AQA Psychology Revision – Topic Summary Stages of attachment:
Paper 1 – Attachment Pre-attachment (asocial) phase – birth-3 m, infants
prefer humans over objects, shown IS reciprocity
Attachment – close two-way emotional bond between
two individuals in which each individual sees the other Indiscriminate-attachment phase – 3-7/8 m, begin
as essential for their own emotional security. discriminate familiar/unfamiliar, allow stranger hold
Signs of attachment: proximity, stranger anxiety, Discriminate-attachment phase – 7/8 m +, specific
separation anxiety attachments primary caregiver, sep + stranger anxiety
Research into signs of attachment: Multiple attachments – 9 m +, grandparents + other
kids, fear strangers weakens, primary stays strongest
Maccoby’s four signs of attachment
Schafer and Emerson: 1964
- Seeking proximity, distress separated
- Pleasure reunited, general orientation - Aimed to investigate early formation of
attachments, at what age and intensity
Caregiver-infant interactions:
- 60 (31m, 29f) babies Glasgow, working
Interactional synchrony – respond in time one another - Longitudinal, every m 1st year + again 18 m
- 7 everyday separations + stranger anxiety
Reciprocity – take it in turns, ‘dance’
- Mothers observed and asked questions
Imitation – infant mimics or copies - 25-32 weeks 50% separation anxiety
- 40 weeks 80% specific attachment to primary
Sensitive responsiveness – adult attends sensitively to
caregiver + 30% multiple
infant’s communications
Evaluation of Schafer and Emerson and stages of
Research into caregiver-infant interactions:
attachment:
Reciprocity:
- Longitudinal, support research
- Brazleton, ‘dance’ - Not generalisable, hard study, ask mothers
- Trevathen, taking turns is important for
The Father’s role in Attachment:
developing social skills
- Tronick et al, still face experiment - Traditionally minor, little initial research
- Secondary attachment, ‘exciting playmate’
Interactional synchrony:
- Less time, women more caring due oestrogen
Meltzoff and Moore: 1977 - Ross et al (1975) show number nappy changes
positively correlated strength of attachment
- Interactional synchrony, infants 12-27 days old
- Adult displayed one of three facial expressions Several factors in relationships with fathers:
or hand movements; infant had dummy to
- Degree of sensitivity, sensitive = secure
prevent response
- Type of Attachment with their own parents,
- Dummy removed, infant did at same time
single parent fathers similar with own father
Feldman – ‘coordination of micro-level social - Marital intimacy, strong marital=strong attach
behaviour’ (interactional synchrony) - Supportive co-parenting, fathers who assist in
childcare develop stronger attachments
Evaluation of caregiver-infant relationships:
Evaluations of Father’s role in attachments:
- Supporting research
- Clear controlled observations, internal validity - Supporting evidence from Ross et al
- Difficult to tell if infant reason behind babies - Lamb (1987) found when men primary
movement, can’t communicate caregivers quick develop sensitivity child’s
- Practical issues, babies need fed regularly etc. needs imply not limited women and mothers
- Baby behaviour is irrational and random - Correlational, single parent little research
, Types of Attachments: Evaluations of the strange situation:
Measuring attachment: - Lab, controlled variables, cause and effect
- Fairly quick, cost effective
- Seeking proximity, separation anxiety
- Cultural variations, lacks ecological validity
- Joy on reunion, stranger anxiety
- Ethical issues, distressed children
- Orientation of behaviour (looking for direction
from primary caregiver) Cultural Variations:
Secure Attachment - Strong, easily comforted by Van Ijzendoorn and Kroonenberg (1998)
caregiver ‘healthy’
- To investigate cultural variations in attachment
Exploration Willing to explore - Meta-analysis 32 study, 8 countries, 2000
Stranger anxiety High when caregiver absent - Variations within cultures 1.5 times greater
Separation anxiety High and clear signs variations between, secure most common,
Reunion behaviour Immense joy when reunited individualist avoidant, collectivist resistant
- E.g. Japan lowest avoidant, 2nd high resistant
Insecure avoidant - Avoid social interaction, mother - Global pattern attachment = innate, biological
sometimes ignored children Takahashi (1990)
Exploring Willing to explore - To assess the appropriateness of the strange
Stranger anxiety Little stranger anxiety
situation within Japanese children
Separation anxiety Indifferent
- 60 middleclass Japanese infants aged 1
Reunion behaviour Avoid contact
- Secure = 68%, Avoidant = 0%, Resistant = 32%
- Children very distressed alone, stopped early
Insecure Resistant - Uneasy caregiver, not comforted - Japanese children experience less separation
when left, accept and reject, mothers ambivalently in general, sleep with parents till aged 2
- Significant differences in avoidant because
Exploring Unwilling to explore
Stranger anxiety High anxiety Japanese children taught it is rude to ignore
Separation anxiety High and clear signs Evaluation of studied into cultural variations:
Reunion behaviour Seek and reject, confused
- Meta-analysis large sample, generalisability
- Takahashi strange situation, lab, c+e
Ainsworth (1970) ‘The Strange Situation’:
- Some samples used bigger others, not actually
- To establish a method of measuring representative of entire cultures
attachment to test how different children - Strange situation and American methods
respond to strangers and separation anxiety suggest there is a right and wrong way
- Controlled observation, infants 12-18 months,
Learning Theory of Attachment:
100 middle class Americans, lab, 3 mins per
1. Mother and child introduced to room - Focus baby want needs fulfilled, links
2. Stranger enters and talks with mother pleasure suggesting learned environment
3. Mother leaves, just stranger and child - Through classical + operant conditioning
4. Mother returns + comfort, stranger leaves
Classical conditioning:
5. Parent leaves, child alone
6. Stranger returns and tries to interact Before – Mother (NS) creates no response and Food
7. Mother returns, stranger leaves (UCS) creates pleasure (UCR)
inconspicuously
During – Food (UCS) + Mother (NS) creates pleasure
- Recorded separation anxiety, exploration,
(UCR)
stranger anxiety and reunion behaviour
- Secure = 66%, Insecure avoidant = 22% After – Mother (CS) creates pleasure (CR)
- Insecure resistant = 11%
Operant conditioning:
Paper 1 – Attachment Pre-attachment (asocial) phase – birth-3 m, infants
prefer humans over objects, shown IS reciprocity
Attachment – close two-way emotional bond between
two individuals in which each individual sees the other Indiscriminate-attachment phase – 3-7/8 m, begin
as essential for their own emotional security. discriminate familiar/unfamiliar, allow stranger hold
Signs of attachment: proximity, stranger anxiety, Discriminate-attachment phase – 7/8 m +, specific
separation anxiety attachments primary caregiver, sep + stranger anxiety
Research into signs of attachment: Multiple attachments – 9 m +, grandparents + other
kids, fear strangers weakens, primary stays strongest
Maccoby’s four signs of attachment
Schafer and Emerson: 1964
- Seeking proximity, distress separated
- Pleasure reunited, general orientation - Aimed to investigate early formation of
attachments, at what age and intensity
Caregiver-infant interactions:
- 60 (31m, 29f) babies Glasgow, working
Interactional synchrony – respond in time one another - Longitudinal, every m 1st year + again 18 m
- 7 everyday separations + stranger anxiety
Reciprocity – take it in turns, ‘dance’
- Mothers observed and asked questions
Imitation – infant mimics or copies - 25-32 weeks 50% separation anxiety
- 40 weeks 80% specific attachment to primary
Sensitive responsiveness – adult attends sensitively to
caregiver + 30% multiple
infant’s communications
Evaluation of Schafer and Emerson and stages of
Research into caregiver-infant interactions:
attachment:
Reciprocity:
- Longitudinal, support research
- Brazleton, ‘dance’ - Not generalisable, hard study, ask mothers
- Trevathen, taking turns is important for
The Father’s role in Attachment:
developing social skills
- Tronick et al, still face experiment - Traditionally minor, little initial research
- Secondary attachment, ‘exciting playmate’
Interactional synchrony:
- Less time, women more caring due oestrogen
Meltzoff and Moore: 1977 - Ross et al (1975) show number nappy changes
positively correlated strength of attachment
- Interactional synchrony, infants 12-27 days old
- Adult displayed one of three facial expressions Several factors in relationships with fathers:
or hand movements; infant had dummy to
- Degree of sensitivity, sensitive = secure
prevent response
- Type of Attachment with their own parents,
- Dummy removed, infant did at same time
single parent fathers similar with own father
Feldman – ‘coordination of micro-level social - Marital intimacy, strong marital=strong attach
behaviour’ (interactional synchrony) - Supportive co-parenting, fathers who assist in
childcare develop stronger attachments
Evaluation of caregiver-infant relationships:
Evaluations of Father’s role in attachments:
- Supporting research
- Clear controlled observations, internal validity - Supporting evidence from Ross et al
- Difficult to tell if infant reason behind babies - Lamb (1987) found when men primary
movement, can’t communicate caregivers quick develop sensitivity child’s
- Practical issues, babies need fed regularly etc. needs imply not limited women and mothers
- Baby behaviour is irrational and random - Correlational, single parent little research
, Types of Attachments: Evaluations of the strange situation:
Measuring attachment: - Lab, controlled variables, cause and effect
- Fairly quick, cost effective
- Seeking proximity, separation anxiety
- Cultural variations, lacks ecological validity
- Joy on reunion, stranger anxiety
- Ethical issues, distressed children
- Orientation of behaviour (looking for direction
from primary caregiver) Cultural Variations:
Secure Attachment - Strong, easily comforted by Van Ijzendoorn and Kroonenberg (1998)
caregiver ‘healthy’
- To investigate cultural variations in attachment
Exploration Willing to explore - Meta-analysis 32 study, 8 countries, 2000
Stranger anxiety High when caregiver absent - Variations within cultures 1.5 times greater
Separation anxiety High and clear signs variations between, secure most common,
Reunion behaviour Immense joy when reunited individualist avoidant, collectivist resistant
- E.g. Japan lowest avoidant, 2nd high resistant
Insecure avoidant - Avoid social interaction, mother - Global pattern attachment = innate, biological
sometimes ignored children Takahashi (1990)
Exploring Willing to explore - To assess the appropriateness of the strange
Stranger anxiety Little stranger anxiety
situation within Japanese children
Separation anxiety Indifferent
- 60 middleclass Japanese infants aged 1
Reunion behaviour Avoid contact
- Secure = 68%, Avoidant = 0%, Resistant = 32%
- Children very distressed alone, stopped early
Insecure Resistant - Uneasy caregiver, not comforted - Japanese children experience less separation
when left, accept and reject, mothers ambivalently in general, sleep with parents till aged 2
- Significant differences in avoidant because
Exploring Unwilling to explore
Stranger anxiety High anxiety Japanese children taught it is rude to ignore
Separation anxiety High and clear signs Evaluation of studied into cultural variations:
Reunion behaviour Seek and reject, confused
- Meta-analysis large sample, generalisability
- Takahashi strange situation, lab, c+e
Ainsworth (1970) ‘The Strange Situation’:
- Some samples used bigger others, not actually
- To establish a method of measuring representative of entire cultures
attachment to test how different children - Strange situation and American methods
respond to strangers and separation anxiety suggest there is a right and wrong way
- Controlled observation, infants 12-18 months,
Learning Theory of Attachment:
100 middle class Americans, lab, 3 mins per
1. Mother and child introduced to room - Focus baby want needs fulfilled, links
2. Stranger enters and talks with mother pleasure suggesting learned environment
3. Mother leaves, just stranger and child - Through classical + operant conditioning
4. Mother returns + comfort, stranger leaves
Classical conditioning:
5. Parent leaves, child alone
6. Stranger returns and tries to interact Before – Mother (NS) creates no response and Food
7. Mother returns, stranger leaves (UCS) creates pleasure (UCR)
inconspicuously
During – Food (UCS) + Mother (NS) creates pleasure
- Recorded separation anxiety, exploration,
(UCR)
stranger anxiety and reunion behaviour
- Secure = 66%, Insecure avoidant = 22% After – Mother (CS) creates pleasure (CR)
- Insecure resistant = 11%
Operant conditioning:
