AS Psychology – Unit One

Developmental Psychology

AttachmentStudent workbook

Name: ………………………………………………………….

Form: ………………………….………………………………..

Teacher: ………………………………….…………………...

Developmental psychology Attachment

By the end of this topic you will be able to:

Define attachment

Describe the characteristics which demonstrate an attachment

Describe and evaluate the learning explanation of attachment

Describe and evaluate the evolutionary explanation of attachment

Describe and evaluate research into individual differences in attachment

Describe and evaluate research into cross cultural variations in attachment

Describe and evaluate research into disruption of attachment, including studies of separation, privation and institutionalisation

Describe and evaluate research into the effects of day care on children’s social development

Describe the implications of attachment research for childcare practices

Describe and evaluate research methods associated with this area of psychology

Describe and evaluate ethical issues associated with this area of psychology

Example exam questions

What is meant by the term attachment? (2 marks)

Briefly explain why some children show characteristics of secure attachment and some characteristics of insecure attachment. (2 marks)

Observation in a Strange Situation has been used to investigate cultural variations in attachment. Give one advantage of using observation in psychological research. (2 marks)

Explain one criticism of investigating cultural variations in attachment using the ‘Strange Situation.’ (3 marks)

2

Disruption of attachment can occur when children experience separation from their attachment figure during their early childhood.

Outline one study of the effects of disruption of attachment. (4 marks)

How does the behaviour of securely attached infants differ from that of insecurely attached infants? (4 marks)

Research has suggested that institutionalisation can have negative effects on children. In the 1990s, many children were found living in poor quality orphanages in Romania. Luca had lived in one of these orphanages from birth. When he was four years old, he was adopted

and he left the orphanage to live in Canada. His development was then studied for a number of years. Outline possible negative effects of institutionalisation on Luca. (4 marks)

Outline what research has shown about the effects of day care on children’s aggressive behaviour. (6 marks)

Psychologists have put forward different explanations of attachment, such as learning theory and Bowlby’s theory. Outline and evaluate one or more explanations of attachment. (12 marks)

Psychologists have studied children who have lived in institutions such as orphanages. Outline and evaluate research into the effects of institutionalisation. (12 marks)

Outline and evaluate research into the effects of privation. (12 marks)

Attachment key words and concepts

Write a 2/3 mark definition for each of these words/concepts:

Reciprocal

Disruption of attachment

Social releaser

3

Deprivation

Privation

Evolution

Institutionalisation

Ethology

Imprinting

Strange Situation

Longitudinal study

Naturalistic observation

Adaptive

4

Day care

Social development

Cross cultural variation

Cognitive development

What is attachment?

5

What is attachment? Write a definition using the words bond, reciprocal and emotional.

1.

2.

3.

4.

What are the four characteristics of attachment, as identified by Macoby (1980)?

Schaffer and Emerson (1964)

Procedure:

Rudolph Schaffer and Peggy Emerson conducted a longitudinal study on 60 babies at monthly intervals for the first 18 months of their life. The children were all studied in their own home and a regular pattern was identified in the development of attachment. The babies were visited monthly for approximately one year, their interactions with their carers were observed, and carers were interviewed. Evidence for the development of an attachment was that the baby showed separation anxiety after a carer left.

Results:

They discovered that baby's attachments develop in the following sequence:

o Up to 3 months of age - Indiscriminate attachments. The newborn is predisposed to attach to any human. Most babies respond equally to any caregiver.

o After 4 months - Preference for certain people. Infants learn to distinguish primary and secondary caregivers but accept care from anyone;

o After 7 months - Special preference for a single attachment figure. The baby looks to particular people for security, comfort and protection. It shows fear of strangers (stranger fear) and unhappiness when separated from a special person (separation anxiety). Some babies show stranger fear and separation anxiety much more frequently and intensely than others, but nevertheless they are seen as evidence

6

Using Macoby’s criteria make a list of all the people you have an attachment to.

What do you think the consequences might be for a child who doesn’t develop an attachment to another human being?

that the baby has formed an attachment. This has usually developed by one year of age.

o After 9 months - Multiple attachments. The baby becomes increasingly independent and forms several attachments.

Conclusions:

The mother was the main attachment figure for 65% of the children at 18 months old, whilst only 3% of the infants studied developed a primary attachment to their father. By 18 months old, 31% of the infants had formed multiple attachments, e.g. to grandparents etc.

The results of the study indicated that attachments were most likely to form with those who responded accurately to the baby's signals, not the person they spent most time with. Schaffer and Emerson called this sensitive responsiveness. The most important fact in forming attachments is not who feeds and changes the child but who plays and communicates with him or her.

Now answer these questions on the Schaffer and Emerson study:

1. What is a longitudinal study?

2. Stranger anxiety is ‘unhappiness when separated from a certain person.’ How would Schaffer and Emerson have judged whether the infant was unhappy?

3. At what age do infants develop a preference for a single attachment figure?

4. What is ‘sensitive responsiveness?’

7

5. Schaffer and Emerson found that the father was the main attachment figure for only 3% of infants. How might these results be different if carried out today? Explain your answer.

6. What does this study tell us about multiple attachments?

7. Do infants always attach to the person who feeds them? (Remember this for future use!)

8

Use this page when you have finished studying explanations of attachment, to make a mind map of the key concepts. Include the learning explanation (both types of conditioning) and Bowlby’s evolutionary explanation:

Explanations of attachment

9

Learning Theory

There are two types of conditioning involved in learning theory:

Classical conditioning is learning by association (of the neutral stimulus with the unconditioned stimulus)

Operant conditioning is learning by reinforcement. There are two types of reinforcement; positive and negative:

Now, answer these questions:

Does positive reinforcement make the behaviour more or less likely to be repeated?

Does negative reinforcement make the behaviour more or less likely to be repeated?

Can a behaviour be both positively and negatively reinforced?

Positive reinforcement is when a behaviour results in the addition of something pleasant. E.g. you get a praise form for doing your homework well.

Negative reinforcement is when a behaviour results in the subtraction of something unpleasant. E.g. you do your

homework to avoid getting a detention.

10

Applying the principles of learning theory to attachment

Complete the table with an outline of how these types of conditioning can be applied to attachment behaviours. Two sections have been filled in to help you:

Infant to caregiver Caregiver to infant

Classically conditioned

The caregiver learns to associate feelings of pleasure with caring for the infant, because the infant smiles and displays attachment behaviours.

Positively reinforced

Negatively reinforced

The infant is rewarded for attaching to the caregiver – he/she receives food.

Classical Conditioning

11

1. Before conditioning

Food Happy baby

2. During conditioning Carer Food

Mother Food Happy baby

3. After conditioning

Mother Happy baby

Unconditioned stimulus x 2Unconditioned response x 2Neutral stimulus x 1 Conditioned stimulus x 1Conditioned response x 1

Label each stage with the appropriate stimulus or response. The box below tells you how many of each you should use.

12

Does evidence support the learning theory of attachment?

The basis of the learning theory of attachment is that the infant attaches because it needs food. However, this is not supported by evidence from research. Explain how the following studies could be used to disprove the learning theory of attachment:

Schaffer and Emerson (1964):

Harlow’s monkeys (1958):

13

Summary of Darwin's Theory of Evolution

A species is a population of organisms that interbreeds and has fertile offspring. Living organisms have descended with modifications from species that lived before them.

Natural selection explains how this evolution has happened:

More organisms are produced than can survive because of limited resources.

Organisms struggle for the necessities of life; there is competition for resources.

Individuals within a population vary in their traits; some of these traits are heritable -- passed on to offspring.

Some variants are better adapted to survive and reproduce under local conditions than others.

Better-adapted individuals (the "fit enough") are more likely to survive and reproduce, thereby passing on copies of their genes to the next generation.

Species whose individuals are best adapted survive; others become extinct. This is ‘survival of the fittest.’

How does this explain attachment?

Attachment between infant and caregiver is a prime example of a behaviour pattern that is rooted in biology and evolution.

Attachment behaviour has become programmed into human beings, and is found to operate similarly in almost all cultures.

The purpose and function of attachment is the same regardless of ethnic or cultural differences: to keep the baby close to the caregiver for safety and protection; to allow the child to explore and learn within a safe context ("secure base"); and to develop a loving and reciprocal relationship which can be passed on through generations.

14

Bowlby’s evolutionary theory of attachment

Bowlby was mainly interested in the caregiver – child relationship. He produced a new theory of attachment by combining Freud’s ideas with the ethological concept of imprinting.

Bowlby’s theory of attachment is quite complex, and includes many specific terms which you need to be able to understand and evaluate. Begin by matching the descriptions of the key principles below to the terms in the boxes:

Key

principles

1. __________________________________ Bowlby believed that all children form a number of attachments but one of these is of significant importance. Infants also form a number of other attachments forming the Hierarchy of attachments. Bowlby believed that the primary attachment was to the person who responds most sensitively to the social releasers. This bond forms the foundations for emotional development, self esteem and relationships with peers lovers and their own children. Secondary attachments act as a safety net. Children raised with no secondary attachment appear to lack social skills.

2. __________________________________ Bowlby believes children have an innate drive to become attached because it has long term benefits (similar to imprinting). This innate drive ensures that infants stay close to the care giver for food and protection. These behaviours are adaptive because they increase the chances of survival and reproduction.

3. __________________________________An innate readiness to for an attachment with the mother. This takes place in the sensitive period

4. __________________________________As attachments are innate there is likely to be a crucial period of time for attachments to form. Bowlby believed this was before a child turned 2 and a half.

Monotropy Adaptive and innate

Imprinting

Sensitive period

Social releasers:

Secure base

Internal working model

Continuity hypothesis

15

5. __________________________________These are characteristics that elicit care giving. These could be smiling crying.

6. __________________________________Protection is a vital part of attachment. It acts as a secure base where a child can explore his/her surroundings. This is part of independence.

7. __________________________________Is a group of concepts a child learns in regards to what expect from a relationship. It is developed in early childhood and is created by the attachment the child has. This could be a relationship of trust or one of uncertainty.

8. __________________________________This is the idea that there is a link between early attachments and later emotional behaviour. I.e. those who have a secure attachment as a child will continue to be socially and emotionally competent.

Now, write a summary of Bowlby’s theory, using no more than 50 words.

Imprinting, ethology and evolution– Evidence from animal research

What did Konrad Lorenz find about imprinting in geese?What is ethology?Why is imprinting of evolutionary benefit?Why must be careful about generalising findings from animal studies to humans?

16

The Love Quiz - Hazan and Shaver (1987)

AIMS: Hazan & Shaver were interested in John Bowlby’s idea that an infant’s first attachment formed an internal working model - a template - for all future relationships. They wanted to see if there was a correlation between the infant’s attachment type and their future approach to romantic relationships. PROCEDURE: To test this Hazan & Shaver devised the ‘Love Quiz’ which consisted of 2 components:- A measure of attachment type - a simple adjective checklist of childhood

relationships with parents and parents’ relationships with each other A love experience questionnaire which assessed individual’s beliefs about

romantic love - eg: whether it lasted forever, whether it could be found easily, how much trust there was in a romantic relationship, etc

17

The Love Quiz was printed in local newspaper the Rocky Mountain News and readers were asked to send in their responses. Hazan & Shaver analysed the first 620 replies sent in from people aged from 14 to 82.They classified the respondents’ according to Mary Ainsworth’s infant attachment types of secure, anxious-resistant and anxious-avoidant and looked for corresponding adult love styles:

Secure types described their love experiences as happy, friendly and trusting - emphasising being able to accept their partner regardless of any faults - with such relationships tending to be more enduring, with the initial passion reappearing from time to time and for some ‘romantic love’ never fading.They were happy depending on others and comfortable if others are dependent on them. They wereappy to be close to others.

Anxious-resistant types experienced love as involving obsession, a desire for reciprocation, emotional highs and lows, extreme sexual attraction and jealousy, and worry that their partners didn’t really love them or might abandon them. Their desire for intense closeness couild frighten others away.

Anxious-avoidant types typically feared intimacy, emotional highs and lows, and jealousy and believed they did not need love to be happy. They were uncomfortable being close to and/or depending on others.

 RESULTS: Hazan & Shaver found a strikingly high correlation between the infant attachment types and the adult romantic love styles. CONCLUSIONS: Hazan & Shaver concluded that there was evidence to support the concept of the inner working model having a life-long effect. However, they did concede that not everyone stayed true to their infant attachment style and that some people did change as they grew older. CRITICISMS (EVALUATION): people were recording their memories of infant experience and such memories may not always be accurate. Additionally the responders were self-selecting and, therefore, the results may be subject to volunteer bias. Plus, the respondents were self-reporting - and people do not always give truthful answers.

However, a number of studies have supported the Love Quiz findings - eg: Judith Feeney & Patricia Noller (1990) found that securely-attached individuals had the most long-term enduring romantic relationships while anxious-avoidant types had the most short-lived and least-intense relationships. In a 4-month study of heterosexual relationships among Canadian undergraduates Patrick Keelan, Karen Dion & Kenneth Dion (1994) found that those with a secure attachment style expressed more satisfaction with and greater commitment to the relationship and trusted their partner more.

Gerard McCarthy (1999) studied women whose attachment types had been recorded in infancy and found:-

Anxious-avoidant infants grew up to have the most difficulty in romantic relationships

18

Anxious-resistant infants grew up to have the poorest relationships Securely-attached infants grew up to have the most successful

romantic relationships and friendships

Among undergraduates involved in a romantic relationship, there is also a weak but significant tendency to be attracted to someone with an attachment style like your own, according to Kelly Brennan & Phil Shaver (1995).

An alternative explanation for this apparent continuity lies in Jerome Kagan’s Temperament Hypothesis (1984). Kagan noted that innate temperamental characteristics which made infants ‘easy’ or ‘difficult’ had a serious impact on the quality of the mother-infant relationship and thus the attachment type. These innate temperamental characteristics would influence the individual throughout life and thus love relationships.

Hazan & Shaver repeated the Love Quiz in 1993 and again found strong evidence for a correlation between infant attachment type and adult love style - though the correlation was not quite as strong this time. (In total the two Love Quiz studies involved 1200 participants.)

|t is important to bear in mind that Hazan & Shaver only established a correlation. Therefore, cause-and-effect cannot be assumed from their work.

19

Use this page when you have finished studying individual differences in attachment, to make a mind map of the key concepts. Include The Strange Situation and cross cultural variations in attachment.

Individual differences in attachment

20

Individual differences in attachment - The Strange Situation (Ainsworth, 1978)

The Strange Situation is a procedure for assessing the quality of attachment between the infant and mother. It was developed by Mary Ainsworth et al (1978) and involves a series of episodes where the child is left alone and adults come in and out of the room. The procedure lasts for 22 minutes in total.

Ainsworth assessed the quality of attachment on the basis of the child’s response to specific episodes of the procedure. Explain each of the following terms, in relation to the Strange Situation:

Who were the participants? What was the main aim of the study?

Separation anxiety:

Stranger anxiety

Reunion behaviour

The Strange Situation uses a controlled observation methodology. Explain how this differs from a naturalistic observation:

21

The Strange Situation - procedure

The Strange Situation procedure involved the child experiencing eight ‘episodes’. Complete the storyboard with a description and illustration of what happened during each episode:

1. 2. 3. 4.

5. 6. 7. 8.

22

The Strange Situation – results

Ainsworth identified three different types of attachment. Complete the table with a description of how each attachment type responded to each episode of the procedure:

TYPE OF ATTACHMENT

Mother present (exploration)

Mother leaves (separation

anxiety)

Stranger enters (stranger anxiety)

Mother return (reunion

behaviour)

Secure

Insecure avoidant

Insecure resistant

23

The Strange Situation – conclusions

Ainsworth suggested the ‘caregiver sensitivity hypothesis’ as an explanation for different attachment types. Explain what this is:

What is the ‘temperament hypothesis’ and how does it offer an alternative explanation for different types of attachment? (Kagan, 1982)

What reasons can you think of to explain why some infants develop different types of attachment than others?

Main and Solomon (1986) suggested a fourth type of attachment; Type D. Explain the characteristics of this type:

24

Evaluating the Strange Situation

Validity o Only measures attachment to mother

o Doesn’t consider temperament of child

o Demand characteristics

Reliability

Ecological validity

Generalisability

Ethical issues

25

Cross cultural variations in attachment

Read the table on p.127 of your textbook, which summarises the results of Van Ijzendoorn and Kroonenberg’s (1988) meta analysis of cross cultural studies of attachment. Now answer these questions:

What do we mean by ‘culture?’

What is a meta-analysis?

What do the results of the Van Ijzendoorn study tell us about the level of secure attachment across different cultures?

Which country has the highest number of insecure avoidant infants?

Which country has the highest number of insecure resistant infants?

Explain the difference between individualist and collectivist cultures:

What attachment style might infants from collectivist cultures be more likely to develop? Explain your answer with reference to childcare practices:

26

What is ethnocentrism?

What attachment style might infants from individualist cultures be more likely to develop? Explain your answer with reference to childcare practices:

Explain at least two reasons why we must be careful about interpreting Van Ijzendoorn’s results as ‘proof’ of cross cultural differences in attachment?

What did Van Ijzendoorn find about differences in attachment styles within cultures?

27

Use this page when you have finished studying disruption of attachment, to make a mind map of the key concepts. Include separation, privation and institutionalisation.

Disruptions to attachment

28

Disruption of attachment (separation):

Why might young children be separated from their caregivers? List as many reasons as you can think of:

What might the child’s immediate reaction be when separated from their primary caregiver?

How might separation affect the child’s attachment bond to their caregiver?

How might longer term separation affect the child’s development? Consider emotional, social and physical factors:

29

The effects of short term disruption of attachment (Robertson and Bowlby, 1952)

STUDY: Robertson and Bowlby’s (1952) study of the short-term effects of separationAIMS: Robertson and Bowlby aimed to identify the short-term effects of separation from the caregiver on young children. PROCEDURE: Naturalistic observation of young children, aged 1 to 4 years, placed in residential nurseries by their parents because their mothers would be absent for some time. In the majority of cases, this was because the mother was entering hospital. Films were made using time-sampling methods to avoid observer bias. Behavioural and emotional reactions to this separation were observed to assess the effects of separation on the children.FINDINGS: There are three progressive reactions to separation (outlined by the protest-despair-detachment or PDD model), which are shown by a consistent pattern of behavioural and emotional effects.

• Protest: The children showed great distress, calling and crying for the absent caregiver, and some appeared panic-stricken. Anger and fear were evident.• Despair: The children became calmer but apathetic as

they showed little interest in anything. Self-comforting behaviours were observed such as thumb sucking and rocking.• Detachment: The children appeared to be

coping with the separation as they showed more interest in their surroundings. However, the children were

emotionally unresponsive. The children avoided forming new attachments and no interest was shown when the caregiver returned, but most children re-established the relationship over time.

CONCLUSIONS: Bowlby and Robertson concluded that most young children who experience separation suffer distress. The emotional effects during separation can be severe and result in emotional damage, but rarely lead to bond disruption (deprivation). Separation was distressing for most of the children. However, they did resume their attachment on reunion, and so the effects were relatively short-term. Greater separation anxiety was the most common long-term effect.EVALUATION• Short-term separation does not necessarily lead to distress. Robertson and Robertson (1971) found that good substitute care (e.g. a loving father) could minimise the effects of separation.• The study was limited: separation cannot be manipulated as an independent variable, and so cause and effect cannot be inferred. Thus, we cannot be sure that separation causes emotional damage or deprivation. Other factors may have led to the separation and emotional damage. For example, the parent’s ill-health may have disrupted the attachment bond before the separation took place, if it resulted in the parent becoming physically or emotionally detached.• There is no completely objective way of assessing despair and detachment, which poses problems for testing the PDD model.

30

The effects of longer term disruption of attachment

Robertson and Bowlby concluded that the most common effect of longer term attachment disruption (such as death of a parent or divorce) was separation anxiety. This is the fear that separation from an attachment

figure will occur again in the future, and it may manifest itself in a number of ways. Explain and/or give an example of each of the following possible characteristics of separation anxiety:

What factors may affect the child’s response to separation?

Increased aggression:

Clinginess:

Detachment:

Psychosomatic symptoms:

How do you think this might affect the child’s response to separation?

Summarise research evidence on the effect of this factor

FACTOR

31

Case studies of severe privation

One method that psychologists have used to study the affects of privation is to consider case studies of individual children who have been raised in conditions where no attachment bond has been made. You will watch a video of some of these cases, and will research two of them for your homework assignment.Use this page to summarise the most important aspects of each case. You should include:

Age when discovered

The age of the child

The type of attachment (secure/insecure)

The sex of the child

Whom the child is left with - quality of care

Previous experience of separation

32

Conditions they were kept in Physical, cognitive and emotional effects of privation Care after discovery

Evaluation of privation case studies

Explain how each of the following factors might be used to assess the usefulness of studies of privation:

Genie (Curtiss, 1977)

The Czech twins (Koluchova, 1976)

Use case study method of research:

Used retrospective data: Ethical issues: Children involved suffered emotional and physical abuse (not just lack of attachment):

33

Are the effects of privation reversible?

There have been mixed findings from research into the reversibility of the ill effects of privation. Whilst the Czech twins made a good recovery, Genie showed less progress. Use your research and your textbook to compare variables which may explain the differences between Genie and the Czech twins:

Age when discovered Relationships whilst in isolation

Individual differences in the child/ren

Quality of care after discovery

Genie

The Czech Twins

What conclusions can we draw from the cases of Genie and the Czech twins about the reversibility of the effects of privation?

34

The effects of institutionalisation

A further method of assessing the effects of privation (lack of attachment) has been studies of children who have spent their early years in institutions. On the following pages you will learn about two such studies of institutionalised children, by Rutter and Hodges and Tizard. After you have familiarised yourself with the studies, come back and answer these questions:

The effects of institutionalisation –Rutter et al (2007) and the Romanian orphans

What are the characteristics of disinhibited attachment?

What are the characteristics of reactive attachment disorder?

Do studies of institutionalised children support the theory that there is a ‘critical period’ for the development of attachment?

What have studies of institutionalised children found about the reversibility of the effects of privation?

35

This is an on-going longitudinal study which began in 1998. 

111 Romanian orphans were adopted into British families.  Rutter wanted to see if good care could compensate for the privation the children had suffered before the overthrow of the Communist dictator Ceaucescu. 

This has been run as a natural experiment with age of adoption being the naturally occurring independent variable (IV).  Rutter is studying three groups:

·         Adopted before the age of 6 months·         Adopted between 6 months and 2 years·         Adopted after the age of two (late adoptees).

Rutter found evidence of disinhibited attachment behaviours in the Romanian adoptees, most commonly in the children who were adopted at an older age. He defined disinhibited attachment as ‘a pattern of attention-seeking behaviours with a relative lack of selectivity in social relationships’ – in other words, children are more likely to seek attention from all adults, even strangers and make inappropriate physical contact without checking back to the parent in a stressful situation. Disinhibited attachment was extremely rare in UK-born adoptees and children who were adopted at a younger age. This evidence shows that children who have spent longer in institutions are more likely to display signs of disinhibited attachment.

Conclusion

Children exposed to privation are more likely to make a fuller recovery if adopted into a caring environment at an earlier age. 

Evaluation of Rutter’s research:

36

The effects of institutionalisation Hodges and Tizard (1989)

Aim

Procedure

Results

Conclusions

Evaluation

37

Use this page when you have finished studying the impact of day care on social development, to make a mind map of the key concepts. Include research into peer relationships and aggressive behaviour.

The impact of day care on social development

38

Further research into the effect of day-care on children’s aggressive behaviour

Baker et al (2005)What was done: Following introduction of day care for all in Quebec, the proportion of 0 to 4 year olds in day care rose by 14%, and the number of married women returning to work also increased.Baker et al analysed data on 33,000 children of two-parent families.What was found:

• In the period after day care became widely available, aggression among 2 to 4 year olds increased by 24% in Quebec, compared to 1% in the rest of Canada.

• The wellbeing of parents also declined, with a greater incidence of hostile parenting and dissatisfaction with spouses.

Conclusion: Day care can increase aggressive behaviour. Evaluation: Relations between parents, and parents’ attitudes, also changed. This means that it is difficult to know whether the day care itself directly caused aggressiveness in the children, or whether this was at least partly caused by the different adult behaviours at home.

EPPE project (1991)What was done: Studied over 3000 children in UK, between 3 and 7 years old.What was found:

• Sammons et al (2003) analysed data and showed that there is a slight risk of antisocial behaviour when children spend more than 20 hours per week in nurseries.

• This risk increases noticeably when they spend more than 40 hours a week in care.• Melhuish (2004) noticed increased aggression amongst children whose carers are constantly

changing.Conclusion: Day care can increase anti-social and aggressive behaviour. The longer young children spend in day care, particularly nursery care or a care environment where they lack a constant care figure, the more pronounced the aggressive behaviour is.Evaluation: Supported by the US NICHD study, which also found increased aggression among children in day care.

Shea et al (1981)What was done: Shea video-taped 3- and 4-year old children at playtime during their first 10 weeks at nursery school.What was found:

• Children became more sociable the longer they were at nursery.• The amount of aggressive behaviour towards one another decreased.• These changes were greater in children attending for 5 days a week, compared to those

attending for just 2 days a week.Conclusion: Day care can increase sociability and decrease aggressive behaviour. Evaluation: The fact that aggression reduced more in children attending for 5 days a week rather than 2 days a week, suggests that it was the day care that caused this effect rather than just the children maturing.

ALSPAC (1991-1992)What was done: The progress of 14,000 children born in the UK between 1991 and 1992 was

followed.What was found: No negative effects of day care, including no evidence of increased anti-social behaviour or aggression.Conclusion: Day care may not increase aggressive behaviour between children.Evaluation: This was a large-scale study, and therefore the findings can be generalised with caution to other children, at least in the UK.

Further research into the effect of day-care on children’s peer

relationships

Shea (1981)

39

What was done: Shea video-taped 3- and 4-year old children at playtime during their first 10 weeks at nursery school.What was found: Children became more sociable the longer they were in day care. They stood closer together and engaged in more rough-and-tumble play, and moved further away from teachers. Conclusion: Being in day care helps social development and improves peer relations.Evaluation: A well-structured observation, looking at measurable behaviour (distance, frequency of interaction…). Findings supported by other studies, such as Clarke-Stewart (1994), Andersson (1989, 1992), and the EPPE project

Clarke-Stewart (1994)What was done: Studied 150 children attending school for the first time. They had experienced different forms of day care.What was found: Children who had attended nurseries could cope better in social situations, and were able to interact better with peers, compared with children previously looked after in family settings.Conclusion: Being in day care helps social development and improves peer relations.Evaluation: A relatively small study, with just 150 participants. This means we can generalise findings, but with caution.

Andersson (1989, 1992)What was done: Studied the social and cognitive progress of children attending Swedish day care.What was found: Children who attended day care were able to get along with other children better, were more sociable and outgoing, and had better abilities to play with their peers than children who did not attend day care.Conclusion: Being in day care helps social development and improves peer relations.Evaluation: Swedish day care is particularly good quality. However, findings are supported by other studies, such as Shea (1981), Clarke-Stewart (1994) and the EPPE project

EPPE projectWhat was done: Studied over 3000 children in UK, between 3 and 7 years old.What was found: Children who attended day care showed increased independence and peer sociability at 5 years. This study also found that an early start in day care (between 2 and 3 years) was also linked with being more sociable with other children.Conclusion: Being in day care helps social development and improves peer relations.Evaluation: A large sample size means that findings can be generalised with relative confidence, at least to other UK children.

DiLalla (1988)What was done: Carried out a correlational study into time spent in day care and pro-social behaviour.What was found: DiLalla found a negative correlation between the amount of time spent in day care and pro-social behaviour: children who spent more time in day care were less cooperative and helpful in their dealings with other children.Conclusion: Day care can harm peer relations.Evaluation: Useful evaluative point for contrasting with studies which found a more positive outcome.

40

The effect of day-care on children’s social development – Aggression

Research which has found that children in day care are more aggressive

Evaluation of research

Research which has found that children in day care are less aggressive (or that day-care makes no difference to levels of aggression)

Evaluation of research

Study 1: Study 1:

Study 2: Study 2:

Study 3: Study 3:

What conclusions can be drawn from research about the effect of day-care on children’s aggressive behaviour?

The effect of day-care on children’s social development – Peer relationships

41

Research which has found that day-care has a positive effect on peer relationships

Evaluation of research

Research which has found that day-care has a negative effect on peer relationships

Evaluation of research

Study 1: Study 1:

Study 2: Study 2:

Study 3: Study 3:

What conclusions can be drawn from research about the effect of day-care on children’s aggressive behaviour?

Other variables which may affect the child’s experience of day-care

42

Other factors which may be important:

Summary of research evidence

The quality of the day care

The amount of time spent in day care

.

The type of day care

The child’s attachment type

What conclusions can be drawn from research about how possible it is to establish a cause and effect relationship between day-care and social development?

The implications of research for improving day care provision

Attachment research has found that separation is stressful for the child. How can day care providers minimise this distress?

Attachment research suggests that the day care environment should provide the child with a secure and warm attachment. List as many ways as you can think of that a day care centre might help the child develop this quality of attachment:

43

The implications of research for improving day care provision

What have we learned from research into day care and children’s social development about the importance of the quality of care?

What does research tell us about the characteristics of good quality day care?

44

Day care task

Now that you are experts on attachment theory, your task is to use your knowledge to design the ‘perfect’ day care centre.

You should produce a leaflet to advertise your centre, which should include no less than 200 words. You should make the leaflet as attractive and professional looking as possible. You are going to be charging a huge amount of money for your services, because your day care centre is based on the most up to date psychological research, so your leaflet should make this clear. However, you should remember that the parents who will be reading your leaflet will probably not understand psychological terms, so any use of these should be clearly explained.

When designing your ‘perfect’ day care centre, you should consider:

What is the age range of the children you will care for (and how this will affect the type of care offered?)

Who will look after the children (what personal characteristics should carers have?)

How many children will there be per member of staff? Will each child be looked after by lots of different carers? What sort of training will the staff receive? How will you ensure that staff turnover is low? How will the transition into day

care be dealt with? How will the potentially

negative effects of day care be minimised?

How will the potentially positive effects of day care be maximised?

What facilities (e.g. toys and books) will be available to stimulate the children?

Attachment word search

s t r a n g e s i t u a t i o n s j k nr m c g g h r e t r o s p e c t i v e gc o n d i t i o n i n g i u x b s q w gc e w e e r i n n a t e g h d q e x t ri v m i e o c n o i t a v i r p h e o er o b n r w c e l k b i r v v i t m v bt l e e u s t h r g s e b o b h o y a nn u l g c n z e n f t q i n q o p d n ee t s u e i n o i t a r a p e s y u i nc i k d s a e k u o p t t y t f h t j oo o y d r s r r i t n m g m n v y s z on n z e u k o h n a i o h j a b t e e rh a c r f j l e d r l n f e t o i s n kt r m a h j m i e o r o f v s w u a d ue y l c f h o p h k g t n s i l n c o jj d d y c v q t v b p r z o s b i b o jq k i a a f e o n y q o w y e y t x r cl l t d g n i t n i r p m i r w n x n cn t e t a r u d i c s y s e g d o h q qa l e a r n i n g p t i z a r d c s k h

45

attachment Bowlby secure resistant avoidant Hodges Tizard Rutter imprinting Ainsworth

day-care strange

situation privation separation conditioning evolutionary monotropy retrospective continuity

hypothesis

ethology learning Lorenz Belsky Genie Case study Van Ijzendoorn Kroonenberg ethnocentric innate

46