記‧憶

Experiments

Aims

Methods

Findings

Evaluations

Harlow 1962

Against: Learning Theory

Investigate Rhesus monkeys’ behaviours towards different “mothers”.

Let the infant Rhesus monkeys choose between a “clothed” and a feeding mother.

Attachment is not based on the supply of food.

Neither feeding nor physical contact could explain attachment and healthy development.

Schaffer and Emerson

1964

Against: Learning

Theory

Investigate infants’ attachment formed with different characters.

Observing infants’ attachment between different characters.

Infants formed attachment not only with people who provided food.

N/A

Konrad Lorenz 1952

Support: Innate Programming

Investigate goslings on imprinted behaviours.

Compare one group with natural mother and the other with Lorenz himself.

Goslings formed an attachment with Lorenz as he was the first living thing they saw after hatched.

N/A

Rutter et al 1998

Against: Critical Period

Investigate adopted infants’ attachments after being raised in an institution.

N/A

The later the infants adopted the slower their progress.

Sensitive period is better described development of attachment instead of critical period.

Hazan and Shaver 1987

Support: Continuity

Hypothesis

Investigate effects of early attachment on further relationship.

Volunteer sampling asking about early attachment type and romantic attitude.

Securely attached as infants had happy and lasting love relationships.

Participants selected by volunteer sampling could not represent most of the people.

Ainsworth 1974

Maternal Sensitivity

Investigate effects of primary caregivers on attachments of infants.

N/A

Infants who had responsive mothers tended to have secure relationship.

N/A

Kagan 1982

Temperament Hypothesis

N/A

N/A

Infants’ attachments may vary according to their personality.

N/A

Van IJzendoorn and Kroonenburg 1988

Cross-cultural variations

Investigate whether it’s appropriate to use the Strange Situation in parts outside America.

Meta-analysis of 32 studies undertaken in 8 different countries.

Type A, B, and C.

Japan: 5, 27, 68

Germany: 35, 8, 57

Numbers differ from different culture backgrounds

N/A

Takahashi 1990

Cross-cultural variations

The same as above.

Using the Strange Situation on 60 Japanese middle-class infants and mothers.

Type A, B, and C.

0, 68, 32

Because of the way mothers give care to their infants.

90％ of participants are forced to stop because they are too stressed.

Middle-class infants can’t represent all infants.

Bowlby 1969

Monotropy

N/A

N/A

Infants need one specific attachment in order to develop an internal working model and emotional maturity.

Infants have attachments with many caregivers can still develop into healthy adults. (Thomas 1998/ Ainsworth 1967/Schaffer and Emerson 1964.)

Learning Theory

Classical: Pavlov

Operant: B.F Skinner

Classical:

US→UR

US + CS→UR

CS→CR

Operant:

Infant ↹ (Primary reinforcer) +

Secondary reinforcer

N/A

Feeding is not the primary explanation of building attachment. (Harlow/ Schaffer and Emerson)

Evolutionary Theory

Bowlby 1969

Innate programming

(social releasers)

Critical period

Continuity hypothesis

N/A

Innate programming and continuity hypothesis were supported. (Lorenz/ Hazan and Shaver)

Sensitive period instead of critical period. (Rutter)

The Strange Situation

Ainsworth and Bell 1970

A-    Insecure-avoidant

B-    Secure

C-    Insecure-resistant

Infants with strangers, mums, or alone.

Type A, B, and C.

20-25, 60-75, 3.

Separation anxiety

Stranger anxiety

Reunion behaviours

Willingness to explore

Good predictive validity.

Caused stress to infants.

Artificial environment?

Demand characteristics.

Cultural variations.

Aim on relationships? (Main and Weston)

Effect of enviroments.

Separation Case Study

Robertson and Robertson 1989

John

Investigate John’s behaviours after spending nine days in a nursery.

Became more withdrawn and despairing. Rejected his mother when reunited. PDD Model.

Short-term separation could have an effect throughout one’s life.

N/A

PDD Model

Robertson and Bowlby 1952

Short-term effects of deprivation were split into 3 stages.

Protest: Infants expressed emotions by crying, kicking, clinging to their moms, or screaming.

Despair: Infants calm down, showing lack of interest to people and environment around.

Detachment: Infants’ interactions increase but superficially. Little initial reactions when mothers returned.

Institutionalization/ Privation

Hodges and Tizard 1989

65children put in an institution before the age of 4 months. Examined when they were 4, 8, and 16 years old. There was a control group raised at home.

Age 4/8: No deep relationships and are attention seeking.

Age 8: ex-institutional kids formed close attachments. Still are attention seeking.

Age 16: Adopted kids formed closer relationships than restored kids.

Both had less peers, likely to be bullies and quarrelsome.

Big samplings.

Interviews were taped.

Carefully matched the control group.

No controls on experiences faced by kids

Ethical issue to intrude in families.

Institutionalization

Rutter et al 2007

Study adopted Romanian orphans.

The effect of privation could recover well.

Children adopted after age of 6 months showed disinhibited attachments.

Privation Case Study 1

Curtiss 1977

Genie

Found when she was 13, kept in a small room, never talked to others.

Lack of language ability. Learned some words but can’t form sentences.

Learned to walk and became toilet trained. Progress on non-social skills.

Brain damage was shown. (Lenneberg 1967)

Privated.

Privation Case Study 2

Koluchova 1976

The Czech Twins

Being abused for 6 years before adopted by siblings at the age of 7.

Rickets, communicate with gestures, no spontaneous speech.

Formed normal relationships with adoptive families and partners.

No brain damage.

Privated.

Reactive attachment disorder

Parker and Forrest 1993

Lack long-term friends and ability to give/receive affection, cruelty to others, extreme control problems, abnormalities in eye contact/speech patterns, and lying/stealing.