Attachment

• AO1: Caregiver infant interactions

  • attachment= strong reciprocal emotional bond between an infant and a primary caregiver

  Maccoby- attachment characteristics:

  1. seeking proximity
  2. distress if separated
  3. pleasure when reunited
  4. secure base behaviour (general orientation)- infant generally aware of caregiver, makes frequent contact
• AO1: Caregiver infant interactions- reciprocity

  reciprocity:

  • must both contribute to the relationship and elicit a response from the other
  • Brazleton: found that children as young as two weeks can attempt to copy their caregiver
  • important in teaching the child how to communicate
  • allows better care of child as parent can detect cues to meet needs more effectively

  alert phases:

  • babies have phases where they signal they are ready for an interaction
  • mothers respond to this 2/3 of the time (Feldman)
  • becomes more frequent from 3 months (Feldman)

  active involvement:

  • involves parent paying close attention to cues- Brazleton describes as an "active role"
• AO1: Caregiver infant interactions- interactional synchrony

  caregiver and baby interact in a way so actions and emotions mirror the other

  • Metzoff and Moore observed this at 2 weeks old: adult displayed 1 of 3 facial expressions, baby's response was filmed and expression identified by independent observers
  • expressions and gestured mirrored

  importance:

  • Isabella Et Al: observed 30 babies and mothers, assessed degree of synchrony and quality of attachment
  • high levels of synchrony associated with better quality attachments
• AO3: Caregiver infant interactions

  controlled, filmed observations:

  • interactions filmed in a lab, distractions controlled
  • observations filmed, recorded and analysed later (in slow motion/ frame by frame)
  • unlikely to miss behaviours
  • multiple observers who watch multiple times= high interobserver reliability
  • babies unaware of observation= no demand characteristics

  difficultly observing babies:

  • hard to interpret babies behaviour, lack co-ordination and much of baby immobile
  • only small hand movements/ subtle expression changes
  • may not be conscious/ deliberately imitating behaviour, could just be a regular action
  • reduces internal validity

  social sensitivity:

  • believe they are raising their child wrong if not shown
• AO1: Stages of attachment identified by Schaffer 


  1. Asocial stage (birth-2 months):

  • observable behaviour towards humans and innate objects similar
  • babies tend to show preference for people they are familiar with- more easily comforted by them

  2. Indiscriminate attachment (2-7months)

  • more obvious and observable social behaviour
  • clear preference for humans over inanimate objects
  • accept comfort from anyone, but recognise company of familiar people
  • don't usually show separation/ stranger anxiety

  3. Specific attachment (7months+)

  • display attachment to one person, show stranger/ separation anxiety
  • primary attachment figure (offering most interaction)- 65% mother

  4. Multiple attachments (1year+)

  • secondary attachments with who they regularly spend time with
  • Schaffer and Emerson: 29% children form secondary attachment within month of primary
• AO1: Stages of attachment identified by Schaffer 


  Schaffer and Emerson Glasgow Study:

  • 60 working class babies
  • researchers visited babies and mothers in homes every month for first year and again at 18 months
  • interviewed parents about babies protests in everyday separations
  • assessed stranger anxiety

  findings:

  • 4 distinct attachment stages
  • 32 weeks: 60% formed specific attachment (57% mother, 3% father)
  • 36 weeks: 73% showed stranger anxiety
  • "sensitive responsiveness" more important than amount of time spent with baby, infants formed intense attachments to those who response quickly to needs
• AO3: Stages of attachment identified by Schaffer 


  high external validity:

  • observations conducted in participants own homes, performed by parents during ordinary activities
  • behaviour may have changed if researchers constantly present
  • however: using mothers as researchers may have bias in recording behaviour

  inflexible development/ nomothetic:

  • fixed stages at fixed ages

  culture bias
• AO1: Multiple attachments and the role of the father

  Schaffer and Emerson:

  • 75% infants formed attachment to father by 18months
  • 3% father first attachment figure
  • 27% joint first attachment figure

  distinctive role of the father:

  • Grossman Et Al: longitudinal study of babies attachments until teenage years
  • quality of fathers play related to quality of adolescent attachments
  • attachment to father less important than mothers
  • different role to mothers, less to do with emotional development, more involved with play and stimulation
• AO3: Multiple attachments and the role of the father

  economical implications:

  • practical and reassuring advice offered
  • homosexual parents informed they are capable of being a primary attachment figure
  • lesbian/ single parents don't worry about affected development
  • reduces anxiety

  confusion over research question:

  • lack of clarity over question being asked
  • some researchers attempt to understand the role of the father as a secondary attachment figure, some as primary
  • fathers can have distinct/ maternal role
  • difficult to answer, dependent on role discusses

  social sensitivity:

  • suggests children may be disadvantaged by certain child rearing practises
  • some may infer that the father is not important/ "just play"
• AO1: Animal studies of attachment- Lorenz

  Lorenz procedure:

  • randomly divide large clutch goose eggs
  • 1/2 hatched with mother goose in natural environment
  • 1/2 hatched in incubator where Lorenz was first moving thing

  findings:

  • incubator group followed Lorenz, control group followed mother, remained even when groups mixed
  • identified a critical period where attachment must occur, cannot occur outside of this (where imprinting occurs- innate readiness to develop a strong bond with the mother for protection)

  long lasting effects of imprinting:

  • birds that imprinted on a human would often display sexual behaviour towards humans
• AO1: Animal studies of attachment- Harlow

  Harlow procedure:

  • reared 16 baby monkeys with 2 wire model mothers
  • 1st condition: milk dispensed by plain wire model
  • 2nd condition: milk dispensed by cloth covered model

  findings:

  • baby monkeys cuddled cloth mother in preference to plain wire model
  • sought comfort from cloth model when frightened
  • contact comfort more important than food

  critical period:

  • introduction of mother figure within 90 days to form attachment/ irreversible damage

  long lasting effects:

  • no monkeys developed normal social behaviour
  • plain wire models= most dysfunctional: more aggressive, less social, bred less and unskilled at mating, neglected, attacked and even killed young
• AO3: Animal studies of attachment

  research challenging Lorenz:

  • Guiton Et Al
  • found that chickens imprinted on a yellow washing up gloves and would try mate with them as adults
  • eventually learned to prefer mating with other chickens
  • suggests impact of imprinting on mating behaviour not permanent

  impact for human attachments:

  • Harlow showed importance of contact comfort and quality of early relationships for later social developments
  • important range of applications e.g. social workers better understand neglect and abuse
  • however: difficulties generalising to humans

  social sensitivity:

  • long lasting implications for animals used
  • justified in terms of significant effect on human care?
• AO1: Explanations of attachment-learning theory

  • emphasises importance of attachment figure as a provider of food, relying on lab studies and animals
  • hunger acts as primary drive, attachment as secondary drive learnt by association ("cupboard love")

  classic conditioning:

  • UCS= food
  • UCR= pleasure when fed
  • NS= caregiver (associated with food)
  • CR= pleasure (love- attachment formed)

  operant conditioning:

  • crying leads to a response from the caregiver
  • crying reinforced as long as caregiver provides correct response
  • negative reinforcement for caregiver as crying stops
  • babies cry for comfort- caregiver responses with comforting "social suppressor" behaviour
• AO3: Explanations of attachment-learning theory

  animal studies as counter evidence:

  • Lorenz geese imprinted on first moving thing they saw, regardless of association with food
  • Harlows monkeys displayed attachment behaviour to cloth mother instead of wire one, with milk dispensed
  • factors other than association with food more important

  human studies as counter evidence:

  • Schaffer and Emerson: found babies tended to form main attachment to mother, regardless of feeding
  • Isabella Et Al found high levels of interactional synchrony predicted quality of attachment, not feeding

  nature/ nurture
• AO1: Explanations of attachment-Bowlby monotropic theory

  • attachment is an innate system, gives us evolutionary advantage: based on animal studies

  adaptive behaviour:

  • attachments give an adaptive advantage, more likely to survive as kept safe and warm, given food

  social releasers:

  • babies have social releasors= unlock innate tendency for adults to care for them (physical- typical baby face features/body proportions, behavioural-crying)

  critical period:

  • between birth to 2 1/2 years (ideally 0-1 years)- must form attachment or else damaged for life

  monotropy:

  • infants form one very special attachment with their mother
  • if mother isn't available, bonds with another ever-present adult form

  consequences- internal working model:

  • through monotropic attachment, the infant forms an internal working model
  • special mental schema for relationships, basis for all future relationships
• AO3: Explanations of attachment-Bowlby monotropic theory

  Harlow's monkeys as support:

  • critical period of 90 days to form attachment, if not irreversible damage is caused
  • supports innate tendency to attach, be kept safe and warm

  Schaffer and Emerson support:

  • showed sensitive responsiveness more important than food, so must be an innate drive
  • 97% formed specific attachment to mother= support monotropy

  nature/nurture
• AO1: Aimsworth strange situation

  behaviour to judge secure attachment:

  • proximity seeking
  • exploration and secure base behaviour
  • stranger anxiety
  • separation anxiety
  • response to reunion

  7 episodes:

  1. baby encouraged to explore
  2. stranger comes in, talks to caregiver, approaches baby
  3. caregiver leaves- stranger anxiety
  4. caregiver returns and stranger leaves
  5. caregiver leaves baby alone
  6. stranger returns
  7. caregiver returns, reunited with baby

  data from 106 middle class infants in a controlled observation collected by observes, recorded what child did every 15 seconds using behavioural categories, scored intensity from 1-7
• AO1: Aimsworth strange situation

  secure attachment:

  • 60-75%
  • explore happily, regularly return to caregiver
  • moderate separation distress and stranger anxiety
  • require and accept comfort when reunited

  insecure avoidant:

  • 20-25%
  • avoid social interaction and intimacy
  • little response to separation, don't seek proximity to caregiver on return
  • happy to explore independently

  insecure resistant:

  • 3%
  • seek greater proximity and explore less
  • high levels of stranger anxiety and separation distress
  • resist comfort when reunited
• AO3: Aimsworth strange situation

  high reliability

  • different observes watching same children generally agree on attachment (94% agree)
  • simple behavioural categories used- easy to observe and in controlled conditions
  • confidence that attachment type is independent of observer

  real world application

  • led to development of intervention strategies e.g. circle of security project (caregivers taught how to understand infant distress signals)
  • research can improve children lives

  culture bound

  • not the same meaning in collectivist cultures
  • japanese mothers rarely separated from children
• AO1: Cultural variations in attachment- Van Ijzenboorn

  Ijzenboorn and Kroonenburg:

  • conducted a meta analysis to look at proportions of attachment types across a range of countries, assess cultural variations and differences within countries
  • located 32 studies in 8 countries where strange situation was used (1990, 15 studies in US)

  findings:

  • wide variation between proportion of attachment types
  • secure attachment most common in all countries- 75% Britain, 50% China
  • rate of insecure resistant similar to Aimsworth in individualist, 11% higher in collectivist
  • variation within countries 1.5x greater than between
  • global patterns similar to US findings: secure attachment the norm, supports the view that it's an innate process
• AO3: Cultural variations in attachment- Van Ijzenboorn

  indigenous researchers:

  • most studies conducted by researcher from same country as participant
  • many potential problems of cross culture research avoided e.g. stereotypes
  • increases validity

  confounding variables:

  • studies not matched for methodology when compared in meta analysis
  • simple characteristics/ environmental variables may differ e.g. babies appear to explore more in small clustered rooms compared to large, bare rooms
  • may not tell us anything about cultural patterns of attachment

  imposed etic:

  • imposes a western text across all cultures, assumes it works in all cultures the same way
  • e.g. Germany, avoidant attachments considered independent not insecure
• AO1: Bowlby theory of maternal deprivation

  • deprivation=loss of emotional care normally provided by primary caregiver
  • separation= not in presence of caregiver
  • privation= lack opportunity to form bond initially

  value of maternal care:

  • children need a warm, intimate and continuous relationship with their mother to maintain normal mental health

  critical period:

  • psychological damage inventible if deprivation occurs within critical period of 2 1/2 years, continuing risk up to 5 years

  long term consequences:

  • intellectual development- abnormally low IQ
  • emotional development- affectionless psychopaths (no guilt/ strong emotions, prevents fulfilling relationships)
  • deprivation dwarfism- physically underdeveloped
  • anaclitic depression- appetite loss, impaired development, insomnia
• AO3: Bowlby theory of maternal deprivation

  research support- 44 Juvenile thieves:

  • compared 44 juvenile thieves with 44 non delinquent children, who attended a clinic where he worked
  • interviewed children and families about background, assessed if they were affectionless psychopaths
  • 14/44 thieves affectionless psychopaths
  • 12/14 had prolonged separation from mothers, compared to 5 of the remaining 30 thieves and 2 of the control
  • separation in early life has prolonged ill effects

  flawed evidence:

  • based on poor evidence- Bowlby conducted interviews so subject to bias, as knew in advance who he expected to be affectionless psychopaths
  • only correlational results

  psychic determinism
• AO1: Effects of institutionalisation- Romanian orphan studies

  Rutter- English and Romanian adoption study:

  • 165 Romanian orphans adopted in Britain (test what extent good care can makeup for poor institutionalised experience)
  • physical, cognitive and emotional developments assessed at 4,6,11,15 years old
  • 52 british children adopted around the same time as control

  findings:

  • disinhibited attachment for those adopted after 6 month, the later they were adopted the longer this lasted= no stranger anxiety, over friendly (due to multiple carers)
  • intellectual disability= when first arriving in UK, 1/2 showed signs of mental retardation- at 11 years, showed different rates of recovery, related to adoption age

  -before 6 months=102 IQ

  -6 months-1 year= 86 IQ

  -after 2 years= 72 IQ

  • Beckett Et Al: remained after 2 years

  attachment types (using SS)

  • 74% control group secure, 19% institutional
  • 20% control disinhibited, 44% institutional
• AO3: Effects of institutionalisation- Romanian orphan studies

  real world application:

  • can improve conditions for those growing up outside traditional family homes
  • improved understanding of institutionalised effects so can better prevent them
  • improvements in care e.g. avoid large numbers of caregivers
  • more effort made to have children fostered/ adopted instead of in care
  • institutionalised children have more chance to develop normal attachments

  fewer confounding variables:

  • many children in orphan studies experienced varying degrees of neglect, trauma, physical abuse
  • children in Romanian studies all handed over by loving parents who couldn't afford to keep them, so results less confounded by other negative early experiences
  • increased internal validity
  • however: only show effects of poor institutional care not all

  social sensitivity:

  • shows poor development of adopted children
  • results published while children still growing up
• AO1: The influence of early attachment on childhood and adult relationships

  internal working model:

  • form templates for future relationships based on relationships with primary attachment figure
  • quality of primary attachment powerfully affects later relationships
  • assume primary relationship is how all relationships are e.g. secure- seek functional relationships to behave functionally in

  childhood:

  • attachment type associated with quality of peer relationship
  • secure= best quality, insecure= difficulties
  • secure= less likely to be involved in bullying
  • avoidant= more likely victims of bullying
  • resistant=likely bullies

  adulthood:

  • affects ability to parent, based on internal working model
  • Bailey Et Al: 99 mothers assessed using SS- majority had same attachment to own babies as own mothers
• AO3: The influence of early attachment on childhood and adult relationships

  Hazan and Shaver Love Quiz:

  • 620 replies to love quiz
  • section 1 current relationships, section 2 general love experiences, section 3 assess attachment type
  • 56% secure= good, balanced, long-lasting relationships, positive and trusting
  • 25% insecure avoidant= fear of closeness and intimacy, love not needed to be happy
  • 19% insecure resistant= love as a compulsive commitment, constantly worried about partners love and fear abandonment
  • patterns of early attachments reflected in romantic relationships

  low validity- retrospective:

  • most research on link between early attachment and later development not longitudinal
  • instead, researchers ask adults about past relationships with parents
  • relies on honesty and accuracy
  • most studies confounded so meaningless

  psychic determinism:

  • future relationships based solely on past relationships -secure can be unhealthy