1. Attachment:

2. Definition of attachment:A strong emotional bond that is reciprocatedbetween two people (e.g. infant andcaregiver). Attachments are there for infantsto maintain proximity with their caregiver, asthey feel distress without one another. 3. Learning Theory of attachment Dollard and Miller (1950) POSSIBLAYYYAttachment 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. 4. Operant conditioning Skinners Rats: changing of behavior by the use ofreinforcement which is given after the desired Skinner had rats in cages, and theyresponsereceived food when the pushed a bardown. Eventually the rats realised thatpushing the bar down gave them foodso they did it more and morefrequently. Skinner added a negativeenforcement in the form of an electricgrid. This reinforced the behaviour bythe rat wanting to make thepunishment stop. 5. Classical conditioning - Pavlovs dogs: When Pavlov fed hisdogs, they drooled. He began to ring a bellevery time they gotfed. The bell became aconditioned stimulus,and they associatedthe bell with the ideaof food. Eventually, the bellalone would cause thedogs to drool. 6. Learning theory Harlow and Harlow16 Rhesus monkeys! (1962)- Not repeatable.- Went for comfort overfood.- When reintroduced withmonkeys, they wereoutcast.- Ethical issues.- Not generalisable tohumans- Links to Bowlby(1950s)/Dollard & Miller(1950) 7. 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 8. Bowlby (1952)- Evolutionaryexplanation ofattachment Innate ability to attach Innate = born with it Important to survival Evolutionary explanation ofattachment Internal working model (Taken fromFreud) where later relationships are Social releasersdeveloped by primary attachment + Parental instinct Monotropy attachment to oneperson (Taken from Lorenz) ATTACHMENT Maintaining close proximity to avoidpredation 9. Evaluating Bowlbys evolutionary theory of attachment: Backed up by Harlow and Harlows MonkeysHarlow (1962) monkeysdemonstrated privation andshowed secure attachment. isolation and notdeprivation Schaffer and Emerson(1964) Glasgow babies.87% of the children wereattached to more than oneparents. THEREFORE NOTMONOTROPYHowever Glasgow Babies wassubjective, so is it reliable? 10. 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) Glasgowtheory (1950) babies. Backed up by Harlow and87% of the children were attached to more than one parents. THEREFORE NOTHarlow with their monkeys. MONOTROPY However Glasgow Babies was subjective, so(1958) is it reliable? Backed up by Schaffer and Rutteret al (1998-2007) found orphansEmerson (1964) who went into institutionalised care, who were able to form attachments after being adopted. After the 1st year of life ARGUES CRITICAL PERIOD. 11. Maccoby: (1980)1. Proximity seeking2. Distress on seperation3. Joy at reunion4. General orientation towards each other. 12. Ainsworth (1970s) Strange situation Baltimore 1970s 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 DONT CARE- Insecure resistant I HATE YOU BUT I LOVE YOU 13. 65% securely attached. 21% insecure-avoidant. 14% insecure-resistant. Shows that most of N. American children weresecurely attached. Association between mothers behaviour &infants attachment type, suggesting the mothersbehaviour may help to determine attachmenttype. 14. Evaluating Ainsworth: - Demand characteristics+ Controlled - Lacks ecological validityobservation(COUNTER ARGUE as it+ Lab studyCOULD 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 15. Van Ijzendoorn&Kroonenberg 1988 meta-analysisCountry Secure % Ins. Resistant % Ins. Avoidant %USA 65 21 14Great Brit. 75 22 3Israel64 729Japan 68 527China 50 25 25 16. Evaluating Van Ijzendoorn andKroonenberg Consistency throughout The sample size isntthe 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 17. Cultural relativism: Cultural differences:Whether the behaviour isWhether cultures are therelative to that particular same or similar or notculture or not. 18. 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. Physicalprivation lack of basic need. Food/shelter.Deprivation:Deprived of something. Not having something. Could be LOSS ofattachment/breaking of an emotional bond.Institutionalisation/institutional care:To put someone in care.Separation:Being physically set apart from something e.g. ones caregiver. 19. Hodges and Tizard (1989)Aim: Effects of privation &instatutionalise care.Procedure: Longitudinal, natural experiment. 65 children whod 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 whod 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. 20. Hodges and Tizard (1989) evaluation: In a natural experiment, Longitudinal study, soits easy to conduct.there may have been There are no ethical attrition. Leaving a biasissues with naturalsample, and notexperiment not verynecessarilyinvasive.generalisable. Proves Bowlby as it Random allocation ofshows that early children moreprivation effectsattractive, or morerelationships. sociable may have been picked first. 21. Rutteret al (98-2007) Romanianorphans.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. 22. Rutteret al (98-2007) Romanian Children evaluation. Backs up Children were allBowlbys/Lorenzs originally fromcritical period, as Romania. Ethnocentric?stronger attachments Adopted all by Britishwere formed with thefamilies. Culturally bias?children adopted before6 months. Created: disinhibited attachments = Children who dont form one strong attachment, and just form lots of little ones. 23. Long term privation:1) Curtiss Genie (1977)- Beaten, tied to a potty, thought of to bementally disabled, lived with psychologists, didnot recover.2) Koluchov 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. 24. 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 Genietheory. (Twins) Not reliable, cant replicate High eco. Validity Psychologists can exploit these case studies Reliant on anecdotal evidence (passing on of stories) 25. 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- Dont form attachments. - Not reliable- Privation.- Adopt, return home, remain. Bias:- SubjectiveCzech Twins Koluchov 72-91:- Objective- Left in basement for 18 months,emotional privation at adopted family SUBJECTIVE = Opinions/thoughtshouse.- Special case (twins had each other) OBJECTIVE = Scientific.- Goes against internal working model. 26. DAY CARE!Day Care: Nursery: Any care given by someone 26-40 children.other than your primary Aged 2-5.caregiver. Divided into groups basedon age. 27. 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. 28. Penelope Leach a study into good day care FCCC (families, children, childcare) (1998) 1200 Children (+ families) N. London & Oxfordshire. (varied from near-poverty tomore wealthy families = a good range!) Longitudinal. Conclusion: Children looked after by mothers do better.Babies and toddlers in nursery did worst, and kidslooked after by a childminder did second best. Clarke-Stewart et al (1994) found children in groupbased day care were better at negotiation. Harvey (1999) reached similar conclusions. Only tested N.London& Oxfordshire, not generalizable. Longitudinal = attrition. 29. 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. 30. EPPE Evaluation: Children were tested Critics argued it wasntfrom suburban andwidespread enoughrural areas, giving a(only in N.London andgood range of ethnic Oxford)diversity and Bryson et al (2006)backgrounds. found 1.3million Locally and nationally families couldnt findtested.childcare when needed. 31. Does Day Care cause aggression?NoYes Jay Belsky was counter Cole and Cole (1996)argued by NICHD 1991, assuggested children are morethey stated that the 17% of aggressive.aggression was within the Jay Belsky (2001), showednormal range. that 17% of children Campbell and Brownell alsoreceiving day care werequestioned the true aggressive as opposed todefinition of aggression. the 6% who hadnt receivedday care. 32. Does day care effect peer relationships?Better peer relationships: Worse peer relationships: Clarke-Stewart (1994) day- Unless securely attachedcare children = better atSecurely attached = morenegotiation. popular (Sroufeet al 2005). Creps and Vernon (1999) 20+ hours of day-carestart day care before 6before the age of 1 = moremonths = more sociable likely to be insecure.peer relationships.