PSYCHOLOGY REVISION NOTES PSYA1: DEVELOPMENTAL PSYCHOLOGYPSYCHOLOGY REVISION NOTES PSYA1: DEVELOPMENTAL PSYCHOLOGYPSYCHOLOGY REVISION NOTES PSYA1: DEVELOPMENTAL PSYCHOLOGYPSYCHOLOGY REVISION NOTES PSYA1: DEVELOPMENTAL PSYCHOLOGY

EXPLANATIONS OF ATTACHMENTEXPLANATIONS OF ATTACHMENTEXPLANATIONS OF ATTACHMENTEXPLANATIONS OF ATTACHMENT

THEORYTHEORYTHEORYTHEORY EXPLANATIONEXPLANATIONEXPLANATIONEXPLANATION EVIDENCEEVIDENCEEVIDENCEEVIDENCE

Learning

Theory

Classical conditioning involves learning by

association. The child associates caregiver with food

(primary reinforcer) and caregivers give a secondary

reinforcer in the form of comfort (cupboard love

theory). Operant conditioning involves learning

through reinforcement and so in this case the

caregiver is seen by the child to reduce unpleasant

feelings of hunger with food and therefore is a

positive reinforcer.

Dollard and Miller (1950) in their first year

babies are fed 2000 times by their primary

caregiver. Evidence for learning theory?

Evidence for conditioning exists outside of

attachment theory (e.g. Little Albert, Pavlov’s

dogs) but don’t use these in the exam!

Evolutionary

Theory

Lorenz was an evolutionary psychologist who believed

that through “imprintingimprintingimprintingimprinting” animals are innatelyinnatelyinnatelyinnately able

to recognise their caregiver but this must happen

within a critical periodcritical periodcritical periodcritical period.

Harlow’s monkey experiment found that when

scared, infant monkeys would run to a cloth mother

rather than a wire mother with food, indicating that

physical comfort is more important than food

(challenging learning theorychallenging learning theorychallenging learning theorychallenging learning theory)

Klaus and Kennel – human babies show a need

for physical comfort (e.g. babies who spend lots

of time with their mothers as infants have

stronger attachments later in life).

Fox – children brought up by nurses/nannies still

showed stronger attachments to their mothers (it

is the type of attachment, not quantity – again,

challenges learning theorychallenges learning theorychallenges learning theorychallenges learning theory)

Bowlby’s

Theory

Bowlby used the term attachment of imprinting and

the critical period is approx. 3 years. He believed that

infants attach to one primary caregiver, usually the

biological mother (monotropymonotropymonotropymonotropy). The bond goes both

ways. Babies have social releaserssocial releaserssocial releaserssocial releasers which are adaptive

and are signals which show the child’s need for food,

protection etc and triggers attachment behaviour

from the caregiver. The attachment forms an internal internal internal internal

working modelworking modelworking modelworking model for future relationships.

Continuity hypothesisContinuity hypothesisContinuity hypothesisContinuity hypothesis states consistent sensitive care

will show themselves later in life. The securesecuresecuresecure----base base base base

hypothesishypothesishypothesishypothesis states that children use their caregiver as a

secure base and will be more likely to explore their

environment.

Bowlby’s 44 thieves study looked at the behaviour

of 44 boys who had experienced poor attachment

due to absent primary caregiver (i.e. the mother).

They became juvenile delinquents, or as Bowlby

called them “affectionless psychopathsaffectionless psychopathsaffectionless psychopathsaffectionless psychopaths”

There is evidence to support the continuity

hypothesis (e.g. the consistency found between

early attachment and later life relationships).

Evidence to support securesecuresecuresecure----basebasebasebase hypothesishypothesishypothesishypothesis (e.g.

at 6 months infants begin to show stranger and

separation anxiety and signal to the primary

caregiver).

EVALUATION of THEORIES of ATTACHMENTEVALUATION of THEORIES of ATTACHMENTEVALUATION of THEORIES of ATTACHMENTEVALUATION of THEORIES of ATTACHMENT

Learning Theory Reductionist. Not much evidence to support. See further points above.

Evolutionary Theory Anthropomorphism – Lorenz and Harlow used research from animals.

Bowlby’s Theory Shaffer and Emerson- some infants form multiple attachments.

The idea of a critical period has been criticised.

TYPES OF ATTACHMENTTYPES OF ATTACHMENTTYPES OF ATTACHMENTTYPES OF ATTACHMENT

ATTACHMENT STYLESATTACHMENT STYLESATTACHMENT STYLESATTACHMENT STYLES

Attachment Type B (Secure) Child explores and is distressed on separation. Greets mother warmly. When mother is

present, child is friendly with strangers.

Attachmenr Type A

(Insecure avoidant)

Little interest in exploring and little distress on separation. Avoids contact when mother

returns and not nervous around strangers.

Attachment Type C

(Insecure resistant)

Appears anxious and is very distressed upon separation. Disinterested (ambivalent) when

mother returns and nervous of strangers when mother present.

STRANGE SITUATIONSTRANGE SITUATIONSTRANGE SITUATIONSTRANGE SITUATION

Use to determine range of attachment styles. Stages of the Strange Situation include:

The room Mother and child enter the room

Play/explore Mother and child interact within the room and mother responds to child if it seeks attention.

Stranger Stranger enters the room and speaks with mother. Stranger approaches child and mother leaves room.

Separation Stranger interacts with child and encourages play. If child is distressed, procedure ends.

Mother Mother returns and stranger leaves. Child settles. Child is left alone in the room.

Alone If child is distressed, the procedure ends.

Stranger Stranger enters and repeats the separation stage.

Mother Mother returns and stranger leaves.

STRANGE SITUATION FINDINGSSTRANGE SITUATION FINDINGSSTRANGE SITUATION FINDINGSSTRANGE SITUATION FINDINGS

They found that of 106 mother-child pairs, 70% of pairs were securely attached, 15% insecure avoidant and 15% insecure

resistant. Scoring was on an intensity of behaviour scale from 1 – 7 every 15 seconds.

STRANGE SITUATION EVALUATIONSTRANGE SITUATION EVALUATIONSTRANGE SITUATION EVALUATIONSTRANGE SITUATION EVALUATION

STRENGTHSSTRENGTHSSTRENGTHSSTRENGTHS WEAKNESSESWEAKNESSESWEAKNESSESWEAKNESSES

Has become an accepted way of exploring attachment (an

accepted method is also called a paradigmparadigmparadigmparadigm)

Low ecological validity. The child’s behaviour is less natural

due to the bizarre situation. Brofenbrenner (1979) found

very different behaviours in child’s own home

Although the Strange Situation has been criticised for being

unethical, it does mirror real life scenarios where a child

may be left by the caregiver with a stranger.

Rutter et al believes the strange situation focuses too much

on secure/insecure attachment and not other important

aspects of behaviour.

WHAT INFLUENCES THE DEVELOPMENT OF ATTACHMENTS?WHAT INFLUENCES THE DEVELOPMENT OF ATTACHMENTS?WHAT INFLUENCES THE DEVELOPMENT OF ATTACHMENTS?WHAT INFLUENCES THE DEVELOPMENT OF ATTACHMENTS?

Maternal Maternal Maternal Maternal

Sensitivity Sensitivity Sensitivity Sensitivity

HypothesisHypothesisHypothesisHypothesis

According to Bowlby, responding to the needs of the child is crucial to developing secure

attachments. Ainsworth’s hypothesis states that attachment is closely related to the sensitivity the

mother has to her child’s needs.

Infant Infant Infant Infant

TemperamentTemperamentTemperamentTemperament

Thomas and Chess argue babies’ temperament can be categorised as easy, difficult and slow-to-warm-

up. The last two are harder to cope with for parents and this affects the emotional bond between

primary caregiver and the child.

Emotional Emotional Emotional Emotional

AvailabilityAvailabilityAvailabilityAvailability

This refers to the quality of the emotional interaction between mother and child. Beringen et al

(2005) argues children in emotionally available relationships are more likely to form secure

attachments and have better peer relationships.

CULTURAL DIFFERENCES IN ATTACULTURAL DIFFERENCES IN ATTACULTURAL DIFFERENCES IN ATTACULTURAL DIFFERENCES IN ATTACHMENTCHMENTCHMENTCHMENT

There are some key cultural differences in attachment across cultures.

Long term goals CollectivistCollectivistCollectivistCollectivist culturesculturesculturescultures emphasise values of cooperation and compliance as a goal

of child rearing, while individualist culturesindividualist culturesindividualist culturesindividualist cultures emphasise individual achievement

and independence (e.g. Carson and Harwood (2003) found Puerto Rican

(collectivist) families have a strong sense of community and a very physical

approach to child-rearing/discipline results in secure attachments, unlike

Ainsworth’s prediction of insecure)

Parental response to needs Child rearing practices are passed down and therefore satisfy that culture’s needs.

(e.g. True et al (2001) found the Dogon people keep children very close at all

times resulting in secure attachments but also insecure-disorganised, probably

due to high rates of infant mortality and parental fear being communicated to

infants)

How children and caregivers are valued The caregiver-infant relationship is valued in some cultures more than others.

(e.g. Tronick et al (1992) found that the Efe children spend up to 60% of their

time with women other than their mothers and these multiple attachment bonds

are just as strong as those children in the West form with their primary

caregivers)

EVIDENCE of CULTURE DIFFERENCES in ATTACHMENTEVIDENCE of CULTURE DIFFERENCES in ATTACHMENTEVIDENCE of CULTURE DIFFERENCES in ATTACHMENTEVIDENCE of CULTURE DIFFERENCES in ATTACHMENT

RoRoRoRothbaum thbaum thbaum thbaum

et al (2007)et al (2007)et al (2007)et al (2007)

Looked at the difference between US and Japanese perceptions of a “secure attachment” with reference to

“amae” (a bond specific to Japanese culture’s description of the relationship between parents and infants).

Through semi-structured interviews they found that in both cultures children seen as having “desirable”

characteristics were perceived as securely attached. Differences included the desirable characteristics (i.e.

Japanese mothers saw social roles as desirable while US mothers looked to individual achievement),

Japanese mothers less likely to see exploration as desirable in the SS, and a child being demanding was seen

as a reflection of a need for “amae” in Japanese culture.

Van Van Van Van

Ijzendoorn Ijzendoorn Ijzendoorn Ijzendoorn

and and and and

Kroonenberg Kroonenberg Kroonenberg Kroonenberg

(1988)(1988)(1988)(1988)

Reviewed 32 SS studies from 8 countries and found a similar pattern to Ainsworth, with secure being seen

most commonly. Insecure-avoidant was not as common in Japan and Israel, but insecure-resistant was.

Differences were also seen within cultures and not just across cultures. High rates of insecure-avoidant

attachment in Germany were attributed to a greater emphasis placed on independence and self-reliance.

Highlights the SS may be an ethnocentric design specific to the US.

Past Paper QuestionsPast Paper QuestionsPast Paper QuestionsPast Paper Questions

DISRUPTION OFDISRUPTION OFDISRUPTION OFDISRUPTION OF ATTACHMENTSATTACHMENTSATTACHMENTSATTACHMENTS

EFFECTS of SEPARATIONEFFECTS of SEPARATIONEFFECTS of SEPARATIONEFFECTS of SEPARATION

PROTESTPROTESTPROTESTPROTEST During the first few hours child will protest at being separated.

DESPAIRDESPAIRDESPAIRDESPAIR After a day or two, child will lose interest and become withdrawn.

DETACHMENTDETACHMENTDETACHMENTDETACHMENT After a few days the child becomes more alert and interested in surroundings but trust in caregiver

may be lost

EVIDENCE regarding DISRUPTIONEVIDENCE regarding DISRUPTIONEVIDENCE regarding DISRUPTIONEVIDENCE regarding DISRUPTION

ExplanationExplanationExplanationExplanation EvidenceEvidenceEvidenceEvidence

Maternal Maternal Maternal Maternal

Deprivation Deprivation Deprivation Deprivation

HypothesisHypothesisHypothesisHypothesis

Bowlby (1951) failing to form an attachment

to mother in a critical period can lead to

“maternal deprivation” and impacts emotional

and social stability.

Bowlby (1944) 44 Thieves study found of children

referred to behavioural clinic, 85% were maternally

deprived and showed signs of “affectionless

psychopathy”.

Foster CareFoster CareFoster CareFoster Care Foster care may cause problems to emotional

development due to prior experiences causing

insecure attachment types or foster care

disrupting primary attachment and causing

infant to withdraw from forming new

attachments.

Tyrell & Dozier (1998) found greatest problems were

with children fostered after 12 months (critical

period?)

Dozier et al (2001) the carer’s state of mind is

important. Autonomous carers more likely to foster

secure attached children.

Premature Premature Premature Premature

BirthBirthBirthBirth

Premature babies are more fragile and less

responsive than full-term babies. They are

harder to comfort and may need more time in

hospital, resulting in regular disruptions to

contact with the primary caregiver.

DiVitto & Goldberg (1995) mothers behave

differently to premature infants (i.e. over-attentive)

Plunkett et al (1988) premature babies are more likely

to show insecure attachments.

SHORT TERM DISRUPTION SHORT TERM DISRUPTION SHORT TERM DISRUPTION SHORT TERM DISRUPTION totototo ATTACHMENTATTACHMENTATTACHMENTATTACHMENT

Robertson Case studiesRobertson Case studiesRobertson Case studiesRobertson Case studies

Laura Laura, aged 2, is in hospital for 8 days to have a minor operation. Because her mother is not there and

the nurses change frequently, she has to face the fears, frights and hurts with no familiar person to cling

to. She settles but at the end of her stay she is withdrawn from her mother, shaken in her trust. Laura

alternates between periods of calm and distress.

John John was placed in a residential nursery whilst his mother was in hospital. Over the course of 9 days John

went from being a happy child to an overly distressed child. For two days John tries to attach himself to a

nurse, but because they are not assigned to individual children no nurse attends to John long enough to

understand him and answer his needs. He seeks comfort from an oversized teddy bear, but this isn’t

enough. He breaks down, refuses to eat, stops playing, cries a lot and gives up trying to get the nurses’

attention. At reunion with his mother, John screams and struggles to get away from her.

Jane, Lucy,

Thomas and

Kate

Jane, Lucy, Thomas and Kate were all under three years of age and placed in foster care with the

Robertsons while their mothers were in hospital. The Robertsons endeavoured to sustain a high level of

substitute emotional care and keep routines similar to those at home. Father visits regularly to maintain

emotional links with home. Kate was taken to visit her mother in hospital and was much more settled

after this. All the children seemed to adjust well. They showed some signs of distress, for example

Thomas rejected attempts to cuddle him but in general they slept well and did not reject their mothers

when reunited. Some were reluctant to part with the foster mother demonstrating the formation of good

emotional bonds.

FAILURE to FORM ATTACHMENTSFAILURE to FORM ATTACHMENTSFAILURE to FORM ATTACHMENTSFAILURE to FORM ATTACHMENTS

DeprivationDeprivationDeprivationDeprivation Refers to an attachment that has been formed and then be lost

PrivationPrivationPrivationPrivation Attachment is never formed

PRIVATIONPRIVATIONPRIVATIONPRIVATION

EVIDENCE regarding PRIVAEVIDENCE regarding PRIVAEVIDENCE regarding PRIVAEVIDENCE regarding PRIVATIONTIONTIONTION

Koluchova (1976)Koluchova (1976)Koluchova (1976)Koluchova (1976) Czech twins. Cruelly treated by step mother. Discovered at age 7; underdeveloped physically, lacked

speech and scared of adults. Adopted at 14 and their social, emotional, physical and intellectual

functioning was normal and continued to adulthood. Privation effects not always permanent.

Hodges and Hodges and Hodges and Hodges and

Tizard (1978)Tizard (1978)Tizard (1978)Tizard (1978)

Longitudinal study of children placed in institutional care at an early age. Those who had

institutional care and did not return home demonstrated poor peer relationships compared to

“normal” controls and others in institutional care who were adopted.

Goldfarb (1943)Goldfarb (1943)Goldfarb (1943)Goldfarb (1943) Those who were fostered from institutional care at birth were more social skilled in later life than

those who experienced three years of care first.

EVIDENCEEVIDENCEEVIDENCEEVIDENCE regarding PRIVATION in ROMANIAN ORPHAN samplesregarding PRIVATION in ROMANIAN ORPHAN samplesregarding PRIVATION in ROMANIAN ORPHAN samplesregarding PRIVATION in ROMANIAN ORPHAN samples

O’Connor et al O’Connor et al O’Connor et al O’Connor et al

(2000)(2000)(2000)(2000)

The ERA (English and Romanian Adoptees) study looked at 165 Romanian orphans adopted between

1990 and 1992. Cognitive performance at ages 4 and 6 were related to the amount of time the orphans

had spent in institutions before adoptions. Children adopted before 6 months scored similarly to UK

adoptees. Between 6 and 24 months showed slightly below average scores and those adopted after 24

months showed greatest problems. Length of time in institutional care also affected attachment quality.

Many of the Romanian children demonstrated inattention/over-activity disorders.

Rutter et al Rutter et al Rutter et al Rutter et al

(1998)(1998)(1998)(1998)

Longitudinal study following 111 Romanian orphans, who experienced early months and years in

extreme physical and emotional privation. They were adopted by British families before the age of 2

and by the age of 4 had apparently recovered. This shows that the effects of even extreme privation can

be reversed with appropriate care; although they were adopted within Bowlby’s critical period.

Past Paper QuestionsPast Paper QuestionsPast Paper QuestionsPast Paper Questions

DAY CAREDAY CAREDAY CAREDAY CARE

THE IMPACT of DAY CARE on SOCIAL DEVELOPMENTTHE IMPACT of DAY CARE on SOCIAL DEVELOPMENTTHE IMPACT of DAY CARE on SOCIAL DEVELOPMENTTHE IMPACT of DAY CARE on SOCIAL DEVELOPMENT

QUALITYQUALITYQUALITYQUALITY QUANTITYQUANTITYQUANTITYQUANTITY

Centre care.Centre care.Centre care.Centre care. Child given some independence. These

children interact more with peers (Clarke-Stewart et al,

1994)

Centre care.Centre care.Centre care.Centre care. Children spending most amount of time in

centre care develop poorest social competence.

Home care.Home care.Home care.Home care. Child given more attention by caregiver.

Caregiver is main source of interaction, developing child’s

social skills.

Home care.Home care.Home care.Home care. The more home care the better the social

competence.

AGGRESSION and DAY CAREAGGRESSION and DAY CAREAGGRESSION and DAY CAREAGGRESSION and DAY CARE

POSITIVE EFFECTSPOSITIVE EFFECTSPOSITIVE EFFECTSPOSITIVE EFFECTS NEGATIVE EFFECTSNEGATIVE EFFECTSNEGATIVE EFFECTSNEGATIVE EFFECTS

Borge et al (2004) argued that findings of aggressive

behaviour in day care were due to home circumstances.

Belsky et al (2007) suggested longer time spent in day care

led to problem behaviour in their early teens.

Doherty (1996) found lower levels of aggression in children

attending regular day care, although specifically high quality

day care, including low staff-pupil ratios, trained staff and

wide range of materials.

Kopp (1982) suggested that day care disrupts cognitive

development and as a result the child is unable to regulate

(control) their own behaviour. This is particularly true for

those in high quantity, low quality day care.

NICHD study (2004) found through observation that

children with higher levels of day care had lower levels of

aggression.

Belsky et al (2001) found that the more time a child had

spent in day care, the more likely they were to be aggressive

in their primary school years.

PEER REPEER REPEER REPEER RELATIONSHIPS and DAY CARELATIONSHIPS and DAY CARELATIONSHIPS and DAY CARELATIONSHIPS and DAY CARE

POSITIVE EFFECTSPOSITIVE EFFECTSPOSITIVE EFFECTSPOSITIVE EFFECTS NEGATIVE EFFECTSNEGATIVE EFFECTSNEGATIVE EFFECTSNEGATIVE EFFECTS

Clarke-Stewart et al (1994) found that children in group-

based day care over home care had heightened ability to

negotiate with peers.

Vandell et al (1990) found that children receiving day care

from untrained staff with high staff to child ratios,

developed inferior peer relations.

Vandell et al (1988) Longitudinal study found that higher

quality day care resulted in more friendly and less

unfriendly peer interactions than those in lower quality day

care.

Violata and Russell (1994) found that day care had a

negative effect on social development and this was most

pronounced in those that received over 20 hours of day care

a week.

Anderson (1989) the more high quality day care a child

receives, the greater their social competence.

Vliestra (1981) found that children attending half day care

had better peer relations than those in full day care.

FEATURES of GOOD QUALITY DAY CAREFEATURES of GOOD QUALITY DAY CAREFEATURES of GOOD QUALITY DAY CAREFEATURES of GOOD QUALITY DAY CARE

Well Trained TeachersWell Trained TeachersWell Trained TeachersWell Trained Teachers A day care worker should have adequate training.

Low staff turnoverLow staff turnoverLow staff turnoverLow staff turnover A consistency of staff should be in place to minimise disruption to the child’s

attachments.

Spacious accommodationSpacious accommodationSpacious accommodationSpacious accommodation There should be lots of room for the child to move, run and explore.

Lower numbers of childrenLower numbers of childrenLower numbers of childrenLower numbers of children Too many children could result in difficult group dynamics and crowding.

Lower adultLower adultLower adultLower adult----child ratioschild ratioschild ratioschild ratios Depending on the age of the child, they should have a keyworker and share them with a

small group of peers (e.g. a staff ratio of 3:1 is ideal, but varies with age).

Lots of activities and Lots of activities and Lots of activities and Lots of activities and

materialsmaterialsmaterialsmaterials

Good provision of toys, books and interactions etc.

Taken from Vandell and Powers (1983)

Past Paper QuestionsPast Paper QuestionsPast Paper QuestionsPast Paper Questions