Lorenzo (1935) procedure and findings
Procedure-randomly split goose eggs into two groups.One was left in natural habitat with their mother (control group) the other was placed in an incubator(experimental group) the first thing they saw was Lorenz.Once hatched all mixed up
Findings-control group followed their natural mother while the experimental group followed Lorenz as they imprinted on him.
He identified a critical period for imprinting(if exposure to a moving object doesn’t happen during this period the bird will not imprint)
Critical period for goslings was about 13-16 hours after hatching
Guiton (1966)
Fed chicks with yellow rubber gloves.chicks became imprinted on them.
Supported the idea that animals have an innate desire to imprint but it was not predisposed to a certain animal,later male chicks tried to mate with the glove showing it as irreversible
However after spending time with their own species the imprinting was reversed(opposes Lorenzs research)
Criticisms-difficult to generalise to people as we attach and don’t imprint(it’s a two way relationship)
Harlow (1959) procedure and findings
Procedure:Two fake mother monkeys-one made of cloth one made of wire which had milk.
8 infants were raised with the monkeys over 165 days.Data collected on how much time was spent with the mothers and additional observations on how the monkeys reacted to being scared-they used a robot monkey
Findings:all 8 spent the majority of the time with the cloth mother,they only spent time with the other mother when feeding.When scared they held onto the cloth mother.When playing/investigating they kept a limb on the cloth mother.Suggests attachment is formed through contact and comfort rather than feeding.
Harlow(1959) conclusions and evaluations
Conclusion: a critical period for dysfunctional behaviour-monkeys who don’t time socialising with others before the age of 3 months showed some abnormal behaviour was reversible,however monkeys who were isolated for 6 months didn’t recover.
Long lasting effects- monkeys who had surrogate mothers were more timid,froze/fled when approached by other monkeys,easily bullied/wouldn’t stand up for themselves,had difficulty mating,females were inadequate mothers eg smashed infants head into the floor
Evaluation:not generalisable to people-people have more than one attachment and it’s not only their mother,low internal validity(can we establish cause and effect?)-the cloth monkeys heads were different,not ethical physical harm-eg hit themselves and others including offspring
ethics-intentional stress from separation and robot monkey
Learning theory overview
-two parts-classical conditioning and operant conditioning.
-Behaviour is learnt rather than innate.
-put forwards by behaviourists(behaviour is learnt through interaction with the environment)-proposes that children are born as blank slates and become who they are through their experiences.
-behaviourists suggest that all behaviour (including attachment) is learned through either classical or operant conditioning.
Learning theory-classical conditioning
Attachments are learnt through food the unconditioned stimulus(UCS) producing pleasure the (UCR)
When the UCS is paired with a neutral stimulus(NS) of a caregiver/mother then the mother becomes a Conditioned stimulus(CS) which produces a conditioned response(CR) of pleasure.
Infants learn to associate the feeling of pleasure with the caregiver even when food is not present.
Learning theory-operant conditioning
First investigated by Skinner then Dollard and Miller (1950)
Drive reduction theory- something that motivates behaviour-When an infant is hungry there is a drive to reduce the discomfort which happens as a result.Once the child is fed this produces a feeling of pleasure which is primary reinforcement.
Behaviour which is reinforced by food is repeated and food becomes the primary reinforcer as it’s associated with reward and reinforces the behaviour .
Person supplying food (mother/caregiver) becomes a secondary reinforcer as they become the source of the reward.As a result attachment occurs because because the child associates the the person who supplies food with reward and seeks them.
Drive reduction-reinforcement and punishment
Positive reinforcement-add stimuli for behaviour to be repeated eg money or a break
Negative reinforcement-take away stimuli for behaviour to be repeated eg electrocution
Positive punishment-add unwanted stimulus for behaviour to stop eg yellow card
Negative punishment-take away something positive for behaviour to stop eg phone
How attachments are formed
ASCM
A-adaptive-gives our species an adaptive advantage because if an infant is attached to their caregiver they are kept safe,warm and fed
S-social releasers-babies have social releasers which unlock the innate tendency of adults to care for them.Both physical-baby face features and proportions, as well as behavioural-crying ,cooing
C-critical period- babies form an attachment to their mother in a critical period of between 6 months to 2 1/2 years old.Bowlby said if this didn’t happen the baby would be damaged for life socially,emotionally,intellectually and physically.Later his work acknowledged the possibility of forming attachments (however more difficult)beyond the initial period (around to 5 years)in the ‘sensitive period’.
M-monotrophy-very special attachment between caregiver/mother and baby.Through this attachment an Internal working model is formed (IWM) which all future relationships will be based off of due to the…
Continuity hypothesis-IWM acts as a template because of expectations of what a loving ,intimate relationship would look like.Eg unpredictable mother could lead to a fear of intimacy and avoid long term relationships as an adult.
Bowlby’s monotropic attachment theory
Lorenz’s reasearch led Bolwlby to believe a similar process would operate in people
Bowlby’s theory is evolutionary-attachments evolve for survival(an infant who is not attached is less well protected)
Attachment is two way(kids are more protected if their parents are attached) so the kids will grow up and have children(the evolutionary aim to preserve the species).
evaluation of learning theory
-Harlow’s study is contradictory, monkeys wanted comfort not food so food is not the primary facor of attachment
-generalisability- learning theory is based off studies of animals so it may lack validity animals research is an oversimplification of human behaviour, humans have much more complex cognitions
-attachments aren’t always formed with the person who feeds, Schaffer and Emerson found 39 percent of attachments were not with the person who carried out physical care, more likely to be formed with those who played with the baby and offer comfort.
Bowlby’s monotropic attachment theory evaluation
-opposing evidence from learning theory suggesting that attachment is not entirely an innate drive, classical conditioning suggests there’s an environmental influence
-supporting Monotropy- Prior and Glaser concluded a hierarchical model of attachment suggesting one person is ‘higher’ than others and has a certain significance and contributes to healthy emotional development
-Schaffer and Emerson criticised monotropy,children develop many secondary attachments with other caregivers than the mother such as dad or grandparents or even joint primary attachments
Rutter concluded we develop multiple attachments of equal importance therefore the monotropy validity is questionable
The Continuity Hypothesis
according to Bowlby’s theory one outcome. of attachment is the effect it has on subsequent relationships.
tested by the Minnesota parent child study where participants were followed from infancy to late adolescence and found continuity between early attachment and late emotional/social behaviour
infants who were classified as securely attached in infancy were highest rated for social competence later in childhood, less isolated, more popular and more empathetic
this supports the idea of an internal working model as there’s a link between early and late attachments.
The Strange Situation Overveiw
Ainsworth et al. Infants aged between 12 and 18 months.Sample consisted of 100 middle class American families.Strange situation classifications are based primarily on four interaction behaviours directed toward the mothers in two reunion episodes.
the steps were:
-parent an infant play
-parent sits while infant plays
-stranger enters and talks to parent
-parent leaves, infant plays, stranger offers comfort if needed
-parent returns, greets infant ,offers comfort if needed; stranger leaves
-parent leaves ,infant alone
-stranger enters and offers comfort
-parent returns, greets infant, offers comfort
this categorises strength of attachment in:
-stranger anxiety
-separation anxiety
-reunion behaviour
-‘safe base’ behaviour
The Strange Situation-Findings
secure: separation anxiety-distressed when mother leaves, stranger anxiety- avoidant of stranger when alone, but friendly when the mother is present, reunion behaviour-positive and happy when mother returns, other-uses mother as safe base to explore their environment,70 percent of infants
avoidant: separation anxiety-no sign of distress when the mother leaves, stranger anxiety-the infant is okay with the stranger and plays normally when the stranger is present, reunion behaviour-the infant shows little interest when the mother returns, other-the mother and stranger are able to comfort the infant equally well, 15 percent
resistant:separation anxiety-intense distress when the mother leaves, stranger anxiety-the infant avoids the stranger and shows fear of the stranger, reunion behaviour- the infant approaches the mother, but resists contact, may even push her away, other-the infant cries more and explores less than the other two types, 15 percent
The Strange Situation Evaluation
-further research has found that the analysis overlooked a fourth type of attachment called insecure disorganised (type d) which is categorised by a lack of consistent patterns of social behaviour these infants lack a coherent strategy for dealing with the stress of separation so Ainsworth’s conclusions many lack validity and overall generalisability
-high reliability ,inter-observer reliability which is determined by comparing the ratings made by a panel of experienced judges was deemed to be high.Ainsworth et al. found almost perfect agreement when rating exploratory behaviour they found 94 percent agreement between raters
this suggests that even though observations are subjective in nature, the high reliability suggests the results are also valid and have predictive power
-low internal validity as some children behaved differently depending on which parent they were with this suggests that the classification of an attachment type might not be valid because what is measured in one relationship rather than a personal character lodged in the individual.
what is type d?
-distress from the infant crying leads to a frightening response from the parent, the infant experiences confusion and is unable to develop a coherent strategy they appear disorganised
-This is when the attachment figure who is supposed to protect from the potential danger becomes the source of danger
-older children may require formal support as a result of behavioural, emotional and cognitive difficulties
cultural variations in attachment-Van Ijzendoorn and Kroonenberg
-a meta-analysis was used, observed the strange situation using mother and infant pairs only.Infants were classified into 3 types ,secure ,resistant and avoidant ,8 countries infants ranged from 11-24 months
cultural similarities:
-secure attachments were the most common in all countries
-bigger differences within cultures than between them(more intra-cultural differences than inter-cultural)
cultural differences:
Germany- avoidant attachments were the most commonly found in west Germany than any other western culture
Israel-resistant attachments were most commonly found in Israel
conclusion:
-in all cultures secure was the most common attachment type
-intra-cultural differences were about 1.5 times larger than inter-cultural differences
-cultural practices and attitudes do seem to impact attachment type
Further cross-cultural research:Takahashi
-60 middle class infants aged under 12 months compared to American infants using the strange situation
-findings:68 percent of Japanese infants were securely attached,32 percent insecure resistant ,no infants insecure avoidant.When infants were left alone they were so distressed that the ‘leaving the infant alone’ stage had to be abandoned
-however if they’d not been so distressed then as many as 80 percent would be classed as securely attached
cultural variations in attachment-evaluation of countries and cultures
-Issues arise when comparing countries ,not cultures
Van Ijzendoorn and Sagi examined attachment in Tokyo and found similar distribution of attachment types to the Western studies, whereas a more rural sample found an increase in insecure-resistant
the results highlight variation within one country and do provide support for the study that there’s more variation within cultures.However the researchers often used the term ‘countries’ and not ‘cultures’ interchangebly and the results therefore lack clarity
Cultural variations in attachment -evaluation
cross-cultural research
a strength is the use of meta-analysis.
The meta-analysis used a large varying sample size allowing for the use of cross cultural conclusions.Researchers could compare by using studies with the same procedure (strange situation).
Minimal ethical issues as it used secondary research.
High objectivity as it was a collection of established data; no data interpretation of researcher bias
These factors increased the internal validity
Cultural variations in attachment -evaluation
Cultural bias
Limitation-using Ainsworth’s strange situation and classification of attachment styles is an example of imposed etic
Classification represents a western view of attachment e.g that a willingness to explore is an example of a secure attachment and in some cultures this might not be the case.The strange situation being applied to other cultures might lead cross-cultural differences to be overlooked
Furthermore the study suffers from enthnocentrism since the classification of attachment styles was developed in an american study it may reflect american values and practices
Therefore enthnocentrism and imposed etic may undermine the value of the study
Bowlby’s theory of maternal deprivation
his theory of monotrophy led him to this theory
suggested that due to the nature of monotrophy failure to initiate or a breakdown of maternal attachment would lead to serious consequences later in life.
-critical period for developing attachment of up to 2.5 years if attachment doesn’t happen here it won’t at all, later proposed a sensitive period of up to 5 years
long term consequences:
delinquency, reduced intelligence, increased aggression, depression, affectionless psychopathy, relationship problems
Bowlby’s 44 thieves
44 juvenile thieves, 44 non thieves ‘controls’
-all had IQ tested, parents interviewed for the child’s early life, then an interview with the child
findings:
some children experiences early and prolonged separation from their mothers.He diagnosed 32% as affectionless psychopaths none of the controls were.
86% of the affectionless diagnosed had experienced a long period of maternal separation before the age of 5.They had been undemonstrative and unresponsive since intimacy
