ATTACHMENT

• CAREGIVER-INFANT INTERACTIONS?

  AO1

  • reciprocity (mutual, strengthen)
  • interactional synchrony (Condon + Sandler, imitating, rhythm, mutual)
  • Meltzoff + Moore (tongue, lip, mouth, hand)
  • earliest at 92 minutes

  AO3

  + 0.92 inter-observer reliability

  + CROTWELL ET AL (10 minute PCIT) but socially sensitive research

  + no social desirability but interpret, subtle, immobile so lack internal validity

  -. FELDMAN (names) but ISABELLA ET AL (predicts)
• STAGES OF ATTACHMENT?

  AO1:

  • Schaffer + Emerson
  • asocial (0 - 6 weeks, reciprocity, interactional synchrony)
  • indiscriminate (6 weeks - 7 months)
  • discriminate (7 - 10 months, anxiety)
  • multiple attachments (10 months +)
  • 6 - 8 months 50% specific, 30% multiple/ 10 months 50% multiple/ 18 months 80% multiple

  AO3:

  + high ecological validity but lacks temporal validity (1960s)

  -. lacks population validity (socioeconomic/ cultural differences)

  + no participant variables but self-reports (lacks internal validity)
• ROLE OF FATHER?

  AO1:

  BOWLBY: women better caregivers (sensitive, biological)

  + SCHAFFER + EMERSON (mothers likely, 75% father at 18 months)

  PLAYMATE: physical activity, problem-solving

  + GROSSMAN (less influential except play)

  + LAMB (quality time > amount)

  SENSITIVE RESPONSIVENESS

  + adopt maternal role

  + role depends on gender

  + sensitivity > involvement

  AO3:

  + ANG (teacher, predictive validity)

  -. BIBLARZ + STACEY (temporal validity)
• ANIMAL STUDIES?

  HARLOW (rhesus monkeys)

  + RWA: isolation, neglect

  -. extrapolation (language)

  -. unethical but outweighed

  LORENZ (goslings)

  + GUITON (chicks) but shorter lasting

  + support for evolutionary theory (BOWLBY)

  -. extrapolation
• LEARNING THEORY?

  AO1:

  • learned not innate
  • classical/ operant conditioning
  • caregiver and infant

  AO3:

  + Behaviourist (scientific)

  -. HARLOW (food not primary) but extrapolation

  -. SCHAFFER + EMERSON (half attached to non-feeders) but lacks temporal validity

  -. environmental determinism
• MONOTROPIC ATTACHMENT?

  AO1:

  • monotropic, adaptive, social releasers, internal working model, critical period
  • continuity hypothesis

  AO3:

  + HARLOW (long-lasting)

  + SCHAFFER + EMERSON (primary first) but 30%

  -. underestimates role of father, alpha bias

  -. KOLUCHOVA (not permanent) but aunt and each other
• STRANGE SITUATION?

  AO1:

  • Ainsworth
  • proximity seeking, reunion behaviour, exploration and secure base, stranger anxiety, separation anxiety
  • 66% secure, 22% insecure avoidant, 12% insecure resistant

  AO3:

  + BICK (94% agreement)

  + controlled, standardised, obvious but overt so social desirability

  + high predictive validity (MCCORMICK, school, bullying/ WARD, worst)

  -. KAGAN (genetic anxiety)

  -. TAKAHASHI (cultural bias)

  -. MAIN + SOLOMON (disorganised)
• CULTURAL VARIATIONS?

  AO1:

  • Van IJZendoorn + Kroonenberg
  • meta-analysis, 32, 8
  • secure: UK, insecure avoidant: Germany, insecure resistant: Israel + Japan
  • intracultural variations 1.5 bigger than intercultural variations

  AO3:

  + high population validity (large sample size)

  -. TAKAHASHI (strange situation, ethnocentric, overt)

  + meta-analysis (standardised, easily replicated) but different researchers
• MATERNAL DEPRIVATION?

  AO1:

  • Bowlby
  • lack of internal working model, critical period
  • affectionless psychopathy, juvenile delinquency, impaired intelligence
  • continuity hypothesis, irreversible

  AO3:

  + BOWLBY (44 thieves, 40%, 4% separation, 70%, 7% affectionless psychopathy)

  + RWA: therapy, visiting hours, orphanages

  + HARLOW (hostile)

  -. RUTTER (deprivation vs privation)

  -. KOLUCHOVA (resistance)

  -. LEWIS (no link in separation and disturbed behaviour, but disturbed had higher separation frequency)
• ROMANIAN ORPHAN STUDIES/ INSTITUTIONALISATION?

  EFFECTS

  • disinhibited, poor intellectual development, disorganised, RAD, delayed language/ physical development, quasi-autism, impaired adult relationships, adopt norms via deindividuation

  + RUTTER (overcome)

  -. environmental determinism

  RUTTER

  • longitudinal, natural experiment
  • 105 orphans adopted, 52 control group
  • IQ, attachment
  • correlations (IQ and age, age and disinhibited attachment)
  • 26% 6 years, 9% 6 months, 4% control group
  • 6 years good recovery, 11 years some still had

  + RWA: adoption, key workers

  + generalisable, large sample (extremely poor conditions)

  -. no random allocation, disabled from birth

  ZEANAH (BEIP)

  • natural + field experiment, strange situation
  • 95 institutionalised, 50 control group
  • secure: 20%, 75%
  • disinhibited: 44%, 20%
  • reactive attachment disorder: 80%

  + RWA: adoption, key workers

  -. random allocation unethical
• ADULT RELATIONSHIPS?

  AO1:

  • Bowlby, internal working model
  • Main: adult attachment interview (secure, insecure dismissing, insecure preoccupied, insecure unresolved)
  • Smith: 196, 7-11, London questionnaire (bullying)
  • Hazaan + Shaver: 620, 14-42 (relationships)
  • Bailey: 99, AAI, observed, strange situation (autonomous, dismissing - avoidant, preoccupied - resistant, correlation)

  AO3:

  -. deterministic -> KOLUCHOVA

  -. internal validity (self-reports, retrospective)