Attachment

Attachment

Learning Theory
1. Classical: Child cries, food given ( unconditioned stimulus), child experiences pleasure (uncondtioned response), caregiver associated with good(conditioned stimulus) , child attaches to caregiver.
2. Operant: Newborn baby feels hungry/experiences discomfort, crying causes discomfort for the caregiver who then consoles child which is positive reinforcement for child but negative for parent as they have to keep returning and parent attaches.
3. Evaluation
  1. Evidence from lab with Animals
  2. However animal behavouir may not apply to human.
  3. Reductionist as its too simple of complex human behaviour
  4. Schaffer&Emerson: less than 1/2 formed primary attachment with caregiver.
  5. Harlows monkeys
Bowlbys theory
1. Innate, Adaptive, Critical period, Monotropy, Internal working model, Continuity hypothesis, secure base.
2. Evaluation
  1. Minnestota longitudinal study: 12 months to adolescence, securely attached=more popular, higher confidence/esteem. CONTINUITY HYPOTHESIS.
  2. Hazan&Shaver- 'love quiz' securely attached=better romance. IWM&CH
  3. Lorenz geese. INNATE(Imprinting)
  4. Individual Differences: fails to explain why some cope better with poor early attachements. Rutter&Quinn
  5. Exsistence of Monotropy: Schaffer&Emerson
  6. Temperent Hypothesis CH&IWM
  7. Not a proven fact
Types of Attachment
1. Strange situation: Child and parent together, stranger in, parent leaves, stranger goes parent back, parent goes, stranger back,stranger gone parent back.
  1. Secure base, stranger anxiety, seperation anxiety, reunion behaviour.
2. Type B: Securely attached (66%)
  1. Explored, very upset when mother left&returned wanted comfort, quickly calmed and played, Sensitive mothers.
3. Type A: Insecure-Avoidant (22%)
  1. Ignored mother, few signs of stress, ignored when returned, mother stranger similar, most distressed. Ignorant mothers.
4. Type C: Insecure-Resistant (12%)
  1. VERY distressed, not easily consoled,sought comfort&rejected. Mother angry/rejecting or over sensitive.
5. Evaluation
  1. Useful tool for measuring attachment
  2. Reliable due to Warner proving the type stays the same throughout life.
  3. Used in some real life situations
  4. Demand characteristics don't effect kids.
  5. Isabella: she isn't studying what she said she was.
  6. Ethical issues: Distress
  7. Low Ev due to it being too structered/artificial
  8. Parent: Demand characteristics
Cultural variations
1. Van Ijzendoorn&Kroonenburg- Meta Analysis. Type B most common, type A more in western and type C in Japan&Israel. Type B the 'norm' which support innate process.
2. Fox- Supports bowlbys monotropy( Isreali children looked after my loads)
3. Takahashi- 60 middle class, B-68, A-32 C-0. 90% Studdies stopped. Imposed etic=innapropiate to be used on the kids and the sample was limited due to 1 class used.
4. Grossman&Grossman- German, cultural bias- might look at findings as wrong when they may be norm for that country.
5. Tronick- African, one man attachment, supports monotropy.
Deprivation/Privation
1. Seperation
  1. PDD model, protest, despair, detachment. One long term effect is seperation anxiety, shown by... aggressive behaviour, great demands,clingym detachement, pyschomatic symptoms.
2. Privation-Never forming one
  1. Czech Twins- cruely treated by father/st'mother, discovered at 7, fearful, fosterhome/hospital, well improved and sorted out.
  2. Genie- Found 13, severe neglect/pysical restraint, young appearance,never went back to normal.

Nächster

Beschreibung

Zusammenfassung der Ressource

ähnlicher Inhalt

	Erstellt von Sammie Ring4696 vor fast 11 Jahre