A-Level AQA Psychology: Attachments Full Study Notes, Study notes of Psychology

Download A-Level AQA Psychology: Attachments Full Study Notes and more Study notes Psychology in PDF only on Docsity!

PSYCHOLOGY A-LEVEL AQA

ATTACHMENTS BOOKLET

CONTENTS

QUICK AO1 SUMMARY

…………………………………………………….....page 3 QUICK AO3 SUMMARY ……………………………...…………………….....page 4 CAREGIVER-INFANT INTERACTIONS keywords and AO ………………………………………....………....page 5- AO3 notes .……………………………………...……………....page 7 DEVELOPMENT OF ATTACHMENTS keywords and AO ………………………………………....………...page 8- AO3 notes .……………………………………...……………...page 11 ANIMAL STUDIES OF ATTACHMENT keywords and AO ……………………………………....………....page 13- AO3 notes .……………………………………...……………..page 15 EXPLANATIONS OF ATTACHMENTS: LEARNING THEORY keywords and AO ……….……………………………....………...page 17- AO3 notes .……………………………………….…………….page 19 EXPLANATIONS OF ATTACHMENTS: BOWLBY’S THEORY keywords and AO ……………………………………....………....page 21- AO3 notes .……………………………………...…………......page 23 AINSWORTH STRANGE SITUATION: TYPES OF ATTACHMENT keywords and AO …………………………………....………...….page 24- AO3 notes .……………………………………...……………..page 27

CULTURAL VARIATION IN ATTACHMENT

keywords and AO ……………………………………....………...….page 29- AO3 notes .……………………………………...………………..page 31 BOWLBY’S MATERNAL DEPRIVATION THEORY keywords and AO …...………………………………....………...….page 33- AO3 notes .……………………………………...…………….....page 35 ROMANIAN ORPHAN STUDIES: EFFECTS OF INSTITUTIONALISATION keywords and AO ……………………………………....………...….page 37- AO3 notes .……………………………………...…………….....page 39 INFLUENCE OF EARLY ATTACHMENTS keywords and AO ……………………………………....………...….page 41- AO3 notes .……………………………………...………………..page 43

AO1 SUMMARY

CAREGIVER-INFANT INTERACTIONS DEVELOPMENT OF ATTACHMENTS

Reciprocity Interactional Synchrony Meltzoff + Moore’s Interactional Synchrony Real or Pseudo-imitation Stages of Attachment Stage 1: Indiscriminate Attachments Stage 2: Beginning of Attachment Stage 3: Discriminate Attachments Stage 4: Multiple Attachments Role of the Father

ANIMAL STUDIES OF ATTACHMENT EXPLANATIONS OF ATTACHMENTS:

LEARNING THEORY

Lorenz’s Imprinting Study

Harlow’s Attachment Study

Learning Theory of Attachment

Classical Conditioning

Operant Conditioning

Social Learning Theory

EXPLANATIONS OF ATTACHMENTS:

BOWLBY’S THEORY

AINSWORTH’S STRANGE SITUATION: TYPES

OF ATTACHMENT

Bowlby’s Monotropic Attachment Theory

Why Attachment Forms?

How Attachment Forms?

Consequences of Attachments

Ainsworth’s Strange Situation Study

Types of Attachment

CULTURAL VARIATIONS IN ATTACHMENT BOWLBY’S MATERNAL DEPRIVATION THEORY

Ijzendoorn + Kroonenberg’s study

Cultural Similarities

Cultural Differences

Korean Study

Italian Study

Maternal Deprivation

Value of Maternal Care

Critical Period

Long-term Consequences

44 Juvenile Thieves Study

ROMANIAN ORPHAN STUDIES: EFFECTS OF

INSTITUTIONALISATION

INFLUENCE OF EARLY ATTACHMENTS

Rutter + Sonuga-Barke’s Study

Other Orphan Studies

Effects of Institutionalisation

Role of the Internal Working Model

Hazan + Shaver’s Study

Behaviours Influenced by the Internal Working

Model

AO3 SUMMARY

CAREGIVER-INFANT INTERACTIONS DEVELOPMENT OF ATTACHMENTS

value of research

issues with testing infant behaviour

intentionality of behaviour is supported

failure to replicate

individual differences

challenging monotropy

unreliable data

biased sample

cultural variations

stage theories

ANIMAL STUDIES OF ATTACHMENT EXPLANATIONS OF ATTACHMENTS:

LEARNING THEORY

• Lorenz’s Imprinting Study

support for imprinting

criticisms of imprinting

• Harlow’s Attachment Study

based on animals

ethics of the study

confounding variable

learning theory based on animal studies

has some explanatory power

learning theory based on animal studies

attachment isn’t based on food

limitations of drive reduction theory

alternative explanation

EXPLANATIONS OF ATTACHMENTS:

BOWLBY’S THEORY

AINSWORTH’S STRANGE SITUATION:

TYPES OF ATTACHMENT

attachment is adaptive

multiple attachments vs. monotropy

continuity hypothesis

sensitive period rather than critical period

alternative explanation

high-reliability observations

real-life application

low internal validity

other attachment types

maternal reflective functioning

CULTURAL VARIATIONS IN ATTACHMENT BOWLBY’S MATERNAL DEPRIVATION

THEORY

similarities may be due to global culture

countries rather than cultures

cross-cultural research

culture bias

indigenous attachment theories

support for long-term effects

real-life application

physical and emotional separation

individual differences

deprivation vs. privation

ROMANIAN ORPHAN STUDIES: EFFECTS

OF INSTITUTIONALISATION

INFLUENCE OF EARLY ATTACHMENTS

real-life application

value of longitudinal studies

individual differences

deprivation being the only factor

research is correlated

retrospective classification

overly determinist

low correlations

> interactional synchrony - during an interaction, one mirrors what the other is doing in terms of body + facial movements. example: imitating emotions and behaviours. > A systematic study conducted by Meltzoff and Moore on interactional synchrony.

Meltzoff & Moore Study (1977)

• Systematic study of interactional synchrony on 2-3 week old infants.
• Used an adult model who displayed 3 facial or hand gestures in a sequence.
• First display of gestures: a dummy was placed into the infants’ mouths to prevent it from moving.
• Second display of gestures: dummy was removed and infants’ expressions were filmed. findings
• Found that 2-3 week old infants imitate specific facial or hand gestures.
• There was an association between infant and adult’s behaviour.

Follow-Up Study

• Meltzoff and Moore (1983): conducted the same study but on 3-day old infants. findings
• 3-day old infants were able to display interactional synchrony, suggesting behaviour response is innate.
• Therefore rules out the possibility that imitated behaviour is learnt.

Real or Pseudo-Imitation Murray & Trevarthen (1985)

> Meltzoff + Moore proposed behaviour imitation is intentional. > However Piaget believed true imitation develops when infants are almost 1, anything before is seen as response training. > response training - infant repeats behaviour that is rewarded. example: baby sticks out tongue which makes caregiver smile, this is seen as a reward which encourages this behaviour to be repeated in the future.

1. Meltzoff & Moore view: imitating behaviour is intentional or real.
2. Piaget’s view: infants are pseudo-imitating. > Meltzoff & Moore’s view was supported by Murray & Trevarthen’s study.
   • Study on 2-month-old infants interacting with mothers in 2 conditions; 1. via video in real-time. 2. via pre-recorded video of mother but they won’t be able to respond to infant’s facial and body movements. findings During pre-recorded video:
   • infants became distressed.
   • infants tried to gain mothers’ attention but turned away when they could elicit a response.

∴ shows infant actively displays behaviours that gain

a positive response rather than pseudo-imitating.

• in the caregiver-infant interaction the infant is an active + intentional partner.
• further supports the idea that behaviours are innate rather than learnt.

AO3 - Evaluation of Caregiver-Infant Interactions

Intentionality of Behaviour is Supported Individual Differences

It may be more beneficial to observe infants’ behaviour when they’re interacting with inanimate objects. Abravanel and DeYong (1991) observed infants interacting with two objects. One simulated tongue movement and the other opened and closed its mouth. The infants observed had a median age of 5-12 weeks, they barely responded to the objects. Therefore this suggests infants don’t imitate everything they see, they have a specific social response to humans. There were some variations between infants and their interactional synchrony. A researcher found that strongly attached caregiver-infant pairs show greater interactional synchrony. Heimann (1989) showed that infants who demonstrated more imitation since birth would have a better relationship with their caregiver at 3 months. However, it isn’t clear whether imitation is a cause or an effect of early synchrony.

Value of Research Failure to Replicate

The importance of imitative behaviour is it forms the basis for social development. Meltzoff suggested the ‘like me’ hypothesis. This was to explain infant development based on his interactional synchrony research. He argued that there was a connection between an infant's observation and their imitation of what they observed. Then the infant would associate their own acts with their underlying mental states. This would cause infants to project their own internal experiences onto others performing similar acts. Therefore infants will begin to understand how others think and feel. This is also known as the Theory of Mind which is fundamental for conducting social relationships. A strength of Meltzoff’s research is it explains how children develop an understanding of how others think and feel which enables them to form good relationships. Koepe et al (1983) failed to replicate Meltzoff and Moore’s study due to his research being less carefully controlled. On the other hand, Marian et al (1996) were able to replicate Murray and Trevarthen’s study. They found that infants couldn’t distinguish between the live and pre-recorded videos which suggest the infants weren’t responding to their mothers. However Marian determined the problem was the procedure rather than the infant’s ability to imitate their caregivers.

Problems with Testing Infant’s Behaviour

There is reasonable doubt in Meltzoff’s findings due to the difficulties in testing infant behaviours. This is because an infant’s mouth moves constantly and their expressions are frequently tested. However, it’s difficult to distinguish between general activity and imitated behaviour. Meltzoof and Moore asked observers to judge a video of infants’ behaviour who were unaware of what behaviour is being imitated. Therefore this was a way of increasing the study’s internal validity as it can overcome the difficulties in testing infant behaviour.

DEVELOPMENT OF ATTACHMENTS

Keywords

● stranger anxiety - when a stranger approaches or picks up an infant, they become distressed ● separation anxiety - infant becomes distressed when separated from the caregiver who may not necessarily be the child’s biological mother. ● primary attachment figure - a person who has formed the strongest bond with the infant. ● multiple attachments - more than one attachment figure.

AO

Development of Attachment Stages of Development of Attachments

> Bowlby proposed that all our attachments link back to our first love with our mother or mother substitute. > He claims through this relationship we learn how to conduct and be in a relationship. > Focuses on how relationships are developed. > Schaffer and Emerson (1960): defined the stages of attachment. ● Stage 1 - indiscriminate attachment. ● Stage 2 - beginnings of attachment. ● Stage 3 - discriminate attachment. ● Stage 4 - multiple attachments. Indiscriminate Attachment

• birth - 2 months: infants produce similar responses to inanimate and animate objects.
• after 2 months: a greater preference is shown for social stimuli. example: smiling faces.
• reciprocity and interactional synchrony have a role in an infant forming attachments Beginnings of Attachment
• key point: infant’s general sociability.
• at 4 months: infant becomes more social.
• prefer human company over inanimate objects, doesn’t display stranger anxiety, easily comforted by anyone. Discriminate Attachment
• at 7 months: display separation anxiety towards a person they’re comfortable with and show joy when reunited.
• forms a specific attachment with the person, known as the primary attachment figure.
• infants may not form this attachment with the person who spends the most time with them.
• Schaffer + Emerson: suggest it’s quality of a relationship rather than quantity.
• intensely attached infants occur due to responsive and sensitive mothers.
• poorly attached infants occur due to mothers failing to react to infants’ cue.
• 65% of infants’ primary figure was their mother.
• 3% of infants’ primary figure was their father. Multiple Attachments
• after the primary attachment is formed, multiple attachments are developed.
• Schaffer + Emerson: 29% of infants had multiple attachments. example: sibling, other parent.
• also known as secondary attachments, infants also display separation anxiety.
• 78% of 1-year-olds had 5 or more secondary attachments.

Stage 1 - Indiscriminate Attachment > Birth to 2 months old: infant produces a similar response to all inanimate and animate objects. > After 2 months: infant shows a greater preference for social stimuli. example: smiling faces, being content around people. > Reciprocity and interactional synchrony influences an infant's relationships with others. Stage 2 - Beginnings of Attachment > Key aspect of this stage: infant’s general sociability, they enjoy being around others. > At 4 months: infant becomes more social. > Prefer human company rather than inanimate objects. > Able to distinguish between familiar and unfamiliar people. > Doesn’t show stranger anxiety and is easily comforted by anyone. > stranger anxiety - when a stranger approaches or picks up an infant, they become distressed. Stage 3 - Discriminate Attachment > At 7 months: infants begin to show separation anxiety when put down by a particular person. > separation anxiety - infant becomes distressed when separated from the caregiver who may not necessarily be the child’s biological mother. > Infant shows joy when reunited with the person they’re comfortable with and begins to display stranger anxiety. > They form a specific attachment with one individual, aka primary attachment figure. > primary attachment figure - a person who has formed the strongest bond with the infant. > Doesn’t necessarily mean they form an attachment with the person they spend the most time with. > Schaffer and Emerson: suggests quality of attachments mattered more than quantity (time).

1. intensely attached infants had responsive mothers who were sensitive to their signals.
2. poorly attached infants occur when mothers fail to react to their cues.

• 65% of infants’ first attachment figure was their mother.
• 3% of infants’ first attachment figure was their father. Stage 4 - Multiple Attachments > After the primary attachment is formed, infants develop multiple attachments depending on their quality. > multiple attachments - more than one attachment figure. > Schaffer and Emerson: found 29% of infants have multiple attachments. example: other parent, grandparent, sibling etc. > aka secondary attachments, infants also display separation anxiety in these. > 78% of 1-year-olds develop 5 or more secondary attachments.

AO3 - Evaluation of Development of Attachment

Challenging Monotropy Stage Theories

Some researchers have questioned whether multiple attachments are equally significant or if some are more special. Bowlby proposed that infants have one special emotional relationship whilst secondary attachments act as a safety net but also have other purposes. For example: siblings can teach us how to negotiate. However, Rutter (1995) argued all attachments are equivalent. This is because he believes that multiple attachments integrate to produce the infant’s attachment type. Therefore Bowlby could be wrong about the idea of attachment hierarchy. The stage theories proposed by Schaffer and Emerson suggest development is inflexible. The stage theories for the development of attachment seem to occur in a fixed order. For example: the child must develop a single attachment before forming multiple attachments. In some situations and cultures, multiple attachments may come first. This may be problematic because if children don’t develop according to the stages they may be classified as abnormal.

Unreliable Data Biased Sample

The data collected by Schaffer and Emerson may be unreliable as it was based on the mothers’ report on their infants. Some mothers may be less sensitive to infant’s protest therefore they’re less likely to report it. Therefore this creates a systematic bias that questions the data’s validity. Studies were conducted on the working class which could suggest the findings can only apply to them. Also, the sample was from the 1960s and parental care has significantly changed since then. This is because women now go to work and men may stay at home and become that main caregiver. Over the past 25 years, this idea has quadrupled. Therefore if a similar study was conducted today, the findings would be significantly different.

Cultural Variations

There are important differences in culture to consider when establishing the development of attachment. In individualistic cultures: society is primarily concerned about their own needs and the needs of their immediate family. In collectivist cultures: society focuses on the needs of the group and commonly share things like possessions and childcare. Sagi et al (1994) compared infants raised in communal environments (Israeli Kibbutzim) with infants in family- based sleeping arrangements. They found that children raised in family-based arrangements formed closer attachments to their mothers than those in a kibbutz. Therefore this shows the stages of attachment may apply only to individualistic cultures.

Harlow’s Research (1935)

> Study called ‘Origins of Love’. > Wanted to demonstrate mother’s love isn’t based on feeding their infants. > Many researchers believed attachment was based on food and the person who feeds us. Procedure Findings Long Term Effects

• Harlow created 2 wire mothers with different heads.
• Studied 8 infant monkeys for 165 days.
• 4 monkeys were given milk from cloth-covered mother.
• Other 4 were given milk from plain wire mother.
• Amount of time spent with the mothers was measured.
• Observations were made when monkeys were frightened by an object. - All 8 spent more time with the cloth-covered mother even when it didn’t have a feeding bottle. - Monkeys fed by the plain mother only spent a little time with it before going to the cloth-covered one. - When monkeys were scared they clung to the cloth-covered mother and put one foot on there as reassurance when playing with new objects. - Findings suggest attachments are based on comfort rather than food. - Monkeys faced many consequences due to their early attachment experiences. - Motherless monkey who had comfort still developed abnormally. 1. socially abnormal - fled/ froze when approached by other monkeys. 2. sexually abnormal - abnormal mating behaviour and didn’t cradle their babies. - Harlow found a critical period for these effects. - 3-month-old motherless monkeys seemed to recover when they spent time with their peers. - However if they spent 6 months with the wire mothers they wouldn’t recover.

AO3 - Evaluation of Animal Studies of Attachment

AO3 - Lorenz’s Research

Research Support for Imprinting Criticisms of Imprinting

Many studies have demonstrated imprinting on animals. Guiton (1966) demonstrated that when leghorn chicks are exposed to a yellow glove during the first few weeks of feeding they become imprinted onto it. This supports the view that during the critical period of development young animals are born with the predisposition to imprint on moving objects rather than specific ones. Guiton also found that early imprinting links to later reproductive behaviour. This is because the chicks tried to mate with the gloves. His findings provided clear support for Lorenz’s original research and findings. There has been some dispute over the characteristics of imprinting. Previously, imprinting was seen as an irreversible process but has now been shown to be flexible. Guiton (1966) found that he could reverse the effect of imprinting on the chicks that tried to mate with the yellow glove. This was done by allowing the chicks to spend more time with their peers which allows them to engage in normal sexual behaviour. Therefore it suggests that imprinting may be similar to other kinds of learning because learning also occurs rapidly but with little conscious effort it can be reversed.

AO3 - Harlow’s Research

Ethics of Harlow’s Study Generalising Animal Studies to Human

Behaviour

Harlow’s study cannot be done on humans due to ethical issues but this raises the question of whether this can be done on monkeys. His study created long-lasting emotional harm because the monkeys found it difficult to develop relationships with their peers. However, it helps us understand the process of attachment and allows human infant care to improve. This shows that the benefits outweigh the costs to the animals in the study. Therefore these criticisms don’t challenge the study’s findings but are important when considering what counts as good science. Animal studies’ ultimate aim is to be able to generalise their findings to human behaviour. Human do differ in important ways since our behaviour is governed by conscious decisions, However, many studies observed that animal attachment behaviours mirrored behaviours found in human studies. Harlow’s research is supported by Schaffer and Emerson’s findings which suggested that infants weren’t attached to the individual who feeds them. This demonstrates that animal studies act as a useful pointer but is also necessary to confirm human behaviours with human studies.

Confounding Variables

An issue with Harlow’s study was the 2 stimulus objects varied in more ways than one. The main difference between them was that one was cloth-covered and the other wasn’t. However, the heads were also different which would have acted as a CV because it varied systematically with the IV. The monkeys may have preferred being with one mother more than the other. This is because the cloth-

EXPLANATIONS OF ATTACHMENTS: LEARNING THEORY

Keywords

● classical conditioning - learning takes place through associations, neutral stimulus is paired with unconditioned stimulus until it eventually takes on its properties to produce conditioned stimulus. ● operant conditioning - learning through rewards and punishments, if behaviour has a favourable consequence it’s more likely to occur again. ● ‘drive’ - behaviour that’s motivated by something. ● negative reinforcement - removes something aversive, restores organism to pre-aversive state. ● social learning theory - learning through observing and imitating others’ behaviours that are rewarded.

AO

Learning Theory Social Learning Theory

> Proposes that all behaviours are learnt rather than being innate. > Suggests that babies are born with a blank slate (TABULA RASA). > Experiences shape the way infants behave. > Learning occurs through classical and operant conditioning. > social learning theory - learning through observing and imitating others’ behaviours that are rewarded. > Bandura: focused on how attachments are caused by modelling behaviours. > Hay and Vespo: proposed that parents’ affectionate behaviour were observed and imitated by their infants. > This has caused parents to deliberately instruct their infants on how to behave in relationships and would appropriately reward them. example: giving kisses and hugs.

Classical Conditioning

> classical conditioning - learning takes place through associations, neutral stimulus is paired with unconditioned stimulus until it eventually takes on its properties to produce conditioned stimulus. > Pavlov first investigated classical conditioning. > Focuses on the innate stimulus-response process. > For attachment:

1. innate stimulus is food (UCS).
2. produces an innate response of pleasure (UCR). > Young infants associate things that were present during feeding with food. example: caregiver. > Regularly and consistently pairing the caregiver (NS) with the food (UCS) allows the caregiver to take on the UCS’s properties. > The NS becomes a CS and produces the CR which is pleasure. > This new stimulus-response is called ‘mother’s love’