Hi this essay has been written by a company and they have basically not written it well. Parts of it do not make any sense and it needs to be put in the correct order in order for it to flow and make sense.
My tutors break down of the assignment is shown below. can you please just ensure it reads well, makes sense and all the criteria is covered.
For 1.1 briefly explain three perspectives ideas about how attachment forms and why (behaviourist perspective, biological perspective and cognitive perspective)
1.2 and 1.3 explain:
Bowlby 44 theives – what was he investigating and what did he find out?
What methods (longitudinal. Interviews and IQ tests) did he use and how reliable were these?
Ainsworth Strange situation – what did she want to find out and what were the results of her research?
What methods (Lab study, observations) did she use and how reliable/valid were the findings.
Harlow or Lorenze
Each of these studies found different attachment styles, how did they suggest the attachment styles would impact on the children in later life?
Then for 1.4 – how does what we know about attachment help us to understand:
• Maternal deprivation and behaviour/moral judgement in later life (links with Bowlby’s 44 theives).
Bring in other literature to support or disagree – analyse how important this is in the real world. ^^^^1.4 is missing can you please add this in.
Introduction
Attachment in psychology refers to a deep emotional bond between a child and their primary caregiver. The bond is formed during the early years of life as naturally this is when they rely on their parents or carers to give them love, support and security, especially during distressing times. The child’s parent or carer are referred to as an attachment figure and the bond they make with their child can have an impact on their childhood development. The bond or attachment made in a child’s early years can be crucial as it can affect the way they interact or form relationships with others going into adulthood. This essay will explore different perspectives of attachment and various studies theorist’s have carried out and the results will be evaluated for validity and reliability. (Owen 2018)
Behaviorist Perspective
As babies are born with blank slates, the learning theory of attachment argues that all behaviour is learned rather than natural biological behaviour. The emphasis of behaviourists’ explanations is patterns that are learned by classical or operant conditioning. Pavlov was the first to study classical conditioning in 1927.
An infant’s mother, caregiver or other specific objects such as bottles, could be associated with feed as they are present every time a baby is fed within the first days of life. The mother or carer is referred to as a neutral stimulus and they provide the infant with food which is referred to as an unconditional stimulus. This leads on to a conditioned response, being the pleasure of eating, which is paired with the caregiver who is the conditioned stimulus.
Operant conditioning was found by Skinner and this involves learning through being rewarded or punished. If a baby cries they soon realise their caregiver responds by trying to comfort or care for them. This teaches the baby that crying will get the attention of the caregiver and from the caregiver’s point of view they realise that comforting the child will lead them to stop crying. This is referred to as a negative reinforcement which is a behaviour that is continued to avoid a negative outcome
Biological perspective
The biological perspective in psychology believes a person’s behaviour or the way they act or respond to a situation is innate. The nature/nurture debate is a popular discussed topic in psychology and can be dated back from many decades ago among different cultures. According to the great philosopher Galen, most of our personality results from our body fluid, that is, the blood, the phlegm, and the yellow and black bile. In short, he meant that our personality is more of nature than nurture. However, John Locke came up with another theory in the 17th century. He explained that kids are born with a blank slate and develop their personalities as they continue learning and experiencing. (Stewart 2018) The real term nature-nurture originated from Sir Francis in 1874, he theorized that our character and intelligence traits are inherited, meaning that his theory favoured nature. In the 20th century, the DNA gene was established that genes and nature might influence our behaviour. (Travis 2018)
Another popular debate in psychology is the free will and determinism debate. This debate argues that behaviour is caused by forces which we have no control of, or if people are in apposition to make decisions themselves or behave in a particular manner.The deterministic method suggests that free will is a delusion and and our behaviour is controlled by an interior or exterior force. The free will theory assumes a person is self-determined and can choose their behaviour freely. (Fischer 2005)
Lorenz (1935) studied the make-up of imprinting, which showed a certain species of animals form an attachment to the first living object they meet. The investigation suggests that attachment is built in genetically and is innate. In the times of evolution of the human race, the babies who remained close with their mothers will successfully carry on to have children of their own. John Bowlby was influenced by Lorenz’s theory and he then suggested a theory of attachment of his own. According to Bowlby’s evolutionary theory of attachment, children are biologically pre-programmed to develop bonds with others in order to live and survive in this world. The theory predicts there is an innate need within the child to attach to one main attachment figure, this is referred to as monotropy. The meaning of monotropy suggests there is one relationship for a child that is more important than the others.
Cognitive Perspective
The cognitive perspective is involved with a person’s mental functions such as memory, perception and attention. This theory believes humans process information similar to the way computers do. Both brains and computers process information and data through an input and an output procedure.
Bowlby proposed that an infant forms only one main bond at first, and that the attachment figure serves as a safe haven for the infant. Disrupting the attachment bond, which serves as a model for all subsequent relational interactions, may have serious implications (Cowie, 2018). If the infant does not form a bond during this period, the child may experience permanent developmental effects such as lack of development and heightened aggression.
Add here about ‘bowlby’s internal working model – what is it, what are the stages?
1.2 Evaluate a range of perspectives using evidence and the methods used in order to conduct these pieces of research
44 Juvenile Thieves: Bowlby (1944)
According to Bowlby , the bond between the infant’s and their mother is the most critical part of socializing in the first five years of life. He added that the severance of this primary bond could increase crime in the youth, mental illness, and antisocial behaviour (Gross et al., 2017). He witnessed 44 juvenile delinquents in a child guidance facility in an attempt to validate his hypothesis.
The aim was to find out all about the enduring effects of parental abuse on a person and how criminals are impacted. Conferring to the Maternal Deprivation Hypothesis, infringing the maternal connection with a baby in the initial stages of its existence is probably essential for the child’s intellectual, social, and emotional development.
Around 17 of the individuals had been isolated from their mothers in their first five years for more than six months. Two Just two participants saw this rift in the control group. He also considered 14 (32 percent) of the young robbers to be affectionless, meaning these individuals lacked affection, warmth and feelings towards other individuals. This is because they were liars who stole from anyone and never showed any loyalty which meant they did not form friendships. Only 2 out of 44 thieves were diagnosed as being ‘normal’. The control group was made up of depressed children however that did not include affectionless characters. (Gross et al., 2017).
Bowlby noted that 86 percent of Group 1’s “affectionless psychopathy” had experienced deprivation. Just 17% of the thefts, which were psychopaths with no love, were removed from their mothers. Just two of the research samples underwent prolonged isolation in their first five years.
During the child’s early life, Bowlby proposed mother separation/deprivation-induced persistent emotional harm. He referred to Affectionless Psychopathy as a condition. (Gross et al.) According to Bowlby, the condition is characterized by a deficiency of emotional improvement, a loss of empathy for others, a deficiency of consciousness, and an inability to build lasting and meaningful connections.
Research Method used by John Bowlby
There were 44 offenders linked to a gang of 44 non-from a youth detention centre. Bowlby gathered data from 88 adolescents through questionnaires and interviews and learned that 17 out of four thefts were taken from their mothers for a lengthy time frame before the age of five. Just 2/44 of the non-They were alone, while 15/17 of the thefts were recognized as psychopaths without love (Fearon & Roisman, 2017, pp. 131). This supports the MDH since it seems like there would be a connection amid the disruption of attachment in the first five years and more maladjustment.
Method evaluation
Bowlby (1979) provided backup proof in psychiatric interviews, retrospective accounts of those who have been and have not been excluded from the main caregiver.
Bowlby was instructing the audience to look back and recall split-ups in this manner. These recollections are likely incorrect. Bowlby was the creator and carried out the investigation which could lead to the results being biased. (Fearon & Roisman, 2017). Particularly because he was the one who coined the term “affectionless psychopathy.”
Parental abuse resulted in affectionless psychopathy, according to the 44 studies of robbers. Since these are correlational effects, they show that there is a connection between these two variables.
According to the findings, certain external influences, such as marital strife, family income, learning, and many more, could well have affected the 44 thieves’ behaviour instead of just the disruption of the attachment bond. Cowie (2018) noticed that Bowlby’s results were faulty because he confused causes with correlation.
Respondents’ bias was a problem in the study. Bowlby performed his medical tests and was diagnosed with Affectionless Psychopathy. He was aware of who belonged to the ‘theft category’ and who belonged to the ‘management community.’ As a result, his conclusions may have been influenced by his assumptions unintentionally. This could put his reputation in jeopardy. (Negrini, 2018)
Ainsworth Strange Situation
The Strange Situation of Ainsworth (1970) used formal observational studies for evaluating and measuring attachment consistency. There are eight predetermined phases in the process, including a mother leaving the child in front of a stranger and a mother returning to the child and being present with or without the stranger. (Johnson, 2019)
Stage 1 was the mother and infant entering the playroom which led onto stage 2 where exploring is encouraged. Then stage 3 is when a stranger enters the room and attempts to communicate. Stage 4 encourages mum to leave the child in a room with a stranger. Stage 5 consists of the stranger exiting and the mother returning. Then stage 6 instructs the mothers to then leave again following onto stage 7 which is the return of the stranger. Then finally stage 8 entails the mother returning and interacting with the child.
Ainsworth and Bell used four criteria to divide 100 middle-class American babies into three classes. Children were seen in one-way mirrors and classified by answering the eight stages as one of the three forms below.
Findings
Secure (type B), Insecure avoidant (type A), and insecure ambivalent/resistant (type C) attachment types were defined by Ainsworth (1970). She suggested that these types of attachment were the product of an early mother relationship.
B: Secure Attachment
In Ainsworth’s (1971, 1978) reports, the bulk of the children were firmly connected. Such kids have conviction in the attachment figure’s aptitude to fulfil their requirements. They use the attachment figure as a place of refuge to discover the biosphere, so they resort to it when in danger. reword (Krolikowska et al., 2020, pp. 2839).
The attached figure calms a child and gives them a sense of security. Bowlby (1979) says that a person who has a good attachment has a representative model of attachment figures as accessible, receptive, and compassionate because they are alert to their indications and listening to their desire.
A: Insecure Avoidant
Insecure avoidant kids do not orient themselves to their attachment figure whilst learning and growing up in the world. They are mindful of the attachment figure both internally and physically. When they are sad, they do not interact with the attachment figure. These types of children are more expected to have a caregiver who is oblivious to their wishes and dismisses them. (Harlow, 2021) During stressful tasks, the attachment figure can refrain from assisting and is often inaccessible during periods of emotional distress.
C: Insecure Ambivalent / Resistant
The third attachment form mentioned by Ainsworth was insecure ambivalent, also known as insecure resistant. The behaviour against the attachment figure of the children in this situation is ambivalent. If the child engages with the attachment figure, he or she has clinging and dependent behaviours but denies the attachment figure. The attachment would not offer the child a sense of security (Harlow, 2021). Consequently, they find it difficult to get rid of the connection figure by experiencing new environments. When upset and not calmed by contact with the attachment figure, they are difficult to settle down. This behaviour is the product of the primary caregiver’s erratic approach to their needs.
Ainsworth suggested the “caregiver adaptation hypothesis” as a basis for different attachment types. This indicates that the infant’s attachment style is affected by the mother’s behaviour and attitude towards the child (Fearon & Roisman, 2017).
Parents who respond are sensitive to the needs of their children and responsive to their moods and emotions. Children born to mothers who are receptive have stronger bonds more often. (Fearon & Roisman, 2017). Mothers that are less mindful of their offspring, such as those who respond poorly to children’s needs, are more impatient or feel neglected.
For example, receptive and attentive primary care for securely attached babies is connected. The incoherence in primary care is linked to children with insecure ambivalent attachments. The child’s needs are always met, and at times the mother or carer ignores them (Harlow, 2021, pp. 84). Primary treatment without any reactions is connected to unsafe childhood. The child discovers that it does not influence the mother or father to communicate her desires.
Ainsworth found Bowlby’s attachment theory to be the first scientific proof. For example, secure kids develop a positive working picture of themselves and others’ internal memories while also considering themselves worthy of respect.
Avoidant children feel that they are unwanted and worthless because they refuse primary caregivers. Ambivalent children have a poor self-image and respond too much to get publicity (Cowie, 2018). He listed it as a disorder and termed it psychopathy without affection. Bowlby argued that this state is marked by a lacking emotional development, as shown by a deficiency of fellow feeling for others, a lack of conscience, and incapacity to launch enduring and positive connections.
Research Method used in Ainsworth Strange situation.
The ‘Strange Situation experiment involved observing the infant’s behaviour throughout eight episodes, each lasting approximately three minutes.
Method evaluation
The classification of strange situations is very reliable. This indicates that it has predictable outcomes. For instance, a study in Germany showed that 77 percent of kids between the years of one and six were graded similarly.
The Strange Situation is the utmost ordinarily used device for measuring child connection to a caregiver, according to Królikowska et al., 2020, but Cowie (2018) criticized it for being inherently manipulative and therefore missing ecological value.
The infant is put in an unfamiliar and artificial space, with the mother and stranger entering and exiting the room according to a script.
Mary Ainsworth’s conclusion that the strange situation should be used to decide the kind of child’s attachment was challenged because it only decides what kind of attachment a child might have with his or her father or Grandmother, for example. This does not say that it does not assess a generic form of attachment, but it evaluates a mother-specific attachment style (Krolikowska et al., 2020, pp. 2850).
Multiple experiments have found that the same child shows specific links at different periods. Children’s bonds can change in the child’s circumstances, so a strongly attached child may become vulnerable if the mother gets ill or the circumstances of the family change (Krolikowska et a 2020). The odd case was often criticized for its legal consequences. The study broke the ethical guideline to defend participants by threatening the child (stranger and separation anxiety).
Nevertheless, the separation episodes were prematurely reduced in their defence when the infant was too depressed. As per Fearon and Roisman (2017), even though the Strange Situation has been criticized for being traumatic, it simulates daily situations. Mothers do leave their kids for short periods in various environments, often with strangers such as babysitters.
Harlow or Lorenz
Animal-assisted studies into early human interactions and the tendency of animals to form relationships contributed significantly to developmental psychology in the 1950s. Konrad Lorenz and Harry Harlow published two of the most well-known animal experiments.
Harlow
Harlow used eight rhesus monkeys caged since birth to see which alternatives caused further fastening action, with wire mesh food dispensing and tissue-covered substituting mother (Harlow, 2021). Harlow counted the amount of time the monkeys spent with each surrogate mother, and their biological mother yelled.
Harlow discovered that when split baby monkey rhesus became afraid, they bonded to a cloth-covered mother rather than a surrogate mother who dispensed food. Monkeys could explore a space full of new toys while the cloth covering monkey was present, but they were phobic when only the surgery was present.
Harlow has looked at baby monkeys raised in the world of a party and noticed that they grew up to be stable individuals while singing with substitute mothers demonstrated a poor behaviour of adults, including attack. a) They were fearful, b) They were unpredictable with other primates, c) They had trouble br eeding, and d) The females were ineffective mothers (Harlow, 2021, pp. 83).
Lorenzo
According to the findings of Lorenz, organisms are biologically prone to developing connections to one topic. According to the experiment Lorenz, goslings were hatched with either their mom or an incubator. The first move item that came across 13 to 16 hours after their hatching, which was Lorenz in this situation, was pursued after the gosling hatched.
It backs up the idea that providing a biological foundation for an attachment is beneficial to longevity (Harlow, 2021, pp. 85). Because of their greater mobility, goslings imprint in a matter of minutes; human offspring are born motionless, so there is less necessity for them to create a bond right away, so this happens later (8-9 months).
1.3 Analyse how a range of psychological perspectives can be used to explain behaviour.
Based on his experience, Ainsworth concluded three major forms of attachments: safe attachment, ambivalent-insecure attachment, and avoidant-insecure attachment.
Life-Long Attachment
Bear in mind that adolescence-long patterns of commitment are not quite the same as in adult marital attachments when you begin blaming your parents for their relationship problems. Intervening experiences profoundly affect adult attachment styles when too much time has elapsed between adolescence and adulthood (Johnson, 2019, pp. 170). Adults classified as ambivalent or avoidant as children can grow up to be securely attached, while children who had a secure relationship as children can develop dysfunctional attachment patterns as grown-ups. Simple temperament is thought to affect attachment.
However, literature in this field shows that childhood patterns have a major effect on future relationships. Shaver and Cassidy have also found different views about adult interactions with different attachment types (Johnson, 2019, pp. 170)).
Grown-ups that are securely attached tend to think that romantic love is eternal. Adults with ambivalent attachment styles describe falling in love often, while those with avoidant attachment styles describe love as uncommon and fleeting (Gross et al., 2017, pp.665). Although early attachment styles cannot be similar to grown-up romantic attachment, inquiries have revealed that early attachment styles can aid in understanding adult behaviour trends.
Safe attachment
Children who’ve been tightly attached to their mothers get visibly upset as their mothers depart, and they are relieved once their parents return. Such kids will follow their parent’s or caregiver’s help when they’re scared. Children who are loyal to and respond favourably to their parent’s return will comfortably embrace parent-friendly touch (Gross et al., 2017, pp. 668). Other adults may help these kids in the non-appearance of a caregiver or parent, yet fancy their parents over outsiders.
A close relative who has a strong bond with their kids is more probable to play with them. Moreover, these parents adjust quicker to the needs of their children and usually respond more to their children than their parents. Furthermore, according to studies, children who are firmly bonded are more empathetic later in life (Fearon & Roisman, 2017, pp.135). Children with ambivalent or avoidant attachment styles are less intrusive, less violent, and more mature.
Hazan and Shaver observed that it is not always the case when forming a stable attachment with caregivers. Researchers found several factors that contribute to the development of a stable attachment, especially the responsiveness of a mother to her child’s needs during her first year of life.
Toddlers born to mothers who respond incoherently or intervene with their youngsters’ activities are less likely to be nervous, weep more, or explore. Moms who regularly refuse or neglect their child’s wishes prefer to raise children who want to prevent interaction.
Adults who are deeply dedicated are far more prone to have to trust long-term relationships. All the main characteristics of safe-linked individuals are high self-esteem, a caring, intimate relationship, relational strengthening, and the need for emotional exchange with others.
Ambivalent Attachment
Ambivalently bonded children have a substantial degree of mistrust of outsiders. These children exhibit severe distress when detached from a caregiver or parent; nevertheless, they do not seem to be supported or cheered by the parent’s return. In some instances, the kid may decide to reject the parent by refusing to be comforted, or the kid may openly express hatred against the parent (Negrini, 2018)). As adults, they often hesitate to approach others in an ambivalent attachment style and are worried about not responding to their emotions. Mainly because the bond is cold and remote, this contributes to constant division. These people feel particularly distracted after a relationship has ended. Cassidy and Berlin identified another trend of pathology where small children are secured with ambivalent attachments.
Avoidant Attachment
Children with avoidant attachment forms avoid caregivers and parents. After a time of absence, this avoidance becomes much more pronounced. These kids don’t reject parental care, but they don’t want support or physical touch either. Children who avoid attachment have no alternative but to choose a partner over a total stranger. Adults suffering from preventative attachment are having difficulty with love and closeness. They don’t think much about their relationships and don’t worry until they finish in them (Johnson, 2019, pp. 175). They often make excuses to avoid intimacy, or they fantasize about other people when having sex. According to a study, grown-ups with an avoidant dating style are more accommodating and likely to participate in casual sex. Inability to share thoughts, memories, and emotions with friends and failure to support spouses through stressful times are also common characteristics.
Disorganized Attachment
Children with a disorganized-insecure relationship type lack consistent bonding behaviour. They are also used to combine their behaviours and responses to caregivers with aversion and evasion. These children are known as possessing a dazzled and sometimes disconcerted or apprehensive behaviour in the presence of a caregiver (Johnson, 2019, pp.177). Main and Solomon suggested that parental incoherence may play a role in this kind of connection. Hesse and Main subsequently submitted that paternities who behave as figures of terror and trust for an infant contribute to a disrupted attachment. Since the infant is both comforted and afraid of the adult, the effect is a misunderstanding.
Conclusion
Though adult romantic attachments may not match early infancy attachments, our early relationships with caregivers are undoubtedly a growth factor. By recognizing the function of attachment more clearly, you can appreciate how adult relations can affect the earliest attachments of your lives.
References
Cowie, H., 2018. Handbook of attachment: theory, research, and clinical applications.
Fearon, R.P. and Roisman, G.I., 2017. Attachment theory: progress and future directions. Current Opinion in Psychology, 15, pp.131-136.
Gross, J.T., Stern, J.A., Brett, B.E. and Cassidy, J., 2017. The multifaceted nature of prosocial behaviour in children: Links with attachment theory and research. Social development, 26(4), pp.661-678.
Harlow, E., 2021. Attachment theory: developments, debates and recent applications in social work, social care and education. Journal of Social Work Practice, 35(1), pp.79-91.
Johnson, S.M., 2019. Attachment Theory. Encyclopaedia of Couple and Family Therapy, pp.169-177.
Krolikowska, E., Kuenzel, S. and Morrison, A.M., 2020. The ties that bind: an attachment theory perspective of social bonds in tourism. Current Issues in Tourism, 23(22), pp.2839-2865.
Marshall, E.M. and Frazier, P.A., 2019. Understanding post trauma reactions within an attachment theory framework. Current opinion in psychology, 25, pp.167-171.
Negrini, L.S., 2018. HANDBOOK OF ATTACHMENT: THEORY, RESEARCH, AND CLINICAL APPLICATIONS Jude Cassidy and Phillip R. Shaver (Eds.), New York: Guilford Press, 2016, 1,068 pp., ISBN 978‐1‐4625‐2529‐4.
