psychexchange.co.uk shared resource

cOb

PSYA1

Topic 3

DEVELOPMENTAL PSYCHOLOGY(early social development)

Part 1: ATTACHMENT

PSPSyyCHOLOGCHOLOGYY

SYLLABUSYou should be able to demonstrate an understanding of…

CONTENTS

Covered in class Revision Notes Exam Practice

1. Explanations (theories) of attachment

Describe and Evaluate Learning theory of attachment

Describe and Evaluate Evolutionary (Bowlby’s)Perspective (Theory) of attachment

2. Types of Attachment

Describe the different types of attachment and theBehaviour of children with each attachment type(inc. Secure, insecure-resistant and insecure avoidantAttachment types)

Describe and evaluate the strange situation research ofAINSWORTH

Discuss research into Cultural variations of attachment

3. Disruption of attachment

Explain the difference between DEPRIVATION/SEPARATION (disruption to attachment) and PRIVATION(failure To form attachments). Give examples of each.

Discuss research into the effects of deprivation/searationAnd privation (e.g. research byRobertson; Bowlby)

Describe how we can reduce and overcome the effects of deprivation/separation and privation

Discuss research into the effects of INSTITUTIONALISATION

1.

Theories of ATTACHMENT

Objectives – you should be able to...

Define the term ‘attachment’ Explain how we know when attachments have been formed DESCRIBE and EVALUATE learning theory of attachment DESCRIBE and EVALUATE the evolutionary perspective of

attachment (Bowlby’s theory)

According to SHAFFER (1993) an attachment is defined as...

MACCOBY (1980) identifies 4 key behaviours which indicate when a child has formed an with another person

What is ATTACHMENT?

“a...

“

1. SEEKING PROXIMITY TO THE PRIMARY CAREGIVER

2. DISTRESS ON SEPARATION

3. PLEASURE WHEN REUNITED (with the attachment figure)

4. GENERAL ORIENTATION OF BEHAVIOUR TOWARDS THE FIGURE OF ATTACHMENT (primary care giver)

RESEARCH METHODS NOTE! - A longitudinal study is…

When do children start to form attachments?

SCHAFFER and EMERSON (1964) conducted a classic longitudinal study which followed 60 infants over a period of two years. The infants were observed every 4 weeks until they were 1 year old and then observed once more at 18 months. Attachment was measured by assessing levels of separation protest (how the infants reacted to being separated from attachment figures) and stranger anxiety (how infants reacted to strangers).

Schaffer and Emerson concluded specific attachments were formed for the majority of children between 6 and 8 months

Stage of Attachment

ASOCIAL STAGE INDISCRIMINATE ATTACHMENT

SPECIFIC ATACHMENT

STAGE

AGE 0-5 weeks 6weeks to 7 months 7-11months

BEHAVIOUR demonstrated by child

Smiling and crying is not directed at specific individuals but the child does show preference to people over physical objects

Child actively seeks attention from different people and starts to direct smiling and crying towards others. However, no preference is shown to one particular individual.

Strong attachment and preference to one individual (normally the mother) is shown. Good subsequent attachments are often made from 9months onwards (although these are arguable not as strong and influential as the primary attachment)

At this time, infants displayed both separation protest when separated from their primary caregiver (the figure of attachment) and stranger anxiety when presented with a stranger.

For most infants, the primary attachment figure (with whom they had the strongest attachment) was the MOTHER

However, Following the formation of the main attachment, Schaffer and Emerson also noted that most children became attached to other people (only 13% showed a single attachment) although these subsequent attachments were not as strong. This leads to the idea that our first attachment is the most important and crucial one that we form in our lives and that it arguably has the greatest impact on our behaviour.

EXTENSION NOTES

Schaffer and Emerson used this evidence to argue that attachments develop in stages (outlined below)

LEARNING THEORY of Attachment

In a nutshell, learning theory argues that we are born ‘TABLA RASA’ (blank slate). Due to this, the theory states that attachments are no more than a set of learned behaviours

DOLLARD and MILER (1950) propose that attachments can be learnt through two processes (a) Operant Conditioning and (b) classical conditioning...

(a) Learning theory argues Attachments can be formed through OPERANT CONDITIONING

Dollard and Miller argue that attachments could develop through the principles of operant conditioning, including POSITIVE and NEGATIVE REINFORCEMENT and PUNISHMENT.

This idea is more complete than classical conditioning ideas (see next page) as it can explain why the child AND the adult develop the attachment.

TASK! In the space below, use Operant conditioning theory to explain why children and adults form attachments. Use the following terms in your answer at least once.

* Positive Reinforcement *Negative reinforcement *Food*Promary Reinforcer * Secondary Reinforcer *Distress

THEORIES of Attachment (1)* NB. Before looking at this theory, you must have completed the background reading on CLASSICAL CONDITIONING and OPERANT CONDITIONING *

(b) According to learning theory, Attachments can also be formed through CLASSICAL CONDITIONING

In this theory, Dollard and Miller propose that children may also form an attachment to their primary caregiver because they learn to ASSOCIATE that person with food.

TAKING IT EVEN FURTHER!

Can you include the correct key classical conditioning terminology into this explanation of how attachments are formed.

Food is the ………….............................… because it automatically causes pleasure and satisfaction

The Mother is initially the …………. But becomes the ………….. after conditioning

Pleasure is the …………. But after being associated with the NS it becomes the …………….

Before Conditioning

………………………………. (UCS) …………………………… (UCR)

……………………………….. (NS) No response

During Conditioning (repeated associations of the child being fed)

TAKING IT FURTHER!This is because food naturally causes a child to experience pleasure as it satisfies a basic drive (relief from hunger). The baby therefore learns to ASSOCIATE the person (e.g. the mother) who feeds them with the food and the pleasure this causes. Repeated associations of the same person with food will eventually result in a conditioned response whereby the presence of the person (e.g. the mother) is enough to generate feelings of pleasure in the child. According to classical conditioning, this is when an attachment is formed as this learning experience will result in the child seeking to maintain proximity with the person who has become associated with providing food. This may also explain why a child demonstrates separation anxiety when removed from the attachment figure.

Summarise HARLOWS research and say why it CONTRADICTS the learning theory of attachment

……………….… (UCS) + …………………….… (NS) …………………………… (UCR)

After Conditioning

……………………………….. (CS) ……………………………. (CR)

However, a major weakness of the classical conditioning theory is that it explains why the child forms the attachment but struggles to explain why the adult forms the attachment

“In evaluation, a STRENGTH of the learning theory of attachment is…”

The learning theory of attachment has FACE VALIDITY

This is because, on the surface, learning theories of attachment seem to be correct. It makes sense that children will attach to people who satisfy their basic needs (e.g. by providing food).

“However, in further evaluation, a WEAKNESS of the learning theory of attachment is…”

ANIMAL RESEARCH suggests learning theories of attachment are INCOMPLETE as studies show that attachments are not based only on feeding

The learning theory of attachment is known as a CUPBOARD LOVE theory as it suggests that the attachment forms simply because it results in a basic, physical need being satisfied (e.g. hunger).

However, research by HARLOW (1969) has demonstrated that this is not the case and that attachments are formed for reasons other than simple provision of food and other direct rewards.

EVALUATION of Learning Theories of attachment

OBSERVATIONAL RESEARCH has further shown that learning theories of attachment are INCOMPLETE and that attachments are not based on feeding and physical care.

SCHAFFER and EMERSON (1964) found that from a sample of children 39% did not develop an attachment to the person who carried out the majority of the physical care (e.g. the feeding, changing, etc).

This further criticises the learning theory of attachment because it shows attachment are formed for reasons other than simply provision of food (or satisfaction of basic physical drives).

A further weakness is that Learning theories of attachment can be accused of being REDUCTIONIST

This is because the learning theory is a too simplistic account of a complex human behaviour. For example, it ignores the important role of genetic and evolutionary aspects which a large body of research have deemed important in the formation of attachment.

Alternative theories such as BOWLBY’S EVOLUTIONARY THEORY of attachment are arguably more complete than learning theory because they take into account a greater variety of contributory factors (e.g. innate tendencies, increasing survival chances).

Additional Notes -

HOWEVER... explain a weakness with Harlow’s research which may invalidate conclusions

Theory of Attachment 2

BOWLBY’S EVOLUTIONARY THEORY of AttachmentPerhaps the most influential theory of attachment is proposed by John BOWLBY (1957).

Instead of arguing that attachments are learnt behaviours (as proposed by Learning Theories), Bowlby argues that the capacity to develop an attachment is an EVOLVED mechanism that is INNATE (present from birth and not learnt).

To DESCRIBE Bowlby’s evolutionary theory of attachment, we will consider a number of key areas...

1. Bowlby argues attachment has an EVOLUTIONARY BASISBowlby argues that attachment behaviours in both babies and their caregivers have EVOLVED through the process of NATURAL SELECTION. According to this part of the theory, we have evolved tendency to form attachments because they INCREASE A CHILDS CHANCE OF SURVIVAL.

This is because...

THEORIES of Attachment (2)

Explain how forming attachments increase a child’s chance of survival. Link to specific behaviours if you can.

TAKING IT FURTHER!According to this theory, a child has evolved to produce INNATE SOCIAL RELEASERS (e.g. crying, smiling). These are met with INSTINCTIVE CARE RESPONSES from adults (e.g. maintaining contact, feeding). If a child’s innate social releasers are met with the appropriate instinctive parenting responses, we say there is a state of INTERACTIONAL SYNCHRONY between the child and caregiver. Interactional Synchrony results in an attachment being formed

Try to include these more advanced concepts in your description of this part of the theory!

An evolved feature of attachment?

2. Bowlby argues for a CRITICAL PERIOD Bowlby argues that there is a critical period in which a child develops an attachment. After this period, it is very difficult for a child to develop a significant primary attachment and there is likely to be serious developmental consequences later in life.

According to Bowlby, the critical period for attachments is...

3. MATERNAL DEPRIVATION HYPOTHESISIf a child does not form an attachment within the critical period, of if this attachment is disrupted (e.g. due to separation between the child and PCG), Bowlby argues that this is likely to result in serious LONG TERM developmental consequences later in life. He terms this idea the MATERNAL DEPRIVATION HYPOTHESIS

4. Bowlby proposes the idea of MONOTROPYCentral to Bowlbys theory of attachment is the notion of MONOTROPY. This is the idea that...

(EXTENSION – see pg 54 of your textbook)

5. Bowlby argues that the primary attachment between a child and their caregiver provides a child with an INTERNAL WORKING MODEL

Bowlby argues that the primary attachment provides a child with an internal working model or, to put it another way, a template for their future relationships.

According to Bowlbys MDH, what are the likely developmental consequences if a child fails to form an attachment in the critical period. Remember to explain what the terms mean!

Explain what Bowlby’s idea of MONOTROPY is all about!

Explain in your own words what an INTERNAL WORKING MODEL is. Make reference to the CONTINUITY HYPOTHESIS too if you feel comfortable with it!

There is a range of SUPPORTING EVIDENCE from Lab Experiments, Ethological Studies, Observations and Case Studies which VALIDATE the various elements of Bowlby’s theory.

There is evidence to support the notion that attachments have an evolutionary basis (as they

increase an infants chances of survival) from _________________________________________

Who found that...

However, there are problems with this research which potentially REDUCE THE VALIDITY of the conclusions and therefore the support it offers to the theory

There is evidence to support the notion of the MATERNAL DEPRIVATION HYPOTHESIS from ________________________________________________________

Who found that...

EVALUATION of Bowlby’s Evolutionary Theory of attachment

(briefly describe the key elements of the study, including a conclusion which links the results back to the theory)

Explain one weakness of the above study



(EXTENSION)

There is evidence to support the notion of the INTERNAL WORKING MODEL and the CONTINUITY HYPOTHESIS from ______________________________________________

Who found that...


EXTENSION! There is lots of other research which you could refer to here. Conduct your own reading and find some additional studies which link to the key concepts of this theory. Summarise these below, using the same format as above!




However, there is also plenty of research which CONTRADICTS the Key Concepts of Bowlby’s theory. For example...

There is evidence which contradicts the notion of MONOTROPY from ________________________________________________________

Who found that...

There is evidence which contradicts the MATERNAL DEPRIVATION HYPOTHESIS from ________________________________________________________

(EXTENSION)

There is evidence which contradicts the notion of the INTERNAL WORKING MODEL and CONTINUITY HYPOTHESIS from... ________________________________________________________

Who found that...




NB. Again, there are many other pieces of research which contradict the key concepts of Bowlby’s theory. Conduct your own reading and summarise some more studies in your notes!

ADDITIONAL WEAKNESSES of BOWLBY’S EVOLUTIONARY THEORY

Bowlby’s theory UNDERESTIMATES THE ROLE OF THE FATHER / CAREGIVERS OTHER THAN THE MOTHER

Bowlby’s theory focuses on the attachment between the mother and child as being of primary importance. It can be argued that Bowlby overlooked the fact that a child’s attachment to the FATHER (or in fact other siblings or caregivers) can be of equal importance. Schaffer and Emerson’s research indicates that fathers can be equally important attachment figures.

Bowlby’s view of the CRITICAL PERIOD has been CRITICISED

Some researchers argue Bowlby was incorrect in his view of that there is a critical period in which attachments have to develop. Research (e.g. the ‘Czech Twins’ case study) has found attachments can develop outside of the critical period.

It is likely that there is a period in which attachments should be formed, however, this is likely to extend beyond the first 3 years. For example, the case of GENIE shows it is very difficult to develop enduring attachments after the age of 13. Bowlby later revised his notion of a critical period and instead referred to it as a SENSITIVE PERIOD.

Bowlby’s theory may be CULTURE bound (ethnocentric) and ERA bound

Bowlby’s theory may be culture bound (ethnocentric) as it is developed using Western norms and values (e.g. that the primary caregiver is always the mother) which are not appropriate for other cultures. This means the conclusions and theories may not generalise and be relevant to people from other cultures.

Additional, the theory may be a ‘child of its time’. This means some of the concepts are outdated (e.g. the view that the primary caregiver is always the mother) and may not apply to today’s contemporary society and family units.

This means Bowlby’s theory of attachment may have a LIMITED RELEVANCE as it may not GENERALISE outside Western cultures or to contemporary society.

Additional Notes...

2.

TYPES of Attachment


DESCRIBE and EVALUATE Ainsworth’s ‘Strange Situation’ research

EXPLAIN the difference between secure and insecure attachments

EXPLAIN what causes children to have different attachment types

DISCUSS research into cultural variations in attachments and EXPLAIN these variations

The theories we have discussed so far seem to indicate that all children (given to correct experiences) form the same type of attachment. However, this is NOT the case!

Research has concluded that there are a number of different ATTACHMENT TYPES (or attachment classifications).

AINSWORTH (1970) – The ‘Strange Situation’ research into attachment types

AIM

Ainsworth aimed to investigate if children had different types of attachment to their primary caregiver (PCG). To do this she wanted to monitor

1. How the child reacted to being SEPARATED from their PCG

2. How the child reacted to being REUNITED with their PCG

3. How the child reacted towards a STRANGER

4. How willing a child was to EXPLORE a novel environment

METHODOLOGY and PROCEDURE

Research Method = CONTROLLED OBSERVATION

Participants = 26 mother-infant pairs. All participants were white, middle class Americans

PROCEDURE – Summarise the 8 Stages of the strange situation experiment (p58)

1.

2.

3.

4.

5.

TYPES of Attachment – The ‘Strange Situation’

6.

7.

8.

RESULTS

Based on the behaviour of the child during the strange situation, Ainsworth was able to classify each child as having ONE of THREE different attachment types (NB – you HAVE to know the behaviour of children who fall into each category)

Complete the table below to outline Ainsworth’s results (p59)

ATTACHMENT TYPE

% of Ainsworth’s sample that

fall into this

category

BEHAVIOURPATTERN OF CHILD

CONCLUSIONS

From this research, Ainsworth concluded that children can have one of three possible attachments types. Each attachment type is distinguished with very different behaviour. The most common attachment type is TYPE B – SECURE.

In evaluation, a STRENGTH of the strange situation is...

The use of a CONTROLLED OBSERVATION means the study has HIGH RELIABILITY and HIGH INTERNAL VALIDITY

This is because the researchers had a high degree of control over the environment and possible extraneous variables. This makes the study easy to replicate in the same way in the future.

Many researchers have replicated the strange situation research and found consistently similar results,

which further highlights that the procedure is R________________________

However, in further evaluation, a WEAKNESS of the strange situation is...

The research lacks ECOLOGICAL VALIDITY This is because the study takes place in a controlled, A___________________ environment.

This means we cannot be sure that the behaviour of the child is reflective of their N_______________, real life behaviour.

Some critics argue the strange situation has ETHICAL ISSUES This is because the research takes place in an unfamiliar environment and the procedure will cause the child to experience DISTRESS.

Therefore there are issues with P_____________________ F___________ H___________

EVALUATION of the ‘Strange Situation’

However, Ainsworth argues this point by saying that the strange situation is actually very similar to many situations a child encounters in their real life – such as being left with a baby sitter or at a nursery.

However, Ainsworth argues against this criticism by stating again that the situations which occur in the research are no more distressing than those a child will experience in their everyday life.

The research has a SMALL, LIMITED SAMPLE This is because Ainsworth only uses 26 child-mother pairs, all of whom are W_____________,

M_____________ C_________________ A____________________.

This means the sample is UN- R__________________________ and therefore results may not generalise to the population at large

EXTENSION evaluation points

The classifications may be INCOMPLETE Some researchers argue that some children do not fit into any of the three categories established by Ainsworth. MAIN and SOLOMON (1986) argue there should be an additional category included...

See page 60. What is the FOURTH attachment classification which Main and Solomon argue should be included?

What is the behaviour of children like who fall into this fourth category?

However, a strength of the Strange Situation is that it has major PRACTICAL APPLICATIONS due to its PREDICTIVE VALIDITY

The strange situation research has significantly developed our understanding of attachment. Additionally, subsequent longitudinal studies have shown that a child’s attachment type during the strange situation is linked to specific adult behaviours. We can therefore say the strange situation has PREDICTIVE VALIDITY as it can indicate the later behaviour of a child.

Some supporters of the strange situation further argue that we can use the strange situation in a clinical sense as a ‘DIAGNOSTIC TOOL’...

What do you think researchers mean when they say that the strange situation can be used as a DIAGNOSTIC TOOL?

TAKING IT FURTHER! If you feel confident with the evaluation points covered previously, have a look at the ones below and try to incorporate them into your essays! However, if you are struggling to remember all the info, just concentrate on the ones on the previous page!

Ainsworth’s Strange Situation research has indicated that there are a number of different types of attachment. The next logical question is what causes these different attachment types.

The main theories to explain why children develop different attachments are

1. Maternal Sensitivity Hypothesis

2. Infant Temperament Hypothesis

3. The CULTURE in which the child is raised (see later notes)

1. AINSWORTH’S maternal sensitivity hypothesis argues that a child’s attachment style is dependent on the behaviour their mother shows towards them.

‘Sensitive’ mothers are responsive to the childs needs and respond to their moods and feelings correctly. Sensitive mothers are more likely to have securely attached children.

In contrast, mothers who are less sensitive towards their child, for example those who respond to the childs needs incorrectly or who are impatient or ignore the child, are likely to have insecurely attached children.

This theory is supported by research from, DeWOLFF and Van IJZENDOORN (1997) who conducted a Meta- analysis (a review) of research into attachment types. They found that there is a relatively weak correlation of 0.24 between parental sensitivity and attachment type – generally more sensitive parents had securely attached children.

However, in evaluation, critics of this theory argue that the correlation between parental sensitivity and the child’s attachment type is only weak. This suggests that there are other reasons which may better explain why children develop different attachment types and that the maternal sensitivity theory places too much emphasis on the mother. Focusing just on maternal sensitivity when trying to explain why children have different attachment types is therefore a REDUCTIONIST approach.

2. An alternative theory proposed by KAGEN suggests that the TEMPERAMENT OF THE CHILD is actually what leads to the different attachment types. Children with different innate (inborn) temperaments will have different attachment types.

This theory is supported by research from FOX who found that...

Babies with an ‘Easy’ temperament (those who eat a sleep regularly and accept new experiences) are likely to develop secure attachments

Babies with a ‘slow to warm up’ temperament (those who took a while to get used to new experiences) are likely to have insecure-avoidant attachments.

Babies with a ‘Difficult’ temperament (those who eat and sleep irregularly and who reject new experiences) are likely to have insecure-ambivalent attachments.

Again, in evaluation, the infant temperament hypothesis can be criticised as being reductionist as it takes a very narrow view on what causes the different attachment types (it only focuses on one factor – the temperament of the child). Research has shown that other factors are influential in the development of attachment type.

Why causes different attachment types?

In conclusion, the most complete explanation of why children develop different attachment types would be an INTERACTIONIST theory. This would argue that a child’s attachment type is a result of a combination of factors – both the child’s innate temperament and their parent’s sensitivity towards their needs.

BELSKY and ROVINE (1987) propose an interesting interactionist theory to explain the different attachment types. They argue that the child’s attachment type is a result of both the child’s innate temperament and also how the parent responds to them (i.e. the parents sensitivity level). Additionally, the child’s innate temperament may in fact influence the way their parent responds to them (i.e the infants temperament influences the parental sensitivity shown to them). To develop a secure attachment, a ‘difficult’ child would need a caregiver who is sensitive and patient for a secure attachment to develop. However, if a ‘difficult’ child had a caregiver who was anxious and responded incorrectly to their needs, the child is likely to develop an insecure attachment.

Attachments do not just vary between individual babies – they also vary systematically between different cultures.

This is largely due to the DIFFERENT CHILD REARING PRACTICES AND NORMS in each culture.

HOW DO ATTACHMENTS VARY ACCROSS CULTURES?

The key study which has investigated this question was conducted by two Dutch Psychologists...

VAN IJZENDOORN and KROONENBERG (1988)

– Meta Analysis of cultural variations in attachment

AIM:

To investigate the cultural differences in attachment types

METHODOLOGY and PROCEDURE:

Van Ijzendoorn and Kroonenberg (1988) conducted a large scale meta analysis in which they analysed the results of 32 separate studies in eight countries which used Ainsworth’s ‘Strange Situation’.

In total over 2000 babies were studies. Percentages of children who fell into each attachment type were analysed and compared.

RESULTS: A summary of the main results are given in the table below...

% of Each Attachment TypeCountry No. of

StudiesB - Secure A -

AvoidantC - Resistant

CULTURAL VARIATIONS in attachment

IN F

OC

US

For example, FOX (1977) reports about the child rearing practices of a KIBBUTZIM community in Israel. Here, babies are placed in COMMUNAL childcare from around the age of 4. The physical care of the child (e.g. feeding, changing) is carried out by a nurse and the child’s biological parents only visit for around three hours a day. This is obviously very different to the child rearing practices of Western Society and we can see that it leads to very different levels of attachments developing between the child and primary caregiver (in particular, there are much higher levels of insecure ambivalent attachments amongst Kibbutzim children and parents.

Research Methods Link!

* Explain what a META Analysis is...

Germany 3 56.6 35.3 8.1

Israel 2 64.4 6.8 28.8

Japan 2 67.7 5.2 27.1

China 1 50 25 25

USA 18 64.8 21.1 14.1

Great Britain

1 75 22.2 2.8

TASK! Produce a bar graph of the Van Ijzendoorn and Kroonenberg results and stick it on this page!

CONCLUSIONS

Van Ijzendoorn and Kroonenberg found a large variation in the attachment types of children in different cultures, which is likely to reflect the different child rearing practices. Based on their findings they could make a number of additional key conclusions.

1. Type B secure attachments are the most common type of attachment across all cultures

2. There are different patterns of attachment between culturesFor example, there are a higher number of Insecure – Avoidant (type A) attachments in GERMANY. This could be because...

Also, there are a higher number of Insecure – Ambivalent (type C) attachments in ISRAEL, JAPAN and CHINA. This could be because...

3. There is significant variation of attachments within culturesVan Ijzendoorn looked at multiple studies in each country. However, he found that every study produced different levels of each classification. This INTRA-CULTURAL VARIATION suggests that it is an over simplification to assume all children are brought up in the same way in particular country.

EVALUATION of Van Ijzendoorn and Kroonenberg’s study

STRENGTHS WEAKNESSES

The use of a META ANALYSIS is ETHICALLY SOUND

Because there was no new data collection involved in the study (only analysis of secondary data), no more children had to be put through the potentially traumatic ‘strange situation’ procedure.

The use of the STRANGE SITUATION in each study is an issue

This is because the strange situation is argued to be an ETHNOCENTRIC procedure. It was developed in America, based on American norms, so it may only be useful for studying Western children. Using it to assess the attachments of non-

Can you explain this finding?

Can you explain this finding?

The study has significant APPLICATIONS TO PSYCHOLOGY

This study was the first large scale comparative analysis of attachment studies in different countries. The conclusions significantly developed our understanding of not just the different child rearing practices in different cultures but how these different child rearing practices can impact on a child’s attachment type.

western children could be argued to be inappropriate as it does not take into account culturally specific elements. Its use is therefore an IMPOSED ETIC when used in non western cultures.

The study may NOT BE TRULY REPRESENTATIVE

In some countries, Van Ijzendoorn only looked at a small number of studies (e.g.1 in china compared to 18 in the USA). This means the results for these countries may not be truly representative and may not generalise to the country at large.

3.

DISRUPTION of Attachment and FAILURE TO FORM ATTACHMENTS


OUTLINE the SHORT and LONG term effects of SEPARATION (deprivation) & OUTLINE factors which influence a child’s response to separation

DISCUSS RESEARCH into the above (e.g. the studies of John and Jane)

OUTLINE the effects of PRIVATION & OUTLINE factors which influence a child’s response to separation

DICUSS RESEARCH into the above (e.g. the case studies of Genie and the Czech Twins).

DISCUSS research into the effects of INSTITUTIONALISATION

SEPARATION (deprivation) is defined as...

Events that could lead to separation include...

Bowlby’s maternal deprivation hypothesis would argue that Separation (deprivation) is likely to have a number of negative effects on a person, both in the short term and in the long term.

This is because separation results in...

The Short and Long Term Effects of Separation

Define the term in your own words...

List some examples of separation...

WHAT are the SHORT TERM EFFECTS of Separation?

The studies by ROBERTSON and ROBERTSON (see later notes) indicate that children generally go through 3 stages in response to short term separation. This is known as the PDD model.

The three stages of response to short term separation are... (see pg 65)

1

PROTESTThis is...

2

DESPAIRThis is...

3

DETACHMENTThis is...

What are the LONG TERM EFFECTS of Separation?

Research, such as BOWLBY’S classic ’44 THIEVES’ study (see previous notes), has concluded that separation could also have a number of long term effects. However, long term effects are generally associated with PROLONGED PERIODS OF SEPARATION FROM THE PCG (‘deprivation’)

Possible Long term effects of separation include...

SEPARATION ANXIETY

This is...

PSYCHOLOGICAL PROBLEMS

This could include...

DEPRIVATION DWARFISM

This is...

What FACTORS affect a child’s RESPONSE TO SEPARATION?

Research has concluded that children do not all respond in the same way to separations – some become very stressed, some may develop long term problems, whereas some appear to be unaffected.

Research has suggested that a child’s response to separation is dependent on a number of factors... (see pg66-67)

1. The AGE of the childResearch has generally indicated that there is a negative correlation between the AGE of the child at the time of separation and the level of DISTRESS they experience.

2. The ATTACHMENT TYPE of the child

3. The SEX of the child.

It is important to note however that there is a variety of research which suggests there are extremely wide differences WITHIN sexes, i.e. not all boys respond in the same way to separation (GROSS and McILVEEN, 1997). This suggests that the view that the sex of a child has a direct impact on their response to separation is perhaps a little too simplistic and general.

4. The QUALITY of CARE a child receives during the separation

What is the link between attachment type and a childs response to separation?

What does research suggest is about the influence of SEX on a child’s response to separation

Summarise what research suggests about this factor (see pg67)

5. The Child’s PREVIOUS EXPEIENCES OF SEPARATION

RESEARCH into the Effects of SHORT TERM SEPARATION

There is evidence which supports the view that childrens short term response to separation is in accordance to the PDD model and also that certain factors can influence the child’s short term response to separation.

Key research in this area is the CASE STUDIES of ‘JOHN’ and ‘JANE’, as reported by ROBERTSON and ROBERTSON (1967-1973).

(a) The case study of ‘JOHN’ (Robertson and Robertson)

(b) The case study of ‘JANE’ (Robertson and Robertson)

Summarise what research suggests about this factor (see pg67)

Summarise the BACKGROUND of JOHN. Explain Why he experienced separation from his PCG and what he was like prior to the separation.

How did JOHN respond in the first few days of the separation? What was his IMMEDIATE RESPONSE to separation?

How did JOHN behave towards the end of the separation? In particular, how did he respond when reunited with his mother?

What can we CONCLUDE from the case of JOHN?

EVALUATION of the case studies of JOHN and JANE

Outline at least ONE STRENGTH and ONE WEAKNESS about the naturalistic case studies of JOHN & JANE

STRENGTHS

WEAKNESSES

Summarise the BACKGROUND of JANE.

How did JANE respond to the separation?

How is the experience of JANE different to the experiences of JOHN?

What can we CONCLUDE from the case of JANE?

Thankfully, only a relatively small number of children will experience PRIVATION in their lives.

PRIVATION is...

POINT TO NOTE!Although unlikely, if you are asked to DISCUSS/DESCRIBE/EVALUATE research into the long term effects of separation, you should use the research we looked at elsewhere in this booklet. For example...

BOWLBY’S ’44 thieves’ Study which concluded that disruption to attachment can lead to affectionless psychopathy in later life (the ‘maternal deprivation hypothesis’). BIFULCO (1992) who studied a sample of 249 women who had experienced maternal separation and found that this sample experienced TWICE the normal rates of depression and anxiety, which suggests that separation causes long term Psychological Problems.

Remember to note the evaluation points for these studies too (e.g. the correlational nature of the studies means we cannot imply cause and effect and so we cannot be sure it is the separation that is directly causing the negative long term effects).

If you are asked in general about research into the effects of separation, you can use any of the studies – ‘John’, ‘Jane’, Bowlby ‘44 thieves’, Biffulco – but try to make reference to short and long term effects in your answer!

The effects of PRIVATION and INSTITUTIONALISATION

Define the term....

Privation may be experienced if...

The effects of privation have been investigated in a number of ways, most notably using case studies of children who have been brought up in extreme circumstances (e.g. isolation) and studies of children raised in institutions from birth.

What are the EFFECTS of Privation and Institutionalisation?

Research has concluded that there are a number of potential long term effects that may occur as a result of Privation. These include...

1. DELINQUENCY and AFFECTIONLESS PSYCHOPATHY

What situations may be classed as Privation?

TAKING IT FURTHER!Although Privation is defined as above, many researchers refer too two different types of privation (although the two are often experienced together).

EMOTIONAL PRIVATION is the lack of emotional care or love that a child may experience if they are unable to form an attachment.

PHYSICAL PRIVATION refers to the lack of basic physical needs such as food or shelter which may occur if a child is unable to form an attachment

This is...

This was highlighted in research by BOWLBY (the ’44 Thieves’ study)

2. ATTACHMENT DISORDERS (e.g. disinhibited attachment or inhibited attachment)

This was highlighted in research by HODGES and TIZARD (1984) and RUTTER (2007)

3. PSYCHOLOGICAL PROBLEMS and DEVELOPMENTAL DWARFISM

This was shown in research by BOWLBY (44 thieves study) and the case study of GENIE.

RESEARCH into the EFFECTS of PRIVATION

CASE STUDY 1 – ‘GENIE’ (as reported by CURTISS, 1977)

DISINHIBITED Attachment disorder is...

INHIBITED attachment disorder is when...

PSYCHOLOGICAL PROBLEMS which may be caused by Privation include...

(extension) Can you explain WHY privation may lead to these Psychological Problems?

DEVELOPMENTAL DWARFISM is...

HOWEVER, it is important to note that there are a number of FACTORS which influence the effects of Privation and whether the negative effects can be reversed (e.g. the age of the child, the child’s experiences during the privation/institutionalisation, the quality of care offered to the child following the privation). We will discuss these later!

BRIEFLY SUMMARISE the background of Genie, up to the point she was found.

At what age was Genie ‘discovered’?

Comment on the effects of Privation on Genie’s development.

Although Genie was offered significant help from Psychologists, she was never fully able to overcome the negative effects of Privation and therefore never developed to ‘normal levels’.

In particular, what behaviours were irreversibly damaged and never developed to normal levels?

What CONCLUSIONS can we make about the effects of Privation from the study of Genie?

Case Study 2 – the ‘Czech Twins’ (reported by KOLUCHOVA, 1972;1991)

Make some EVALUATIVE comments about the conclusions drawn from the case of Genie

BRIEFLY SUMMARISE the background of the Czech Twins, up to the point they were discovered

What were the initial effects of the Privation (as evident when the twins were first found)?

What happened to the Twins following their discovery?

What were the KEY DIFFERENCES between the case of Genie and the Czech Twins?

What Conclusions can we draw about the effects of Privation from the case of the Czech twins?

Research into the EFFECTS of INSTITUTIONALISATION

*NB – you can use these studies when discussing the effects of privation in general,

(a) HODGES and TIZARD (1989) – ‘Relationships of ex-institutionalised adolescents’

AIM

To investigate the long term effects of privation as experienced by children raised in institutions.

METHODOLOGY and PROCEDURE

Make some EVALUATIVE comments about the conclusions drawn from the case of the Czech Twins

Hodges and Tizard conducted a LONGITUDINAL, NATURAL EXPERIMENT. 65 children were studied, all of whom had been in institutional care from before the age of four months. The children were assessed for social and emotional development at age TWO, FOUR, EIGHT and SIXTEEN using a variety of means, including formal tests, observations and interviews with teachers and carers.

At the age of 4, an important change took place. 25 of the group were ‘restored’ to their biological parents, 33 were adopted and 7 remained in an institution.

RESULTS

At age TWO all of the children showed unusual attachment behaviours, including clinging to any adult who entered the room, demanding attention and high levels of distress when adults left.

At age FOUR, EIGHT and SIXTEEN differences began to appear between the 3 groups.

Adopted and restored children were more clingy and attention seeking and less likely to have developed close relationships.

The adopted group had the fewest behavioural problems.

However, teachers reported that ALL of the children who had been institutionalised (i.e. all three groups) were MORE AGGRESSIVE than other children.

Additionally, all of the children raised in institutions had DIFFICULTIES WITH PEER and SIBLING RELATIONSHIPS, regardless of being adopted, restored or remaining in institutions.

CONCLUSIONS What conclusions about the effects of institutionalisation can we draw from the Hodges and Tizard Study?

EVALUATION of HODGES and TIZARD


The use of a NATURAL EXPERIMENT means the study has HIGH ECOLOGICAL VALIDITY

Explain this point

There are SAMPLE ISSUES with the study

Explain this weakness. Mention PARTICIPANT ATTRITION if you can as well!

The study used a RANGE OF METHODS to collect data about the development of the children

Explain why this is a strength...

.

The VALIDITY of the METHODS used to assess the development of the children can be questioned

Explain this weakness. Think about the way data was gathered about the children

The view that INSTITUTIONALISATION directly causes the negative effects is a reductionist view

We cannot be certain that it is the institution which directly causes the negative developmental effects seen. It could be argued that these are in fact caused by innate, natural tendencies or physical/psychological problems which are present from birth. To fully understand the cause we would have to screen the children prior to the study.

(b) RUTTER, et al (1998; 2007) – Study of Romanian OrphansRUTTER is conducting a longitudinal study comparing Romanian orphans (note that Romanian orphanages were notoriously poor quality at the time) who were adopted by British families with UK born adoptees. Rutter is comparing three groups of children – Romanian orphans adopted by UK families before 6 months of age; Romanian orphans adopted between 6 and 24 months of age and UK adoptees (who were initially raised in UK institutions).

When first adopted, the majority of the Romanian Orphans were assessed as being severely physically under developed and many were classed as being mentally retarded. Children raised in UK institutions, where care was significantly better, were reported as having no serious physical or mental problems.

When assessed at age 6, RUTTER reported the following RESULTS...

NO disinhibition attachment

MILD disinhibited attachment

MARKED disinhibited attachment

UK Adoptees 21 (40.4%) 29 (55.8%) 2 (3.8%)

Romanian children adopted before 6mths

24 (53.3%) 17 (37.8%) 4 (8.9%)

Romanian children adopted between 6-24 mths

26 (29.5%) 39 (44.3%) 23 (26.1%)

What does the above table indicate? Summarise the findings below

Interestingly, when followed up at age 11, the majority of the Romanian orphans who showed mild or marked disinhibited attachments at 6 still showed signs of this. Additionally, many of these children were also now receiving help from special educational or health services

CONCLUSIONS

This study shows that institutional care may have some long term negative effects on a child, e.g. disinhibited attachment and social problems.

However, the study also highlights that TWO FACTORS are key with relation the effect that the institutionalistation has on the child

Q. What does the study highlight about the effect of the QUALITY of the institution?

Q. What does the study indicate about the effect of the length of time a child spends in an institution?

EVALUATION of RUTTER (1998; 2007)

Develop the evaluation points in the table below and add your own if you can...


The use of a NATURAL EXPERIMENT means the study has HIGH ECOLOGICAL VALIDITY

As with the Hodges and Tizard study, the orphans were tested and observed in their natural environments. This means their behaviour is likely to be representative of natural behaviour.

There are SAMPLE ISSUES with the study

Again, the sample is relatively small and therefore could be argued to be unrepresentative. Participant attrition and individual differences are again a problem and this further reduces the population validity of the sample and the validity of the conclusions in general.

The study uses a RANGE of measurements to assess the children’s development

Rutter used a variety of methods, including standardised testing, observations and interviews. This means that the data is rich and detailed and gives a full, accurate assessment of the children’s developmental levels

The study has significant APPLICATIONS TO SOCIETY

As well as developing our understanding about the effects of Privation, the conclusions of the study also have major implications for developing institutional care.

What ‘ADVICE’ does this study offer institutions and adoption agencies?

The study also resulted in Romanian orphanages significantly improving, which had obvious positive benefits for institutionalised children.

Studies into Privation and Institutionalisation suggest that children can recover from adverse early experiences. However, the extent of recovery depends on a number of factors...

1. The AGE of the child when removed from the privation or institutionalisation

Can children RECOVER from Privation and Institutionalisation?

What does research indicate about this factor?

Which studies highlight this?

2. The QUALITY OF CARE offered to the child following the privation or institutionalisation

3. The child’s EXPERIENCES during privation / the quality of care offered by the institution


Which Studies highlight this?


Which studies highlight this?

psychexchange.co.uk shared resource

Health & Medicine

strong attachment

disruption of attachment

main attachment

attachment figures

single attachment

attachment pspschologychology

strongest attachment

term attachment