Attachment

• Reciprocity and the research into it. AO1

  Reciprocity - responding to each others signals and elicits a response from the other

  
  

  FELDMAN & EIDELMAN (2007): Suggests that babies have periodic 'alert phases' in which they're ready for a spell of interaction. Mothers and babies pay close attention to each other's verbal signals and facial expressions so mothers pick up on 'alert phases'.

  
  

  BRAZELTON et al (1975): Mother and baby take turns initiating interactions, and this rhythm may be an important precursor for later communication.
• Interactional synchrony and the research into it. AO1

  Interactional synchrony - Caregiver and baby reflect both the actions and emotions of the other and this as a co-ordinated (synchronised) way.

  
  

  METLEZOFF & MOORE (1977): An adult model displayed 3 facial expressions (a dummy was placed into the kids mouth to prevent a response). After dummy was removed, kids expressions were filmed. There was a association in the infant's behaviour and adult model. The infants imitated specific behaviour and hand gestures. In a later study, they found this synchrony in 3-day old babies which suggests that the behaviour is innate.

  
  

  ISABELLA ET AL (1989): Observed 30 babies and mothers together and assessed the level of synchrony and quality of mother-baby attachment. High levels of synchrony were associated with better attachments.
• Research into infant-caregiver interaction AO3

  Limitation: What is observed is merely hand movements or changes in expression. This may not be deliberate. Low interal validity

  
  

  Strength: ABRAVANEL & DEYONG (1991) - Aged 5-12 months made little response to objects stimulating movement. This suggests a specific social response to humans and that interaction is two way.

  
  

  Strength (ish): ISABELLA ET AL (1989) and HEIMANN (1989) - Found that stronger synchrony and imitation have stronger attachments in future. Suggests individual differences between infants, but its unclear whether this is cause or effect.

  
  

  (not sure): MURRAY & TREVARTHEN (1985): When mothers didn't react/ show reciprocity to baby, baby showed distress which suggests that the baby actively wants a response, and suggests that synchrony and reciprocity are innate.
• Role of the father AO1

  SCHAFFER AND EMERSON (1964): Only 3% of infants' first attachment was the father. 27% of infants' father was joint first. 75% were attached by 18 months old. Fathers are less likely to be the primary attachment figure as they spend less time together.

  
  

  GROSSMAN (2002): babies attachment to mothers but not fathers related to attachment in adolescence. Suggests that fathers' attachment is less important.

  ->However, did find that quality of play was correlated with quality of attachment

  
  

  FIELD (1978): Primary caregiver fathers spend more time smiling, imitating and holding babies.
• Role of the father AO3

  Supports: GEIGER (1996) - Research consistently found fathers to be more playful, physically active and provide more challenging situations. This supports the idea that mothers and fathers have different roles.

  
  

  Opposing: MACCALLUM & GOLOMBOK - Found that children of same sex or single sex parent families develop no differently. This suggests that the 'role of the father' can be taken by others.

  
  

  Impacts of gender roles - Women have higher oestrogen and have been 'trained' by society to be the primary caregiver. Men generally fall into secondary attachment as they have less opportunities to be primary, but could be!
• Schaffer's stages of attachment AO1

  SCHAFFER AND EMERSON (1964): 60 babies from Glasgow (mostly from working class families). Researchers visited babies and mothers every month for a year, then at 18 months. Asked mothers about kinds of anxiety shown.

  1. Asocial(first few weeks) babies prefer humans to non-humans but don't prefer specific humans

  2. Indiscriminate(2-7 months) recognise & prefer familiar company but don't have stranger or separation anxiety

  3. Specific (from roughly 7 months) attachment to one person (primary attachment figure!) Stranger and separation anxiety kick in.

  4. Multiple (shortly after step 3) multiple attachments (secondary attachments)
• Schaffer's stages of attachment AO3


  Strength: Methodology - study was carried out longitudinally, meaning the same children were used throughout. This reduces impacts of EVs because they will be carried through the whole study.

  
  

  Strength and limitation: methodology - study was carried out in the home, with parents carrying it out, meaning it has high external validity (ecological and mundane realism) however parents gave the data themselves (self report method) so may have different standards and may do demand characteristics (screw you and please you)
• Lorenz - Animal studies of attachment AO1 and AO3

  LORENZ (1935): A clutch of gosling eggs was split in 2, half going to the mother and half going to Lorenz. When the goslings hatched the first thing they saw was Lorenz and imprinted on him, following him around. They showed no attachment to their mother. The process of imprinting is limited to the critical period (first 2 days). Lorenz thought that the impact of imprinting on mating was permanent (the geese wanted to mate with things similar to what they imprinted on)

  
  

  Limitation: Mammalian mothers show more emotional attachment to young than birds, suggesting their attachment is more complicated. Bird attachment can't be generalised to us.

  
  

  Limitation: GUITON ET AL - found that chickens who imprinted on yellow washing up gloves would try to mate with them as adults but that after spending more time with their own species, were able to engage in normal sexual behaviour. This reduces internal validity for Lorenz, as he thought sexual impacts of imprinting was permanent.
• Animal studies of attachment AO1

  HARLOW (1969): Two wire 'mothers' for baby monkeys. One had milk and the other was made with soft cloth. The monkeys spent 23 1/2 hours on the cloth 'mother' and went to this 'mother' when frightened. This suggests infants don't just develop an attachment to the person who feeds them, but also offers contact comfort. These monkeys grew up to be abnormal. (the critical period was 3 months.)

  
  

  Limitation: methodology - The two mothers also had very different heads. This is an EV as its possible that the monkeys preferred the cloth mother because the head was more similar to a monkey.

  
  

  Cost - benefit: the baby monkeys were separated from their mothers and subject to distressing situations (purposefully frightened). However the study helped social workers understand the risk factors of child neglect, helped parents understand the importance of contact comfort, and helped young mothers who were raised in neglect.
• Explanations of attachment: Learning Theory: Classical conditioning AO1

  Classical conditioning: LEarning to associate 2 stimuli together so that we begin to respond to one in the same way as the other.

  
  

  FOOD -> PLEASURE

  (Unconditioned stimulus) -> (unconditioned response)

  
  

  CAREGIVER (neutral stimulus) -> NO RESPONSE

  
  

  FOOD AND CAREGIVER -> PLEASURE

  (unconditioned and neutral stimulus) -> (unconditioned response)

  
  

  CAREGIVER -> PLEASURE

  (conditioned stimulus) -> (conditioned response)
• Explamnations of attachment: Learning Theory: Operant conditioning AO1

  Learning from the consequences of behaviour. Pleasant consequence -> more likely to be repeated. Unpleasant consequence -> unlikely to be repeated.

  e.g. baby cries and gets fed. Baby learns to keep crying, caregiver learns to keep feeding. Baby gets positive reinforcement, caregiver gets negative reinforcement. (two way process)
• Evaluation of Learning Theory (classical and operant conditioning)

  Opposing: Research into infant-caregiver interaction showed that sensitivity (reciprocity and interactional synchrony) creates the best attachment, suggesting that association to food doesn't matter as much.

  
  

  Opposing: HARLOW's (1969) monkeys spent 23 1/2 hours on the cloth mother rather than the wire mother that dispensed milk. This suggests that comfort is more important than food.

  
  

  Opposing: SCHAFFER AND EMERSON (1964): Babies developed a primary attachment to mothers, even though they were fed by carers. Goes against the idea that attachment = mother and food

  
  

  Opposing: BOWLBY's theory explains WHY attachments form. Learning theory only explains HOW they might form. Bowlby explains foundations of attachment, so is more reliable and valid.
• Explanation of attachment: Bowlby's Monotropic Theory AO1

  BOWLBY suggests that attachment is a survival function. Less attachment = less protection from adults. Social releasers are important in this. This shows why it's important that attachment is two-way. Learning theorists said that food is the important factor, whereas Bowlby says that sensitivity and comfort is.

  
  

  Sensitive period: 3-6 months, when babies are most likely to form attachments.

  Critical period: 0-30 months, when a baby can form attachments.

  Monotropy: Relationship between primary caregiver and baby is significant to emotional development

  Social releasers: Behaviours from baby that elicit caregiving e.g. smiling, babyface

  Internal working model: Template of the world to predict environment. Primary caregiver creates this for future relationships (example of monotropy)

  Continuity hypothesis: Stronger, more secure attachments as babies result in more emotionally secure and competent adults.
• Evaluation of Bowlby's monotropic theory AO3

  Support: BAILEY ET AL - strength of 99 babies and their mothers' attachment was researched. The mother's primary attachment was also researched. Results showed that if mother's primary attachment was poor, their attachment with their baby was also poor. This supports the internal working model and continuity hypothesis as it suggests that attachments later in life are based on initial attachment.

  Support: HAZAN AND SHAVER- found strong links between security of attachment as children and adult attachment (trusting, length of relationship) this supports the internal working model and continuity hypothesis.
• Ainsworth's Strange Situation AO1

  Aim: systematically test the nature of attachment to see how infants behaved in mild conditions of stress.

  Controlled observation: time sampling of 15 seconds, rated behaviour from 1-7, one way mirror used so psychologists could observe without baby being aware of them.

  During the experiment, there were 6 steps.

  1. mother and baby in room alone

  2. stranger walks into room and starts interacting with baby

  3. mother leaves the room, stranger tries to comfort baby

  4. mother returns and stranger leaves

  5. mother leaves again

  6. mother returns

  3 types of attachment: secure (type B) (66% of babies), insecure avoidant (type A) (22% of babies), Insecure resistant (type C) (12% of babies).

  
  

  B: 1. explores happily, regularly going back to caregiver (secure base), soothed somewhat easily for stranger and separation anxiety, enthusiastic reunion, sensitive and cooperative mother

  A: Explores freely and doesn't go back to caregiver (no secure base), little/ no reaction to stranger and separation, little/ no effort in reunion, unresponsive mother

  C: Less exploration, seeks more proximity from mother, high stranger and separation anxiety, little/ no effort in reunion, preoccupied mother
• Evaluation of Ainsworth's Strange Situation AO3

  Limitation: MAIN AND SOLOMON (1986) - re-analysed Ainsworth's data and found that some children didn't fit into any category. Instead they had disorganised attachment (type D). This suggests that Ainsworth's findings are oversimplified

  
  

  Strength: BICK ET AL (2012) - Looked at inter-rater reliability of a team of trained Strange Situation observers and found 94% agreement. Indicates high inter-rater reliability, suggesting reliable control conditions and behaviour categories

  
  

  Limitation: GROSSMAN AND GROSSMAN (1990) - found German infants much more likely to be insecurely attached (due to distance in child-rearing practices). The Strange Situation doesn't take into account variations in culture.

  
  

  Strength: CIRCLE OF SECURITY PROJECT (2005) - Taught caregivers to better understand their infant's distress and anxiety. This decreased disordered caregivers (60% to 15%) and increased secure attachment (32% to 40%) showing real life situations where the Strange Situation helps/ works, increasing reliability.
• Studies of cultural variation of attachment A01

  VAN IJZENDOORN & KROONENBERG (1988): Looked at proportions of secure, insecure-avoidant and insecure-resistant attachments across 8 countries, and within countries. Used the strange situation. 32 studies were used and these were meta-analysed.

  Findings: In all countries secure attachments were the most common, but it varied from 75% in the UK to 50% in China. In individualist cultures rates of I-R were all under 14%, but for collectivist countries (China, Israel and Japan) these rates were above 25%. I-A rates were reduced in collectivist countries. Germany had the highest I-A rates. Variations between results of studies within the same country (intra) were greater than variations between countries (inter).

  GROSSMAN & GROSSMAN (1991): Found that german child-rearing practices some interpersonal distance, in order to try to make them independent.

  TAKAHASHI (1990): 60 middle class japanese infants. Found similar results to Ainsworth, in terms of secure attachment BUT much higher insecure-resistant and lower insecure-avoidant. (particularly distressed on being left alone).

  
• Evaluation of cultural differences of attachment A03 ??

  Support: Ijzendoorn and Kroonenberg methodology - Had a very large sample size, 2000 children. This means the meta-analysis has higher credibility and the results may be representative.

  
  

  Limitation: Unrepresentative - Ijzendoorn and Sagi found that distribution of attachment was similar in Tokyo to western results but very different in rural areas (more insecure - resistant). Acts as a confounding variable and reduces internal validity.

  
  

  Limitation: Kagan et al - Suggests that attachment type is more related to temperament, so SS may not be measuring it at all! Means cultural variation may not be accurate if the SS isn't accurate.

  
  

  Opposing: Cultural bias - Imposed etic, meaning applying a theory from one culture to another culture. May be the case for Ainsworth, an anglo-american psychologist. e.g. German results where kids are raised to be independent. Therefore SS may not have the same meanings in different cultures.
• Bowlby's theory of maternal deprivation (including Bowlby's 44 thieves) A01

  The emotional and intellectual consequences of separation between a child and their mother or caregiver. Separation is the child not being in the presence of their primary attachment, and only becomes a problem if the child is deprived of emotional care. Maternal depravation caused affectionless psychopathy - inexperience to feel guilt or strong emotions towards others. Prevents a person developing fulfilling relationships. Bowlby saw the first 2.5 years as the baby's critical period for psychological development. If the child is deprived in this time, he said psychological damage was inevitable.

  
  

  Bowlby's 44 thieves: to examine the link between affectionless psychopathy and maternal deprivation, 44 teenage criminals accused of stealing were assessed for affectionless psychopathy. Their families were interviewed to find out whether they had prolonged early separation from their mothers. 14 had affectionless psychopathy and 12 of these 14 had experienced prolonged separation. Conclusion that prolonged separation causes affectionless psych.
• Evaluation of Bowlby's theory of maternal deprivation A03

  Limitation: LEWIS (1954) - Partially replaced the 44 thieves study with 500 teenagers. She found no link between prolonged separation and criminality. This has a much larger sample size than Bowlby's so has higher internal validity.

  
  

  Strength: Real World Application: Makes the real world try to prevent prolonged separation much more than before, such as in hospitals where parents can now stay over with their children.

  
  

  Limitation: Methodology - Bowlby carried all of the assessments and interviews out himself, so he new the aims and what he was looking for, creating behaviour bias. Also, those children may be more deprived than just emotional (confounding variables) so can't conclude cause and effect.

  
  

  Supports: BIFULCO ET AL: studied women who had prolonged separation for over a year, and found 25% experienced anxiety or depression compared to 15% with no separation. However there were still 75% who haven't experienced anxiety or depression!
• Research into the effects of institutionalisation A01

  An institution is a place like a hospital or orphanage where people live for an extended period. In these places there are often low levels of emotional care. In Romania, there were huge numbers pf 'unwanted' children, who went to orphanages and not taken care of well. Often, these children weren't able to attach to anyone. This resulted in DISINHIBITED ATTACHMENT - being equally affectionate towards familiar people and strangers. RUTTER says this is a result of having many carers. These children often also suffered from MENTAL RETARDATION. If adopted before 6 months they were able to catch up.

  
  

  RUTTER ET AL (2011): Longitudinal study. 165 Romanian Orphans who were adopted by English families were 'followed' and assessed aged 4, 6, 11, 15 and 22-25. Findings found the main variation was based on when children were adopted. If adopted before 6 months old, they were able to catch up and rarely showed: symptoms of those adopted after 6 months often included lower IQ's (mental retardation) and Disinhibited attachment.

  
  

  ZEANAH ET AL (2005): Assessed 95 Romanian orphans who had spent almost all of their lives in institutions, compared to a control group of 50 children who'd never been in institutions. Assessed the attachment type (using strange situation) and whether they fit a description of disinhibited attachment (using self report from carers). Findings showed 74% of control group being securely attached compared to 19% of the Romanian orphans, and less than 20% of the control group fitting the description of type-D compared to 44% of the orphans.
• Evaluation of research into the effects of institutionalisation A03

  Limitation: The romanian orphans faced more than just emotional deprivation. They suffered poor physical conditions, cognitive stimulation and often poor subsequent care. Therefore we can't prove cause and effect. Lack of control!

  
  

  Limitation: Issues with methodology as they weren't randomly assigned conditions. This means that the children who were adopted earlier may have been the more sociable ones, which could be a confounding variable. However the Bucharest Early Intervention project randomly allocated adoption, but this is unethical as it may deprive children of love.

  
  

  Limitation: the longitudinal study wasn't long enough so we couldn't see the full long term effects of these conditions.

  
  

  Strength: With what we've learny about institutionalisation , we can avoid having large numbers of carers, instead assigning children 'key workers' so they can form primary attachments. Adoption methods have changed so that the baby moves to adoptive parents ASAP to form secure attachments to the parents. This shows how beneficial it is.
• Implications of attachment A01

  IWM: our mental representation of the world. This model effects our future relationships because it carries our perception of relationships. Children with a good early experience of attachment behave functionally within relationships and seek them out. Those who had bad early experience of attachment will struggle to form relationships, and may not behave appropriately in them.

  
  

  Friendships: Attachment is associated with the quality of peer relationships in childhood. Insecurely attached babies may later have friendship difficulties. Secure children are unlikely to be involved in bullying. Avoidant children are likely to be victims, and resistant children the bullies.

  
  

  Romantic relationships: THE LOVE QUIZ (1987) = By HAZEN AND SHAVER. Analysed 620 replies of a 'love quiz' in a local newspaper. The quiz had 3 sections. Current/ most important relationship, general love experience (no. of partners) and family/ attachment type. 56% securely attached and were most likely to have healthy relationships. 25% avoidant - jealousy and fear of intimacy.

  
  

  Parenting: People tend to base their parenting style on their IWM so attachment types are passed through generations. BAILEY ET AL 2007 considered 99 mothers and babies. Through strange situation, most had the same attachment type.
• Evaluation of Implications of attachment A03

  Both: MCCARTHY studied 40 women and found those with secure attachments had better, healthier relationships. However ZIMMERMAN assessed attachment, with adolescent-parent relationships and found very little relationship. MCCARTHY supports IWM and ZIMMERMAN opposes it.

  
  

  Limitation: Plenty of research found those who didn't have secure attachment now having happy, healthy relationships. Suggests that experiences aren't as deterministic as they seem. Opposes the IWM and suggests it's oversimplified.

  
  

  Limitation: Methodology - research uses interviews, questionnaires and retrospective data. Past memories may not be as accurate, and self report relies on honesty and a realistic view of a relationship. This decreases the validity as the data may not be accurate.

  
  

  Limitation: The research is trying to find a link between attachment and future relationships, so it's correlational instead of an experiment. Therefore IV has not been manipulated, and we can't prove cause and effect. Mother's parenting style or baby's temperament may be a third factor.
• Schaffer and Emerson, Stages of Attachment (A03)

  Limitation: Sample - 1960s Glasgow is very ungeneralisable, even to 1960s Edinburgh, especially since most of the families studied were working class. Therefore it lacks population and historical validity.

  Limitation: cultural differences SAGI (1994) - compared attachments in communal environments and individual, family based communities.

  Closeness of attachment was almost twice as common in family based arrangements.

  -> Stages cannot be applied to collectivist cultures