><ul><li>Bowlby’s theory predicts that day care will pose a threat to the well being of the child. </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Robertson and Bowlby’s research indicated that the quality of substitute care should be improved. </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Operation Headstart (1960’s) which was conducted in America seemed to indicate that some children would benefit from such intervention. </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>The effects may also influence social and/or cognitive aspects of development. </li></ul></ul>Return to Specification
  28. 28. Effects of Day Care on Cognitive Development <ul><li>Pros </li></ul><ul><li>Burchinal et. al. (1989) found children who had been in child care scored higher on I.Q. tests than those who stayed home with their mother. </li></ul><ul><li>Broberg (1997) found children in Sweden who had been in child care had, by the age of 8, higher scores on verbal and maths skills than those who had not had the experience. The effect was greater the longer the child had been in day care. </li></ul><ul><li>Andersson (1992) found that in Sweden boys in particular showed higher school achievement if they had been in child care, especially if this was started before 1 year of age. </li></ul>Return to Specification
  29. 29. Effects of Day Care on Cognitive Development <ul><li>Cons </li></ul><ul><li>Tizard (1979) showed that conversations between mother and child were more complex than child/carer conversations. </li></ul>Return to Specification
  30. 30. Effects of Day Care on Social Development <ul><li>Pros </li></ul><ul><li>Shea (1981) found that over the first 10 weeks in nursery school 3 and 4 year olds became more sociable . The increases were greater where the children attended 5 days a week rather than 2. </li></ul><ul><li>Clarke-Stewart et al found peer relationships were more advanced in child in day-care. </li></ul><ul><li>Clarke-Stewart (1994) looked at the time spent in care and the quality of attachments in over 500 children. They found that there was no difference in the level of distress demonstrated in the ‘strange situation’ between children who had spent 30+ hours per week in day care (from age 3) and those who spent less than 10 hours a day. </li></ul>Return to Specification
  31. 31. Effects of Day Care on Social Development <ul><li>Cons </li></ul><ul><li>Pennebaker (1981) showed that children who are shy and unsociable can find nursery experiences threatening, which may have a negative effect on school progress. </li></ul><ul><li>Belsky (1988) found children who were in day care for at least 4 months starting before their first birthday were more likely to develop insecure attachments. </li></ul><ul><li>Sroufe felt that day care should be delayed for at least one year from birth. </li></ul><ul><li>Vandell (1990) found that Texas children who had experienced extensive child care were rated as lower in terms of emotional health and peer relationships. </li></ul>Return to Specification
  32. 32. Effects of Day Care - Issues <ul><li>Comparison of results from the large variety of studies into the effects of day care is not straightforward. </li></ul><ul><li>Some issues which confound these results:- </li></ul><ul><ul><ul><li>The background of the children in different studies is different. Some come from ‘poorer’ homes than others. It may be that child care can benefit those from such backgrounds, whereas children more enriched and stable homes may be less (or even negatively) effected. </li></ul></ul></ul><ul><ul><ul><li>The quality of the day care (often linked to the government expenditure priorities) varies from study to study. This is especially true when comparing studies from Sweden and Texas. </li></ul></ul></ul><ul><ul><ul><li>Individual differences in the children are difficult to eradicate from the studies. Pennebaker showed that shy children may be negatively effected, but more confident ones may benefit. </li></ul></ul></ul>Return to Specification
  33. 33. Strange Situation Episodes <ul><li>Mother and Baby enter Room </li></ul><ul><li>Mother sits on chair, responds if infant seeks attention </li></ul><ul><li>Stranger enters, talks to parent, parent leaves the room </li></ul><ul><li>Stranger tries to engage Infant </li></ul><ul><li>Parent enters room. Stranger leaves </li></ul><ul><li>Infant left alone. </li></ul><ul><li>Stranger enters, tries to engage Infant. </li></ul><ul><li>Parent enters, stranger leaves room. </li></ul>Return to Ainsworth & Bell Return to Specification

×