John Bowlby and Mary Ainsworth Patterns of Attachment

  • Slides: 20
Download presentation
John Bowlby and Mary Ainsworth Patterns of Attachment Vikki Vukovics and Adrianna Ramon

John Bowlby and Mary Ainsworth Patterns of Attachment Vikki Vukovics and Adrianna Ramon

John Bowlby: 1907 -1990 ● Born in London to an upper-middle-class family. ● His

John Bowlby: 1907 -1990 ● Born in London to an upper-middle-class family. ● His parents thought that too much parental affection and attention would spoil a child, his parents spent only a small amount of time with him each day. ● Attended Trinity College, Cambridge, where he studied psychology and spent time working with delinquent children. ● Later he studied medicine at University College Hospital, and then psychiatry at Maudsley Hospital. ● After becoming a psychoanalyst in 1937, he served in the Royal Army Medical Corps during World War II.

John Bowlby: Continued ● In 1938, he married a woman named Ursula Longstaff and

John Bowlby: Continued ● In 1938, he married a woman named Ursula Longstaff and together they had four children. ● In 1950, he became a mental health consultant to the World Health Organization. ● In 1990, Bowlby died of a stroke at his summer home in Scotland. ● Most well known for his work on attachment theory. ● A Review of General Psychology survey, published in 2002, ranked Bowlby as the 49 th most cited psychologist of the 20 th century.

Bowlby’s Attachment Theory ● Defined attachment as a “lasting psychological connectedness between human beings”

Bowlby’s Attachment Theory ● Defined attachment as a “lasting psychological connectedness between human beings” ● Attachment is an emotional bond to another person. ● 4 stages of attachment development. ● pre-attachment, indiscriminate attachment, and multiple attachment. ● Bowlby was interested in understanding the separation anxiety and distress that children experience when separated from their primary caregivers.

Mary Ainsworth- (1913 -1999) ❖ Born in Glendale, OH ❖ She had a close

Mary Ainsworth- (1913 -1999) ❖ Born in Glendale, OH ❖ She had a close relationship with her father, however, was not close to her mother. ❖ Ainsworth began classes at the University of Toronto at the age of 16 and decided to focus on psychology. She was one of five students to be admitted into the honors course in psychology ❖ After graduation, Ainsworth joined the Canadian Women's Army Corps in 1942. ❖ She worked with many influential psychologists including John Bowlby, and also did her "mother-infant" observation in Uganda.

Mary Ainsworth: Continued ● After many other academic positions, she eventually settled at the

Mary Ainsworth: Continued ● After many other academic positions, she eventually settled at the University of Virginia in 1975, where she remained the rest of her academic career. ● Ainsworth died at the age of eighty-five from a stroke ● Known for her work in early emotional attachment with the Strange Situation design, as well as her work in the development of attachment theory. ● A Review of General Psychology survey, published in 2002, ranked Ainsworth as the 97 th most cited psychologist of the 20 th century.

Ainsworth’s “Strange Situation” Experiment The strange situation classifications are based on behaviors observed within

Ainsworth’s “Strange Situation” Experiment The strange situation classifications are based on behaviors observed within the child- mother bond: 1. Separation Anxiety 2. Stranger Anxiety 3. Reunion Behavior 4. Others (such as exploration) Strange Situation particularly looks at 4 interaction behaviors directed toward the mother in the two reunion episodes. 1. Proximity and contacting seeking 2. Contact maintaining 3. Avoidance of proximity and contact

What are the attachment styles? Secure Attachment ■ Confident that their caregiver is able

What are the attachment styles? Secure Attachment ■ Confident that their caregiver is able to meet their needs. ■ Use of the caregiver as a safe base to explore. ■ Seek the attachment figure in times of distress. ■ Easily soothed by the attachment figure when upset. Ambivalent Attachment ■ Clingy, dependant behavior when they are engaged in interaction. ■ When distressed they are difficult to soothe. ■ Difficulty exploring and moving away. ■ This behavior results from an inconsistent level of response to their needs. Avoidant Attachment ■ Very independent of the attachment figure both physically and emotionally. ■ Likely to have a caregiver who is insensitive or rejecting of their needs. ■ Do not use their caregiver as a safe base.

Reunion Behavior Secure- https: //youtu. be/DH 1 m_ZMO 7 GU? t=1 m 9 s

Reunion Behavior Secure- https: //youtu. be/DH 1 m_ZMO 7 GU? t=1 m 9 s Ambivalent- https: //youtu. be/DH 1 m_ZMO 7 GU? t=2 m 56 s Avoidant- https: //youtu. be/DH 1 m_ZMO 7 GU? t=2 m 3 s

Ainsworth’s Study ● Performed the Strange Situations Classification on 100 subjects. ● Middle class,

Ainsworth’s Study ● Performed the Strange Situations Classification on 100 subjects. ● Middle class, American families. ● 12 -18 months old.

Our Study: A Re-Creation of Strange Situations Questions: ● What attachment style does a

Our Study: A Re-Creation of Strange Situations Questions: ● What attachment style does a child demonstrate during a re-enactment of Ainsworth’s “strange situation” ● Do children of older age have different attachment styles? ● Do all children fit completely into one category or are there transitional phases between attachment styles? Hypothesis: ● The most common classification we observe will be secure attachment. ● Attachment classification will still apply although age is more than 18 mo. ● Children will remain consistent within only one classification. Study: ● 3 subjects: 1 year and one month, 2 years and 3 months, and 3 years and one month.

Procedure 1. Caregiver and infant go into the experimental room. 2. Caregiver sits and

Procedure 1. Caregiver and infant go into the experimental room. 2. Caregiver sits and watches the child play. 3. Stranger enters, talks to caregiver, then interacts with infant. Caregiver leaves room. 4. First separation. Stranger tries to interact with infant. 5. First reunion. Caregiver comforts child, stranger leaves. Caregiver then leaves. 6. Second separation. Child alone. 7. Stranger enters and tries to interact with child. 8. Second reunion. Caregiver comforts child, stranger leaves. *All episodes last 3 minutes*

Rubrics Secure Attachment Ambivalent Attachment Avoidant Attachment Separation Anxiety Distressed when mother leaves Infant

Rubrics Secure Attachment Ambivalent Attachment Avoidant Attachment Separation Anxiety Distressed when mother leaves Infant shows signs of intense distress when mother leaves. Infant shows no sign of distress when mother leaves. Stranger Anxiety Avoidant of stranger when alone, but friendly when mother present. Infant avoids the stranger, shows fear of the stranger. Infant is okay with the stranger and plays normally when the stranger is present. Reunion Behavior Positive and happy when mother returns. Child approaches mother, but resists contact, may even push her away. Cannot calm down. Infant shows little interest when mother returns. Other Will use the mother as a safe base to explore their environment. Infant cries more and explores less than the other 2 types. Mother and stranger are able to comfort the infant equally well. Intensity Contact Seeking 1 -7 Contact Maintaining Interaction Avoiding Interaction Resisting Searching

Results Child #1 Age: 1 year and 1 month Gender: Female Location of Study:

Results Child #1 Age: 1 year and 1 month Gender: Female Location of Study: Home Classification: Secure Attachment ● Distressed when mother left ● Avoidant of stranger when alone, but friendly when mother present. ● Positive and happy when mother returned. ● Used the mother as a safe base to explore their environment.

Results Child #2 Age: 3 years and 2 months Gender: Male Location of Study:

Results Child #2 Age: 3 years and 2 months Gender: Male Location of Study: Home Classification: Avoidant Attachment ● Shows no sign of distress when grandparent left. ● Is okay with the stranger and played normally when the stranger was present. ● Showed little interest when grandparents returned. ● Grandparents and stranger were able to comfort the child well. Child two was probably too old for this.

Results Child #3 Age: 2 years and 3 months Gender: Female Location: Dorm Classification:

Results Child #3 Age: 2 years and 3 months Gender: Female Location: Dorm Classification: Mainly secure attachment ● Avoidant of stranger when alone, but friendly when mother present. ● Positive and happy when mother returned. ● Used the mother as a safe base to explore their environment. However, was Avoidant in Separation Anxiety ● Showed no signs of distress when mother left.

Conclusion ● What attachment style does a child demonstrate during a reenactment of Ainsworth’s

Conclusion ● What attachment style does a child demonstrate during a reenactment of Ainsworth’s “strange situation” ➢ The most common classification we observe will be secure attachment. CORRECT! ● Do children of older age have different attachment styles? ➢ Attachment classification will still apply although age is more than 18 mo. INCORRECT! ● Do all children fit completely into one category or are there transitional phases between attachment styles? ➢ Children will remain consistent within only one classification. MAYBE?

Limitations: ● Number of children ● proper age ● We couldn't exactly hide- lacked

Limitations: ● Number of children ● proper age ● We couldn't exactly hide- lacked a two way mirror ● Scheduling conflicts

Additional Questions ● Would there be a difference if we evaluated children who have

Additional Questions ● Would there be a difference if we evaluated children who have experienced neonatal separation -The early mother-infant interaction was more limited with the premature babies than with the full term babies. ● Are there significant differences in behavior and attachment styles between Twins and Single children? -Mothers of twins or more than one child would be less able to respond promptly to infant signals ● Could the appearance of a stranger resembling or not resembling the mother influence how the child acted towards the stranger? - Perhaps someone of similar features to the mother would be less intimidating to the child than someone of opposing features.

Works cited: https: //youtu. be/k 3 a. Al 92_VDE ● Ainsworth, M. (1978). Patterns

Works cited: https: //youtu. be/k 3 a. Al 92_VDE ● Ainsworth, M. (1978). Patterns of attachment: A psychological study of the strange situation. Hillsdale, N. J. : Lawrence Erlbaum Associates. ● Bretherton, I. (1992). The origins of attachment theory: John Bowlby and Mary Ainsworth. Estados Unidos: American Psychological Association. ● Brodie, R. (n. d. ). Mary Ainsworth and Attachment Theory. Retrieved November 19, 2015, <www. childdevelopmentmedia. com/articles/mary-ainsworth-and-attachment-theory/>. ● Bowlby, J. (1988). A secure base: Parent-child attachment and healthy human development. New York: Basic Books. ● Cherry, K. (2006). What is Attachment Theory? Retrieved November 19, 2015, from <http: //psychology. about. com/od/profilesal/p/john-bowlby. htm>. ● Cherry, K. (2006). How Do Early Attachments Shape Behavior? Retrieved November 19, 2015, <http: //psychology. about. com/od/loveandattraction/a/attachment 01. htm>. ● Mary Ainsworth (1913 -1999). (2015, July 24). Retrieved November 19, 2015, from http: //www. goodtherapy. org/famous-psychologists/mary-ainsworth. html ● Mc. Leod, Sam. "John Bowlby | Maternal Deprivation Theory | Simply Psychology. " John Bowlby | Maternal Deprivation Theory | Simply Psychology. 2007. Web. 16 Oct. 2015. <http: //www. simplypsychology. org/bowlby. html>. ● Mc. Leod, S. (2009). Attachment Theory | Simply Psychology. Retrieved November 19, 2015, <http: //www. simplypsychology. org/attachment. html>. ● Mc. Leod, S. (2008). Mary Ainsworth | Attachment Styles | Simply Psychology. Retrieved November 19, 2015, from