4.1.3 - Attachment

• Caregiver infant interactions -  AO1

  Attachment is a close two-way emotional bond between two individuals in which each sees the other as essential for their own emotional security

  • Reciprocity- one person responds to the other and elicits a response from them.                STUDY: Tronick still face experiment-babies became distressed and would try to tempt their mother into interaction. 

  •Interactional synchrony- mirroring, emotions and their facial or body movements. Both moving in the same or similar pattern (in sync).
• Caregiver infant interactions -  AO1

  STUDY: Meltzoff and Moore (1977) controlled observation of 12-21 day-old babies found an association between gesture the adult had displayed and the action of the baby 

  STUDY: Isabella- observed 30 mothers and infants, high levels of synchrony were associated with better quality attachment (e.g. emotional intensity of relationship).
• Caregiver infant interactions -  AO3

  (+) Controlled,standardise procedure, filmed, often from multiple angles-replicable, high internal validity

  (-) Hard to know what is happening observing infants merely changes in expression C.A. dummy was placed in the infant’s mouth during the initial display to prevent any response
• Caregiver infant interactions -  AO3

  (-) Socially sensitive, children may be disadvantaged by particular child-rearing practices 

  (-) Observations do not tell us their purpose, just what is going on-describes behaviours that occur at the same time. C.A. research shows they have links to positive outcomes e.g. Isabella
• Role of the father - AO1

  Biological factors- lack of oestrogen, men unable to form a close attachment

  • Social factorscultural expectations and sex stereotypes affect male behaviour
• Role of the father - AO1

  •Schaffer and Emerson (1964) Primary attachment usually with the mother, 27% of cases 

  both, and 3% the father only. In 75 % of infants, an attachment was formed with the father by 18 months (secondary attachment). 
• Role of the father - AO3

  (-/+) Researchers are interested in different research questions (so provides different results) 

  (-/+ ) Research has economic implications (mothers staying home or going to work) and may have impacted laws on shared parental leave in the UK

  (-)Social bias prevents objective observation e.g. stereotypes that the father should be a secondary attachment figure/ are more playful 
• Role of the father - AO3

  (-) Research lacks temporal validity, changes in the role of the father e.g. rise of the stay at home father 

  (-) Numerous factors affect the father’s role, culture, relationship status, age generalisations about a distinct role is difficult. Psychologists cannot isolate and investigate one factor at a time
• Schaffer’s stages - AO1

  STUDY: Schaffer and Emerson (1964) longitudinal study of 60 Glaswegian babies. Observations, interviews and diaries. Between 25 and 32 weeks about 50% showed signs of separation anxiety towards a particular adult (usually the mother – specific (primary) attachment). By the age of 40 weeks, 80% of the babies had a specific attachment and almost 30% displayed multiple attachments

   Attachments were more likely to form to those showing sensitive responsiveness
• Schaffer’s stages - AO1

  Asocial stage- similar response to humans and objects

  0-6 weeks

  Indiscriminate attachment- preference for people, but behave the same to them all

  6 weeks- 6months

  Discriminate (specific) attachment-

  7 months +

  Multiple attachments-

  1 year +
• Schaffer’s stages - AO3

  (+) Variety of methods, triangulation-interviews, diaries observation to improve validity

  (+) Ecological validity- studied at home 

  (-) Biased sample, scottish and mostly working class
• Schaffer’s stages - AO3

  (-) Timing of multiple attachments is conflicting- e.g. collectivist cultures from the outset

  (-) How multiple attachment is assessed-distress may not indicate true attachment for all types of attachment. Ainsworth used more measures 
• Animal studies of attachment - AO1

  Lorenz’s geese imprinting- The incubator group followed Lorenz everywhere and became distressed if they were separated from him. The control group followed the mother. The bonds proved to be irreversible.
• Animal studies of attachment - AO1


  Sexual imprinting-the birds would choose to mate with objects similar to their imprinted object.

  Harlow’s monkeys- importance of contact comfort. Both groups of monkeys spent more time with the cloth mother (even if she had no milk). As adults, the privated monkeys suffered severe social and emotional consequences, attacked and sometimes killed their own offspring  
• Animal studies of attachment - AO3

  (+) Guiton, chickens imprinted on yellow washing up gloves C.A. with experience they learned to mate with their own kind

  (+) Schaffer and Emerson-primary attachment for 39% of babies in their study was not to the person who provided their physical care, including feeding
• Animal studies of attachment - AO3

  (-) Difficult to generalise, mammalian attachment system show more emotional attachment

  (-) Ethics, separating monkeys and causing distress
• Learning theory of attachment -AO1

  Classical Conditioning- mother (NS) becomes associated with food (UCS), after repeated pairings the mother (CS) produces the response of pleasure (CR).

  Operant conditioning- Crying leads to a response from the caregiver (e.g. feeding) positive reinforcement. Caregiver receives negative reinforcement because the crying stops.
• Learning theory of attachment -AO1

  Drive reduction- hunger drive (primary drive) is reduced by feeding (primary reinforcer) mother becomes associated with the satisfaction of primary drive (secondary reinforcer) becoming a source of reward
• Learning theory of attachment -AO3

  (+ )Based on scientific principles of operant and classical condition, empirical evidence- has face validity (explains why mothers are usually the primary attachment figure).

  (+)  SLT made a contribution- observation and imitation of affectionate behaviour, this is also reinforced-less reductionist explanation
• Learning theory of attachment -AO3

  (-) Lorenz and Harlow- counterevidence, attachment is innate/not based on food

  (-) Reductionist, Bowlby’s research shows attachment is innate has an evolutionary function
• Bowlby’s Monotropic theory  - AO1

  A -adaptive

  S - Social releasers

  C - Critical period 2.5y

  M - Monotropy

  I - IWM

  
• Bowlby’s Monotropic theory -AO3

  (+)  Application to daycare, importance of one keyworker to help maintain emotional bond from the monotropic attachment 

  (+)  Research support for IWM- Bailey, Hazen and Shaver, Harlow and Lorenz

  (+)  Lorenz supports monotropy and innate nature of attachment 

  (+) Tronick’s still face exp supports value and existence of social releasers
• Bowlby’s Monotropic theory -AO3

  (-) Monotropy socially sensitive- mothers feeling guilt and not returning to work 

  (-) Monotropy- ethnocentric. Collectivist cultures may form multiple special bonds from the outset

  (+/-) Comparison to Learning theory
• Securely attached (Type B)


   

  70%

  Child is happy to explore but seeks proximity with the caregiver 

  Shows moderate stranger and separation anxiety 

  Requires and accepts comfort from caregiver on reunion
• Insecure-avoidant (Type A)


   

  15%

  Explores freely, but does not seek proximity or show secure base behaviour.

  Shows little/no separation and stranger anxiety

  Requires no comfort at the reunion stage  

   
• Insecure resistant (Type C)


   15%

  Child explores less and seeks greater proximity 

  Shows huge stranger and separation anxiety

  Resists comfort when reunited with caregiver  
• Ainsworth’s Strange Situation -Method

  1.Beginning: Observer introduces the child and caregiver to the unfamiliar room, then leaves.

  2.The child is encouraged to explore by the caregiver

  3. Stranger enters, talks to caregiver and tries to interact with the child 

  4. Caregiver leaves the child and stranger together 

  5. Caregiver returns, stranger leaves 

  6. The caregiver leaves the child alone

  7. Stranger returns  

  8. The caregiver returns (stranger quietly leaves)
• Ainsworth’s Strange Situation 

  Controlled observation to assess attachment. 106 middle-class American infants 
• Ainsworth’s Strange Situation - AO3

  (+) Predictive validity, secure = success at school and lasting romantic relationships

  (+) Good inter-rater reliability. Bick et al. 94% agreement, due to clear objective behaviours

  (-) Ethnocentric, only US infants. Gynocentric only mothers    

   
• Ainsworth’s Strange Situation -AO3

  (-) Other attachment types. disorganised attachment- a mix of avoidant and resistant behaviours

  (+/-)  Controlled observation, replicable, but mothers social desirability and lack of ecological validity
• Cultural Variations -AO1

  Van Izjendoorn and Kroonenberg (1988) meta-analysis 

  32 studies of attachment where the Strange Situation had been used. These studies were conducted in 8 countries, 18 of the studies were conducted in the USA. Overall the studies yielded results for 1990 children

  •Secure attachment was the most common classification in all countries
• Cultural Variations -AO1

  -Insecure-avoidant was most commonly observed in Germany and least common in Japan 

  •Individualists culture’s rates of insecure-resistant attachment was similar to Ainsworth’s original sample (all under 14%)

  •Collectivist samples from China, Japan and Israel had higher rates of insecure-resistant attachment, above 25%.

  Highest in Israel, lowest in Britain

  Secure is the norm, suggesting attachments are innate and secure is the universal norm. But also affected by cultural practices 
• Cultural Variations -AO3

  (+) Large samples, increases the internal validity by reducing the impact of anomalous results-generalisable

  (-) Sample unrepresentative of cultures, instead studying countries and USA overrepresented
• Cultural Variations -AO3

  (-)Ethnocentric, procedure biased towards American/British culture – imposed etic. German mothers viewed as cold and insensitive by US standards rather than promoting independence in their child.

  (-) Alternative explanation for similarities between cultures. Mass media, not that secure attachment is innate and universal.

  (-) Ethics, ‘infant alone stage’highly distressing for infants not used to such separations e.g. Japanese infants
• Bowlby’s Maternal Deprivation Hypothesis -AO1


  •Continuous emotional care from a mother figure (or substitute) during the 2.5. year critical period is necessary for normal emotional and intellectual development  

  •Deprivation is the loss of an emotional attachment (as a result of prolonged separation) 

  •Effects of maternal deprivation on development: abnormally low IQ, affectionless psychopathy, poor relationships  and delinquency 
• Bowlby’s 44 thieves study (1944)


  Interviewed 44 thieves compared 44 non-thieves (with emotional problems). Parents also interviewed

  R: 14/44 affectionless psychopaths, of these 12 had prolonged separations.

  Control group: 2/44 experienced long-separations and 0/44 affectionless psychopaths  many (42/44) did not experience maternal deprivation which is thought to cause affectionless psychopathy which explains why none were affectionless psychopaths!

  C: suggesting that maternal deprivation caused affectionless psychopathy 
• Bowlby’s Maternal Deprivation Hypothesis - AO3

  (+) Application to day care and hospitals visiting hours–Keyworkers to help maintain emotional care and increased visiting hours.

  (-) Neglects important role of the father.

  Sees father’s role as indirect, providing economic and emotional support for the mother
• Bowlby’s Maternal Deprivation Hypothesis -AO3

  (-) Feminism-socially sensitive suggests mothers should not return to work, 

  (-) Issues with original research, correlational, case studies (lack of control), social desirability 

  (-) Effects of MD can be reversed Koluchova twins

  (-) Reductionist and deterministic 
• Institutionalisation: Romanian Orphans studies - AO1

  Rutter and Sonuga-Barke (2010)

  To examine the extent to which nurturing care could overturn the effects of privation children  had suffered in Romanian orphanages.Longitudinal study 165 orphans, tested at 4, 6, 11 and 15 to assess their physical, social and cognitive development, and data was also gathered by interviewing their adopted parents.
• Institutionalisation: Romanian Orphans studies - AO1

  Compared to British control adoptees. Results-lagged behind their British counterparts; they were smaller, malnourished, weighed less (physical underdevelopment) and were lower IQ if adopted after 2 years (cognitive development).Many adopted after 6 months showed disinhibited attachment.