attachment

• Attachment definition


  An emotional bond between 2 people that endures over time and it leads to certain specific behaviours e.g. separation anxiety / proximity seeking.
• Types of attachment


  Proximity seeking

  - infants try stay physically close to people they're attached to

  
  

  Separation anxiety

  - upset when attachment figure leaves them

  
  

  Secure-base attachment

  - even when independent, infant makes regular contact with attachment figure.
• Study investigating infants imitation adult's facial and hand gestures

  Meltzoff and Moore (1977)

  
  

  Procedure

  - infants aged between 12-21 days of age

  - using a controlled observation, an adult model displayed one of four facial expressions/hand gesture

  - child has dummy in mouth to prevent a facial response

  - following display from the adult model, dummy was removed and the child's expressions were observed

  - expressions were videoed then scored by observers (who did not know what the expressions were)

  
  

  4 expressions:

  lip protrusion

  mouth opening

  tongue protrusion

  passive face

  
  

  observers were made to rank from most likely to least likely what expression they thought they were showing.
• Investigation infant imitation (results)

  There was a clear association between the infants' behaviour and that of the adult model i.e. the infants showed a clear ability to imitate the expression of the adult model (interactional synchrony)

  
  

  Later research by M&M (1983) found the same findings in three-day old infants
• Investigation infant imitation (conclusion)

  These findings suggest that interactional synchrony is an innate ability. It is thought interactional synchrony may help attachment / a bond develop between the infant and the caregiver.
• Meltzoff and Moore strengths

  observations well-controlled - can capture a lot of detail that can later be analysed

  - frame by frame

  babies don't change their behaviour when being watched; thus increases validity

  
  

  Research highlights important behaviour that help early attachment - caregivers need to respond effectively to infant.

  - they could help improve the quality of interactions and therefore improve caregiver-infant attachments.
• Meltzoff and Moore criticisms

  Not easy to test infant behaviour; babies change expressions often so difficult to tell if it is specific imitation or not. This makes research unreliable as babies have limited alert periods.

  - cannot ask why infants carried out an expression so we have to rely on inference. (drawing a logical conclusion)

  
  

  Findings have not been replicated - suggests research is unreliable ; low external reliability

  (not consistent)

  
  

  Culture Bias - cannot apply findings to other cultures

  - these interactions don't happen in other cultures but children still develop attachments

  - suggests interactions are not necessarily important in attachment.
• Why is it difficult to draw a conclusion about the role of caregiver-infant interactions in the development of attachment ?

  Cannot show a 'cause and effect' relationship because it is ETHICALLY IMPOSSIBLE to manipulate the quality of interactions

  
  

  Extraneous factors e.g. home environment may have a long term effect of attachment and cannot be controlled.
• Caregiver-infant interactions: Reciprocity


  - both infant and mother respond to each other's signals and each elicits a response from the other.

  - both caregiver and infant can initiate interactions and draw out responses from another (like a conversation)

  e.g. smiling and smiling back, pointing then looking etc.

  
  

  Research: analysed frame-by-frame video recordings of infants movements and found that infants moved in a way that responds to the caregivers speech to form a turn-taking conversation. (no name, general research).
• Caregiver-infant interactions: Interactional synchrony

  - infant and caregiver tend to imitate what the other is doing eg face and body movements (+emotions) like sticking tongues out.

  - different to reciprocity: movements are very similar

  - when caregiver and infant reflect both actions and emotions of the other and do this in a co-ordinated way.

  
  

  IMPORTANT for the development of the mother-infant attachment;

  Isabella et al (1989) observed 30 mothers and infants together and assessed their degree of synchrony.

  - found high levels of synchrony were associated with better quality mother-infant attachment

  (secure attachment)
• Stages of Attachment (experiment) - Procedure

  Schaffer and Emerson (1964)

  
  

  Procedure

  - 60 infants (5-23 weeks old)

  - all from working class families in Glasgow

  - studied till they were 1 years old (longitudinal)

  - mothers + babies were visited every 4 weeks

  - observations conducted + interviews w/ mothers carried out

  
  

  attachment measured in 2 ways:

  1) separation anxiety - everyday situations eg leaving the room

  2) stranger anxiety - response to unfamiliar adults
• Stages of Attachment - Results

  gathered there were 4 stages of attachment
• Stages of attachment definitions

  Pre-attachment phase (0-3 months)

  - infants produce similar responses to all objects whether they are human or non-human

  - usually show a greater preference to humans (or anything with a face)

  - more content around people; reciprocity and interactional synchrony is important in the development of the infant's relationships with others.

  
  

  Indiscriminate attachment phase (3-7 months)

  - clear preference for people

  - smile more at known people

  -no separation or stranger anxiety

  - allow strangers to hold and touch them

  
  

  Discriminate attachment phase

  - separation and stranger anxiety is strongly displayed

  - feel joy when reunited with primary attachment figure

  - quality over quantity

  
  

  Multiple attachment phase

  - main attachment has formed; develops more attachments e.g. extended family

  - these are called secondary attachments

  - stranger anxiety weakens but attachment to primary figure remains the strongest.
• Evaluation of Schaffer and Emerson

  (-) data may be unreliable

  data collection was subjective - one mother might be more sensitive to crying than another which would create systematic bias thus challenge validity

  
  

  (-) sample was biassed

  from working class families therefore may only apply to certain social groups. parental care has changed a lot and the mother may not be the primary caregiver like the study suggests. findings how be very different thus further research needs to be conducted.

  
  

  (-) may only apply to individualistic cultures

  collectivist cultures may teach to share and do things together to cater to the group's needs. attachment stage order may be different in terms of how an infant was brought up e.g. some may have multiple attachments first etc. This suggests research only applies to individualist cultures therefore difficult to be generalised.
• Animal studies : Konrad Lorenz (1935) (procedure + results)

  PROCEDURE

  Lorenz studied goslings and imprinting:

  - divided the eggs randomly into two

  - one half of the eggs stayed and hatched with the mother goose, and the other half hatched in an incubator with Lorenz.

  
  

  Mother: the goslings saw the mother as the first moving thing they saw, therefore they followed the mother around

  Lorenz: the goslings saw Lorenz as the first moving thing they saw therefore they followed Lorenz around.

  
  

  RESULTS

  To prove imprinting happened - he marked the goslings that hatched with him to identify which goslings were from where.

  - he put them together and him and the mother goose were present. Lorenz went one way the the goose went the other

  - incubator batch followed Lorenz and the half hatched w the mother followed her.

  
  

  noted that early imprinting had a role on later mate preferences - animals would likely choose the same object that they imprinted on.
• Animal studies : Harry Harlow's experiment (procedure + results)

  Harlow studied baby monkeys' behaviour:

  - separated the baby monkeys from the mother immediately

  - had two different surrogate mothers; one wire mother with food and no cloth, and one cloth covered mother without food.

  - recorded amount of time spent with each mother

  
  

  sometimes the baby monkeys were deliberately frightened by a mechanical teddy bear to see which mother they would go to

  > the cloth mother

  
  

  also studied the long term behaviour of the monkeys

  - anti-social behaviour

  - aggressive tendencies
• Evaluations of Animal studies (both)

  (-) confounding variable is that the heads on the monkeys were different - it may have been the monkey preferred the cloth mother who had a more attractive head

  
  

  (-) difficult to generalise the findings to humans - humans are much more complex than animals in terms of attachment so attachment in animals may not apply to humans

  
  

  (+) Schaffer and Emerson found that in their study, infants were most attached to the one that was the most responsive/sensitive to their needs, not just to the one that feeds them.

  
  

  (+) research found (Guiton) that chickens who were exposed to yellow gloves when they were fed imprinted on them

  ---> however this experience could be reversed

  
  

  (-) major ethical issues - animals suffered greatly and experienced long lasting effects later in life and developed abnormally e.g monkeys not cradling babies
• Learning theory - classical conditioning

  We have to learn to attach and we do so by food

  - we learn through association

  
  

  BEFORE:

  UCS (food) ----> baby feels pleasure (UCR)

  NS (mother) ----> baby does not respond (NR)

  
  

  DURING:

  UCS + NS ----> baby feels pleasure (UCR)

  
  

  AFTER:

  CS (mother) ----> baby feels pleasure (CR)

  
  

  we form an association between the mother and the food

  'Cupboard love Theory
• Learning theory - operant conditioning

  The mother rewards the infant by feeding them - satisfies baby

  
  

  Food = primary reinforcer --> supplies the reward so the infant will repeat the action (i.e crying) to get this reward

  
  

  Mother = secondary reinforcer --> presence of mother will bring baby comfort and pleasure as the mother has been associated with the food (even without food present)

  
  

  attachment is strengthened because the child seeks to person who supplies the rewards.

  
  

  known as drive reduction theory
• Positive reinforcement


  A reward that increases the behaviour e.g food (reward) so repeats behaviour that brings on food (crying)
• Negative reinforcement


  Removing something unpleasant from the situation so the behaviour is repeated e.g crying is removed so this reinforces caregiver's behaviour
• Drive Reduction Theory


  he infant is motivated by a hunger drive to remove the unpleasant feeling of hunger

  
  

  food = primary reinforcer

  mother = secondary reinforcer

  
  

  attachment strengthens with mother as she is the source of the reward (O.C can explain strengthening of attachments)

  
  

  crying is positively reinforced by caregiver feeding

  caregiver receives negative reinforcement (feeding) when crying stops
• Evaluation of Learning Theory of Attachment

  (-) overemphasises role of the food

  E: shown through Harlow's research of attachment in monkeys (explain conditions of mother dolls +results)

  E: shows that contact comfort and emotional support is more important than just food in terms of a strong attachment

  L: however it could be argued that these findings cannot be generalised to humans as humans are more complex than animals. BUT Schaffer and Emerson found that more than half of the infants studied were not attached to the person involved with feeding them - they were attached to the one who were the most responsive and attentive to their needs

  --> weakens Learning Theory

  
  

  (-) ignores other factors associated with forming attachments

  E: ignores reciprocity and interactional synchrony - essential in forming attachments

  E: if attachment was only feeding, there would be no purpose for the complex interactions

  L: oversimplifies the process of attachments - reduces it to only feeding

  
  

  (+) can explain how attachment develops through association and reinforcement (cc and oc) but it is very likely that attentiveness and responsiveness are better rewards than just food

  
  

  (-) an alternate explanation for attachment may be more complete in explaining attachment e.g Bowlby

  seen as an improvement to L.T and his one explains how and why an attachment forms - LT does not adequately explain why they form, only how.
• Bowlby's monotropic theory - adaptive

  Humans have an innate tendency to form attachments for survival (adaptive advantage)

  - caregiver gives them food, shelter, warmth, comfort etc
• Bowlby's monotropic theory - social releasers

  babies have cute features which unlock the innate tendency of adults to care for them - explains how attachment forms

  e.g big eyes, small nose, small mouth

  e.g crying, cooing, babbling
• Bowlby's monotropic theory - internal working model (IWM)

  mental representation of their relationship with the primary caregiver

  - it is a model to infants on what relationships are like

  - will form expectations of their experience

  - if first exp. is good, the think the rest of their relationships are like this (and vice versa)
• Bowlby's monotropic theory - critical period

  babies have to form the attachment within 0-2.5 years

  - if attachment is not formed by then, the child woulf be damaged for life, socially, physically, mentally, emotionally etc
• Bowlby's monotropic theory - continuity hypothesis

  early emotional experiences effect later adult relationships

  - secure = trusting, socially confident adults

  - insecure = emotional and social difficulties

  
  

  there is a continuity from infancy to adulthood in terms of relationships
• Bowlby's monotropic theory - monotropy (MOST IMPORTANT)

  infants form ONE special attachment bond (usually with primary caregiver)

  - usually with biological mother (not always the case though)

  - will attach to the one who responds the most sensitively to the infant's needs
• Evaluation of Bowlby's Monotropic Theory - weaknesses

  more of a sensitive period than a critical period

  - suggests that attachment MUST form in this time or not at all

  - some researchers say 'sensitive' is preferred as attachments are more likely to form within this period but it does not rule out the possibility of forming them outside the period; it will just be slower and more difficult.

  
  

  could be down to an infant's temperament, NOT to how responsive the caregiver is

  - child's genetically inherited personality traits have a role to play ; infant's biological makeup

  KAGAN = TEMPERAMENT HYPOTHESIS

  - child may be more outgoing and laidback = attachments form quicker

  - child may be less social and difficult = attachments form slower

  - Bowlby ignored the role of temperament + focused on child experiences in how they attach; biological makeup may influence how an infant attaches to their caregiver (securely/insecurely)

  
  

  socially sensitive

  - implications for mothers and father

  - places all the responsibility on the mother, and if the child is insecurely attached, they will feel responsible for that. may also influence mother's decisions in life e.g stay at home and not go to work

  - suggests fathers aren't important at all = outdated explanation
• Evaluation of Bowlby's Monotropic Theory - strengths

  Longitudinal study

  - Minnesota parent-child study followed ppts form infancy to late adolescence (SROUFE ET AL 2005)

  - predict continuity from early to later attachment due to IWM and CH

  - found continuity between early attachment and later social behaviour = secure: rated highest for social competence + less insecure + more popular

  - supports the notion of continuity influencing later relationships
• Differences in Learning Theory + Monotropic Theory

  LT - BMT

  explains how - explains how and why

  no critical period - has critical period

  attach to feeder - attach to most attentive

  psychological process and learned - innate (biological)

  attached initially for food - attached for survival
• Ainsworth Strange Situation - procedure and results

  A controlled observation designed to test the nature/type of attachment where infants are put into novel situations and observed.

  
  

  procedure:

  looked at 4 different behaviours

  - separation anxiety

  - reunion behaviour

  - stranger anxiety

  - willingness to explore/secure base

  
  

  8 episodes, lated 3 mins each

  one of the 8 lasted 30 seconds

  106 infants observed in unfamiliar environment

  
  

  1. parent and infant play

  2. parent sits while infant plays

  3. stranger enters and talks to parent (both in room)

  4. parent leaves, child plays (offer comfort if needed)

  5. parent returns, greets + offers comfort - stranger leaves

  6. parent leaves child alone in room (no adult - 30s)

  7. stranger enters (offers comfort if needed)

  8. parent returns and greets infant, stranger leaves

  
  

  findings:

  - found 3 pain patterns of behaviour (main attachment types)
• Evaluation of Ainsworth - weaknesses

  does is actually measure attachment type?

  - Main and Weston (1981) found that behaved differently with diff. caregivers e.g secure with mum, insecure with dad

  - shows that S.S may not be assessing internal characteristic of their attachment type, but the quality of attachment between the two different caregivers at home.

  - suggests this was not testing what it was supposed to test thus it lacks internal validity thus does not provide us an adequate explanation for attachment types.

  
  

  culture bound

  - western standard of attachment; not valid to use same method in different cultures

  - germany encourages children to be independent and may show type A in S.S

  - Japan encourage a sense of 'amae' or oneness, and may show type C in S.S

  - based on American values so they may not apply to all cultures

  
  

  3 types are too simplistic

  - Main and Solomon (1986) analysed over 200 S.S videotapes and proposed a 4th type

  - original classification is too simplistic

  - found a 4th attachment type = insecure-disorganised (type D) ; lack of consistent pattern of social behaviour + may appear fearful of attachment figure

  - suggests more research needs to be carried out in order to have a more complete explanation for attachment types
• Evaluation of Ainsworth - strength

  intervention strategies can be developed to tackle the disordered patterns of attachments between infant and caregiver

  - Circle of Security project (Cooper et al 2005) teaches caregivers to better understand their child's signals of distress

  - showed a decrease in caregivers classified as disordered (60% - 15%)

  - showed an increase of securely attached infants (32% - 40%)

  - shows S.S has important real life applications to help identify and tackle problematic attachments and teach caregivers how to attentively respond to their infants, leading to long lasting healthy effects that result in better outcomes for the child.

  
  

  observations have high reliability

  - inter-observer reliability is a measure of agreement among observers

  - Ainsworth et al --> 0.94 agreement between raters when observing exploratory behaviours

  - shows S.S had a good method and structure, clear, and there was high consistency between observers

  - shows this is a good method and explanation for attachment due to its high reliability
• Types of Attachment (Ainsworth)

  Secure - type B

  Insecure-avoidant - type A

  Insecure-resistant - type C
• Secure (type B) - 4 behaviours

  separation anxiety:

  distressed when mother leaves but often can be soothed

  
  

  stranger anxiety:

  avoidant of stranger when alone but friendly when mother is present (moderate)

  
  

  reunion behaviour:

  positive and happy when mother returns

  
  

  willingness to explore:

  will use mother as a safe base to explore their environment - checks with mother and will keep coming back to her
• Insecure-Avoidant (type A) - 4 behaviours

  separation anxiety:

  little/no distress when mother leaves - will carry on playing (indifferent)

  
  

  stranger anxiety:

  plays normally, is okay with the stranger present (low)

  
  

  reunion behaviour:

  indifferent to when the mother returns - avoids contact altogether

  
  

  willingness to explore:

  will explore independently
• Insecure-Resistant (type C) - 4 behaviours

  separation anxiety:

  extreme emotional distress when mother leaves

  
  

  stranger anxiety:

  avoids stranger - shows fear of stranger (high)

  
  

  reunion behaviour:

  seeks and rejects- approaches mother but may even push her away - not easily soothed

  
  

  willingness to explore:

  low willingness to explore - stays close to mum
• % of infants with secure attachment (Ainsworth) - og findings + british toddlers

  66% = OG

  (60-75% british toddlers)