attachment - evaluations

• what is a limitation of caregiver-infant interactions

  much of the research based on observations.

  Limitation as infants are constantly moving and therefore difficult to distinguish between general activity and specific imitated behaviours so difficult to determine whether imitation from infants POV is conscious and deliberate
• Bc difficult to distinguish infants behaviour internal validity of the data is poor so uncertain whether observed behaviour is Interactional Synchrony or natural movement
• what is counter for Meltzoff and Moore study into caregiver interactions?

  A strength is that M and M did overcome this problem by filming infant responses and asking independent observers to judge the behaviour. This increased the validity as judges did not know what behaviour is being imitated.
• a weakness of using observations for synchrony in infants and caregivers

  They do not tell us the purpose of synchrony and reciprocity

  Feldman points out these simply describe the behaviour that occur at the same time

  These can be reliably observed but it doesn't tell us the purpose of these caregiver infant interactions
• what is a cultural limitation in Meltzoff and Moore explanation for caregiver infant interactions

  not found in all cultures

  LeVine reported that Kenyan mothers have little physical interactions with their infant but such infants do not show weakened attachments

  reduces the validity as all cultures should be considered in order to generalise as much as possible (imposed etic?)
• what is the biological role of the father?

  . psychologists suggest the hormone oestrogen underlies caring behaviour and due to fathers having lack of that they are not biologically equipped to form attachments with infants
• what is the play and simulation for role of the father?

  research shows father may fulfil qualitatively different role from of the mother -play vs emotional support - but this is just as crucial to Childs wellbeing

  also related to quality of adolescent attachments
• what did Schaffer and Emerson find - role of the father?

  by multiple attachments stage (stage 4)

  around 18 months 75% infants formed attachment with father
• Sensitive responsiveness- RoF

  • research showed father in a single parent household more likely to spot the trad. maternal role
  • spent more time smiling, imitating and holding their infants than secondary caregiver fathers
• what are some positive implications for Role of the Father

  Gender pay gap may be reduced if parental roles are regarded as equal

  increasingly fathers remain at home and contribute less to economy

  consequently more mothers return to work (earn more than fathers and contribute to economy)
• state negative implications Role of the father

  changing laws on paternity leave - government funded so affects the economy

  shared parental leave - both not working so not contributing to economy
• what is a weakness

  does not explain why fathers don't generally become PAF

  could be due to result of traditional gender roles in which women are expected to be more nurturing and caring than men thf. fathers don't think they should act like that .

  On the other hand could be female hormone create high level of nurturing and thf. biologically predisposed to be PAF
• weakness in the environmental explanation for Role of the father

  Another weakness does not explain why children without fathers develop no differently

  McCallum and Golombok found children growing up in single or same sex households do not develop any differently two parent heterosexual families

  seem to suggest fathers role as secondary attachment figure is not important
• give a limitation on the inconsistent findings for role of the father when researching?

  may be due to researchers being interested in different research questions. Some psychologists are interested in ROF as secondary AF with their own distinct role

  wheres others more concerned with fathers as PCG taking a "maternal" role

  problem as psychologists cannot easily answer a simple questions

  need to be cautious for how they report the research
• what is learning theory of attachment

  classical conditioning

  1. Before conditioning : unconditioned stimulus (food) creates unconditioned response (happy - remove from hunger)
  2. neutral stimulus (mother)- creates no response
  3. During conditioning ( unconditioned stimulus +neutral stimulus creates unconditioned response
  4. After conditioning -conditioned stimulus (mother) =conditioned response (happy baby)
• what is the secondary drive explanation?

  Attachment forms because meeting the needs of primary drive

  the attachment relationship becomes associated with satisfying a primary drive so itself becomes a source of satisfaction

  therefore it is a secondary drive
• what is the operant conditioning in learning theory?

  explain why babies cry for comfort

  .positive reinforcement =infant cries> caregiver responds

  if this is desired response then crying behaviour is positively reinforced

  .negative reinforcement= infant cries> caregiver picks up infant >infant stops crying

  removal of crying negatively reinforces parent
• limitation of learning theory - counter evidence animal studies

  a weakness of this theory is that there is counter evidence from animal studies that show that animals do not imprint/ attach to those who feed them

  Lorenz geese imprinted before they were fed and maintained these attachments regardless of who fed them

  another example Harlow's monkeys who attached to soft warm surrogate in preference to a wire one with food

  studies show that attachment does not develop due to feeding and challenges learning theory
• a weakness of this is that due to learning theory

  ignores other factors associated with forming attachments

  research into early caregiver interactions suggest the quality of attachment is associated with factors like reciprocity and interactional synchrony

  this challenges theory as attachment was purely the result of feeding them there would be no purpose for these interactions
• there is counter evidence from human research shows that feeding does not appear to be an important factor in human attachments

  Schaffer and Emerson found that babies developed a primary attachment to bio mothers even though carers did most of the feeding

  these findings challenge learning theory

  shows feeding is not the key element to attachment

  so there is no UCS or primary drive involved
• what is a practical strength of Harlows research -

  has positive practical implications in range of contexts

  helped social workers understand risk factors in child neglect and abuse so can intervene to prevent this

  has practical applications in care of animals in captivity

  allows us to fully understand importance attachment figures to baby animals

  allows for improvement for lives of children and animals
• evaluate an ethical criticism for Harlow

  faced criticisms for the ethics of the study

  monkeys suffered great psychological harm as result of research and had implications for offspring

  monkeys were neglectful to own offspring and thf. cycle of psych harm was created

  although some may argue monkeys similarity to humans research was justifiable as shows how humans would respond in similar situations
• what is theoretical evaluation for Harlow's study?

  strength is that it has greatly improved psychologists understanding of human mother infant attachment

  Harlow demonstrated that attachment does not come from feeding from mother but physical contact and comfort

  research also showed importance of quality of early relationships later social developments including the ability to hold down adult relationships and raise kids
• weakness of Lorenz study with sample of goslings used

  -use of birds may limit the generalisability to humans

  the mammalian attachment system is different in mammals to birds

  Humans tend to show more emotional attachment to young and able to form attachment any time

  the means the study may not tell us much about attachment in humans and thf. lacks generalisability
• weakness on Lorenz study -conclusions of mating behaviour

  researchers have questioned some of Lorenz conclusions

  eg the conclusion that imprinting has a permanent effect on mating behaviour challenged by Guiton

  he found that chickens imprinted on yellow gloves would try to mate with them as adults (as Lorenz predicted)

  but with experience eventually learned to mate with other chickens

  suggest the impact of mating behaviour is not as permeant as Lorenz believed
• what is affectionless psychopathy?

  the inability to experience guilt or strong emotions for others

  prevents the person developing normal relationships and is associated with criminality

  • an effect on development bowlby identified - emotional development
• what is another effect of development Bowlby identified?


  intellectual development

  bowlby believed deprivation could cause delayed intellectual development

  .characterised by abnormally low IQ
• WHAT was the critical period Bowlby identified- Maternal deprivation?

  • first 30 months (2-2.5 yrs) as critical period for psychological development
  • if the child is separated from mother in absence of substitute and deprived of her emotional care for an extended period during critical period then psychological damage was inevitable
• what is separation vs deprivation

  -separation: child not being in the presence of primary caregiver

  -only becomes an issue if child is deprived

  -brief separations are not an issue

  -extended separations can lead to deprivation which causes harm
• strength and counter of maternal deprivation?

  a strength of theory of maternal deprivation is that there is research support from various studies including Goldfarb , Bowlby and Spitz

  these studies used children orphaned during the war who had poor after care and infants deprived of many aspects of care not just emotional makes it hard to identify cause and effect perhaps it was not maternal deprivation that caused developmental difficulties but another factor
• Lewis replicated the 44 thieves study on large scale and found that early separation did not predict criminality

  thf. limits the validity
• strength of Bowlby maternal deprivation - application

  Had a big impact on post war thinking about child rearing practices and how children were looked after in hospital

  before research children were separated from parents when they spent time in hospital and visiting was discouraged

  Bowlby and Robertson work led to major social change in childcare arrangements Although lacks temporal validity times have now changed in practices no war so limits validity to extent
• strength with bowlby maternal deprivation theory ?

  -strength has real life application to child rearing practices

  before research children were separated from their parents when spent time in hospital

  parents were discouraged visiting

  Bowlbys work led to major changes in the way children are cared for

  eg greater flexibility in terms of visiting hours and parents now encouraged to visit

  demonstrates positive implications to child rearing
• • socially sensitive

  places blame and pressure heavily onto mother serves negative implications for the economy

  for mothers unable to return to work

  
  

  although this does not affect the validity of Bowlby"s theory

  Thf. socially sensitive topics need to be approached with caution

  possible ethical implications

  [the way findings may be used in future eg informing maternity policy which has significant effects on economy ]

  research into any socially sensitive topic needs to be planned out to ensure findings valid enduring effects this has on how mothers perceived
• criticism of 44 thieves study

  methodological issues

  using self report method of interviews

  bowlby interviewed families of the "thieves"

  families may have false memories inacuracies or not want to perceive their child in a negative way leads to social desirability bias

  this reduces the validity of the theory
• real life application Maternal deprivation contributed

  some national governments offer more financial support for young families in terms of maternity and paternity leave

  Sweden offers 480 days parental leave

  greater stability in childcare practices like nurseries, assigning caregiver to children

  highlights real life practical applications
• weakness of Bowlby 44 thieves

  investigator effects

  . Bowlby conducted self report and design himself

  his presence and interpretation might have influenced the outcome of the research

  diagnosis of affectinless psychopathy may have been distorted by researcher confirmation bias

  limits the usefulness and external validity or internal ?
• conclusions are correlational not equal causation - Bowlby 44 thieves

  Bowlby found a relationship between early separation and affection less psychopathy we cannot conclude separation equals cause

  may have been third unidentifiable variable accounted for the AP

  eg immediate cause of separation (neglect or abuse) might have been direct cause experienced at adolescence rather than separation itself
• criticism of Bowlby oversimplified concept

  fails to clarify definition of deprivation

  Rutter critiques this Bowlby did not make it clear

  suggest difference between deprivation vs privation

  failure to form an attachment and deprivation is an attachment bond broken

  between separation from attachment figure, loss of an attachment figure and complete lack of attachment (privation)

  Rutter argues the 3 circumstances have diff long term effects which Bowlby overlooked

  matters as lack of clarity may affect validity of findings
• what is the law of accumulated separation?

  all instances of deprivation add up so more negative consequences for child