ALL STUDIES

• Research support for IS- Meltzoff and Moore (1977)

  Observed beginnings of interactional synchrony in two week old infants

  • An adult/stranger (not the parent) displayed three facial expressions or one of three distinct gestures
  • Controlled observation-Child’s response was filmed and found that the expressions were similar to the adult’s
  • Downside, child cannot give consent, nor explain the reason for its actions
• IS support- Isabella et al (1989)

  -Observed 30 mothers and infants together and assessed degree of synchrony-Also measured the quality of attachment and found those with stronger attachment had higher levels of synchrony
• The role of the father- Schaffer and Emerson (1964)

  • Found that the majority of babies did become attached to their mother first (around 7 months).
  • Within a few weeks/months of the primary attachment, the infants formed secondary attachments to other family members, including the father.
  • In 75% of the infants studied, an attachment was formed with the father by the age of 18 months.
  • This was determined by the fact that the infants protested when their father walked away (separation distress). Therefore, fathers are more likely to be secondary attachment figures.
• Importance of the father- Grossman (2002)

  • Carried out a longitudinal study looking at both parents’ behaviour and its relationship to the quality of children’s attachments into their teens.
  • Quality of infant attachment to mothers, but not fathers, was related to children’s attachments in adolescents, suggesting that father attachment was less important.
  • The quality of father’ play with infants was related to the quality of adolescent attachments. This suggests that fathers have a different role in attachment - one that is more to do with play and stimulation
• Fathers as primary attachment figures- Field (1978)

  • Field (1978) filmed 4-month-old babies in face-to-face interactions with primary caregiver mothers, secondary caregiver fathers and primary caregiver fathers.
  • Primary caregiver fathers, like mothers, spent more time smiling, imitating and holding infants than secondary caregiver fathers.
  • This behaviour appears to be important in building an attachment with the infant.
  • Therefore, fathers can be the more nurturing attachment figure. They key to the attachment relationship is the level of responsiveness, not the gender of the parent.
• Stages of attachment- Schaffer and Emerson (1964)

  Longitudinal study (recorded over a long period of time)METHOD: Observed 60 Glaswegian babies for 18 months, mostly from skilled working class families.

  • Mothers/babies were visited once a month for 1 year and again at 18 months
  • Researchers asked the parents to observe their children in various circumstances, keep a diary of their observations and report back to the researchers.
• Stages of attachment- S&E findings

  • Between 25-32 weeks, 50% of babies showed separation anxiety towards a particular adult (specific attachment)
  • Attachment tended to be the caregiver that was most sensitive to the infants’ signals and racial expressions (reciprocity) -the primary attachment figure
  • At 40 weeks nearly 30% had formed multiple attachments (usually formed once specific attachment had been formed) – secondary attachments.
• Animal study- Lorenz (1935)

  • Divided a clutch of goose eggs into 2 groups.
  • CONTROL GRP- left with mother   EXPERIMENTAL GRP- left in an incubator
  • first thing the incubator batch saw when hatching was Lorenz (imprinting).
  • Lorenz then mixed the batches together to examine if they would return to the caregiver imprinted on.
• Lorenz findings


  FINDINGS

  The geese when mixed divided themselves up to follow their imprinted figures. Imprinting is restricted to a definite period of time (CRITICAL PERIOD) if the animal has not seen a moving object within the critical period- it will not imprint. Imprinting is similar to attachment, binds the young to a caregiver.
• Animal study- Harlow (1958)

  • Tested the idea that a soft object serves some of the functions of a mother.
  • 16 baby monkeys.
  • Two wire model ‘mothers’ one dispensed milk, one made of cloth for comfort.
  • A loud noise was made to scare the monkeys to see how they reacted and which mother they ran to for safety
• Harlow findings

  • Baby monkeys cuddled the soft object in preference to the wire one
  • Sought comfort from the cloth mother when frightened (regardless of which dispensed milk)
  • When followed into adulthood as a follow up many monkeys were aggressive, unskilled at mating, less sociable.
  • Showed that ‘contact comfort’ was of more importance to the monkeys than food when it came to attachment behaviour.
  • 90 days as a critical period for monkeys to form an attachment (parallel to human attachment)
• Support for social releasers- Brazelton et al (1975)

  • Observed mothers and babies interactions, reporting the existence of interactional synchrony
  • The observation was extended to an experiment, primary attachment figures ignored their babies' signals /sr's
  • The babies initially showed distress but eventually curled up, lying motionless
  • The strong reaction children had supports Bowlby's ideas about the significance of SR's
• Support for internal working models- Bailey et al (2007)

  • Assessed 99 mothers and one-year-old babies
  • Assessed quality of attachment to their own mothers through an interview procedure
  • Assessed the attachment of babies to mothers by observation
  • Found mothers who reported poor attachments to their own parents in interviews were more likely to have children classified as poor according to observations
  • Supports Bowlby's idea that a IWM acts as a template from childhood to adulthood
  • Also supports how relationships are affected in later life as a parent
• Strange situation- Mary Ainsworth (1969)

  • 100 middle-class American infants and their
  • Lab experiment, controlled observation
  • Behavioural categories tested for: stranger anxiety, separation anxiety, proximity seeking behaviour, secure-base behaviour, reunion behaviour
  • Found 3 attachment types: Insecure avoidant, secure, insecure resistant
• SS reliability support- Bick et al

  • Inter-rater reliability rate of SS observers.
  • 94% agreement rate on attachment type
  • High consistency = high reliability and the attachment type is not an assumption
• Cultural variations- Van Izjendoorn and Kroonenberg (1988)

  • META ANALYSIS STUDY, 32 SS replications, 8 countries, 1,990 children studied
  • Summarized findings from 8 countries, including UK, US Sweden, Japan, China, Holland, Germany, Israel
  • 15/32 studies were from USA
  • 75% secure in UK, 50% China
  • 3% insecure-resistant in UK, 30% Israel
  • Insecure-avoidant most common in Germany, least common in Japan
• Cultural variations 2 (I+K)

  Intra-cultural variation was nearly 1.5x greater than cross-cultural variations (intra smaller cultures in a culture) Ijzendoorn speculated that this was linked to differences in socio-economic factors and levels of stress that varied between samples.

  • Therefore, Secure attachment seems to be the norm in a wide range of cultures, supporting Bowlby’s theory that attachment is innate and universal
  • However, the research also shows that cultural practises clearly have an influence on attachment types.
• Cultural variations- Jin et al (2012)

  • Conducted a study to compare the proportions of attachment types in Korea to other studies.
  • Strange situation was used to assess 87 children
  • Overall insecure and secure babies were similar to most countries
  • However most insecure were resistant, only 1 was avoidant
  • CONCLUSION: Distribution of attachment types in Korea was similar to attachment types found in Japan (Ijzendoorn) due to similar child-rearing styles.
• Cultural variations- Simonelli et al 2014

  • Conducted a study in Italy to see if proportions of babies of different attachment styles still matches those found in pervious studies
  • 50% secure, 36% insecure-avoidant.
  • insecure-avoidant children is becoming more common.
  • Researchers suggested this is because increasing numbers of mothers of very young children work long hours and use professional childcare.
• Maternal deprivation- Bowlby's 44 thieves

  • 44 criminal teenagers accused of stealing.
  • Participants interviewed for signs of affectionless psychopathy.
  • AP was characterised as a lack of affection, guilt, empathy.
  • Families were also interviewed to establish if there was prolonged early separation (deprivation) from their mothers.
  • A control group of 44 non-criminal teenagers with emotional problems were also all assessed to see how often maternal deprivation occurred to the children who were not thieves
• 44 Thieves findings

  •   14 out of the 44 thieves were affectionless psychopaths.
  • 12/14 had experienced prolonged separation (deprivation) in the first 2 years of life
  • 17 out of 44 had maternal separation.
  • In the control group 2/44 had maternal separation but 0/44 were classed as affectionless psychopaths
• Evidence to challenge the critical period- Koluchova

  • Twin boys from Czechoslovakia isolated from 18 months till 7 years old
  • Step mother locked them in a cupboard
  • Once adopted and looked after by 2 loving adults they appeared to recover fully
  • Challenges Bowlby's idea that the effects of missing the CP for an attachment is irreversible
• Influence of early attachment- Hazan and Shaver

  • 'Love Quiz'
  • 620 replies printed in an American newspaper.
  • 3 sections: current relationship, general love experiences and attachment type.
  •   56% secure attachment 25% insecure avoidant 19% insecure-resistant (very similar to UK results, may link to similar cultures)
  • Positive correlation between attachment type and love experience
  • Findings suggest that patterns of behaviour are reflected in adult romantic relationships.
• The effects of institutionalisation- Rutter (2011) ERA

  • Followed a group of 165 Romanian orphans adopted in Britain, to test to what extent good care could make up for poor early experiences in institutions.
  • Physical, cognitive, emotional development was assessed at ages 4, 6, 11 and 15 years.
  • Control group: 52 British children adopted around the same time.
• Rutters findings

  • first arrived to the UK, half the adoptees showed signs of delayed intellectual development, majority were severely undernourished.
  • Age 11: adopted children showed differential rates of recovery that related to their age of adoption. (harder to catch up the older you get)
  • The mean IQ of those children adopted before 6 months and 2 years was 102, compared with 86 adopted between 6m-12yrs, 77 for after 2 years.
  • Children adopted after 6 months showed signs of disinhibited attachment.
  • The children adopted before the age of 6 months rarely displayed this attachment style.
• The Bucharest Intervention Study- Zeanah et al (2005)

  • Assessed attachment in 136 children
  • All children were seen for follow up assessments at 30, 42 and 54 months, 8 ,12 and 16 years
  • Foster care development was compared (control group)

  FINDINGS:

  • 74% of the control group came out as securely attached.
  • 19% of the institutional group were securely attached
  • 65% disorganised attachment.
  • Disinhibited attachment: 44% of institutionalised children 20% control
• Relationships in later childhood- Peter Smith (1998)

  • Assessed attachment type and bullying involvement using standard questionnaires
  • 196 children aged 7-11 from London
  • Secure children unlikely to be bullies
  • Insecure-avoidant most likely to be victims
  • Insecure-resistant most likely bullies
• Relationships in adulthood- Gerard McCarthy (1999)

  • Studied 40 adult women who had been assessed when infants (to establish early attachment type)
  • Those assessed as secure had the best adult friendships and romantic relationships
  • Insecure-resistant adults had difficulty in maintaining friendships
  • Insecure-avoidant adults struggled with intimacy in romantic relationships
• IWM challenge- Zimmerman (2000)

  • Assessed infant attachment type and adolescent attachment to parents
  • Very little relationship between quality of infant and adolescent attachment
  • Issue as this is not what is expected if IWM are important in development/attachment