AO3

• One weakness is that other studies have failed to replicate the findings of Meltzoff & Moore (1977). For example, a study by Koepke et al. (1983) failed to find any evidence of interactional synchrony in caregiver-infant interactions. This suggests that research into interactional synchrony lacks external reliability. 
• There are problems with research into interactional synchrony. For example, infants’ mouths are in fairly constant motion and the expressions that are tested (e.g. sticking tongue out) occur frequently. This means that it is difficult to distinguish between general activity and specific imitated behaviour. This suggests that the internal validity of research into interactional synchrony is low. 
• One strength is that there is evidence to support the role of interactional synchrony in the development of attachment bonds. For example, Isabella et al. (1989) observed 30 mothers and infants and assessed the degree of interactional synchrony. They also assessed the quality of mother-infant attachment and found that those with higher levels of synchrony had better quality mother-infant attachments. This suggests that interactional synchrony is important for the development of good quality attachments bonds. 
• What are the strengths and weakness of caregiver interactions?

  + Isabella 30 mother more interactional sychrony = stronger attachement

  -Koepke not replicable

  -intentional ?
• define attachment

  A strong emotinal and reciprocal bond between two people
• One strength of the study conducted by Schaffer & Emerson (1964) is that it has high external validity. This is because the study was carried out in family homes and observations were conducted during ordinary, everyday activities. This suggests that Schaffer & Emerson’s research has good ecological validity as their findings were gathered in and can therefore be generalised to real life settings. 
• Longitudinal designs

  Have better internal validity than cross-sectional designs
• Longitudinal designs

  • Do not have the confounding variable of individual differences between participants (participant variables)
• Schaffer & Emerson's research has good internal validity, as their findings were not affected by participant variables
• One weakness of the study conducted by Schaffer & Emerson (1964) is that the sample they used was very specific. All of the infants involved were from the same social class and the same city. The study was also carried out over 50 years ago, and child-rearing practices have since changed. This suggests that the findings of Schaffer & Emerson lack population validity and temporal validity. This means that they may not necessarily generalise to other social or historical contexts. 

   
• Primary attachment figure


  Single main carer to whom the infant forms the first attachment
• Infants form attachments to a single main carer before they become capable of developing multiple attachments


  According to some research, such as Schaffer & Emerson (1964)
• Infants form multiple attachments from the outset


  According to other psychologists
• Evidence of infants forming multiple attachments from the outset has been found in cultures where multiple caregivers are the norm
• Research into multiple attachments lacks reliability, so we cannot conclude with any certainty when multiple attachments become possible
• what are the strength and weakness of the stages of attachments?

  + high external carried out in homes

  + longitiundinal

  -specific sample, lack temporal validity

  -cultural difference mutiple mutiple attachments early
• There is evidence that fathers play an important role as secondary attachment figures. Grossman (2002) conducted a longitudinal study and found that the quality of fathers’ play with infants was related to the quality of the infants’ later relationships. This suggests that the play and stimulation that fathers provide is important for healthy social development. 
• There is evidence that fathers play an important role as secondary attachment figures. Grossman (2002) conducted a longitudinal study and found that the quality of fathers’ play with infants was related to the quality of the infants’ later relationships. This suggests that the play and stimulation that fathers provide is important for healthy social development. 
• However, there is evidence that when fathers take on the role of being the main caregiver, they are able to adopt caring behaviours more typical of mothers. For example, Field (1978) filmed 4-month-old infants in face-to-face interaction with primary caregiver mothers, secondary caregiver fathers or primary caregiver fathers. They found that primary caregiver fathers, like mothers, spent more time smiling, imitating and holding infants than secondary caregiver fathers. This suggests that fathers can be caring and nurturing. 
• What are the AO3 point of the reseach into the role fo the father?

  -Field father as main caregiver due more time with infant

  + Grossman father = seconday playful important fro future relationships

  -MacCullum and Golombok same-sex dont develop differently so it is not important
• One weakness is that the mammalian attachment system is very different to that of birds. For example, mammalian mothers show more of an emotional attachment to their young than birds. This means that it is not appropriate to generalise Lorenz’s findings to humans, and therefore very little can be concluded from his research. 

   
• Later researchers have questioned some of Lorenz’s conclusions. For example, there is evidence that imprinting does not have a permanent effect on mating behaviour. Guiton et al. (1966) found that chickens that imprinted on yellow rubber gloves would try to mate with yellow rubber gloves as adults. However, with experience, they eventually learned to prefer mating with other chickens. This suggests that the impact of imprinting on mating behaviour is not as permanent as Lorenz believed. 

   
• What are the weakness of Lorenz's reseach into imprinting?


  -chicken and rubber gloves X permanent

  -X gerneralise to humans
• One criticism of Harlow’s research is that the two stimulus objects (the wire mothers) differed in more ways than being cloth covered or not. The two heads were also different. This acted as a confounding variable and it is possible that the reason the monkeys preferred the cloth mother was because the cloth mother had a more attractive head. This suggests that the conclusions of Harlow lack internal validity. 

   
• Also, the research conducted by Harlow has significant ethical issues. The monkeys were removed from their mothers at birth, and raised in almost total isolation with only the wire mothers for company. Many developed abnormalities later on in life, and were therefore not protected from psychological harm. The suggestion that the benefits of the research outweigh the costs to the animals involved is therefore questionable. 
• what are the weakness of Harlows reseach?

  -Ethicical issue

  -Confounding vairble low internal validty
• One weakness is that animal studies of attachment do not support the learning theory of attachment. The learning theory of attachment suggests that an infant will attach to the person who feeds them. However, Lorenz’s geese imprinted before they were fed and Harlow’s rhesus monkeys attached to the cloth mother regardless of whether or not she provided food. Both of these studies suggest that attachment does not develop as a result of feeding; therefore they do not support the learning theory of attachment. 
• One weakness is that research with human infants shows that feeding is not the most important factor in the development of attachments. For example, Schaffer & Emerson (1964) found that the primary attachment figure was not necessarily the person who fed the infant; it was the person who offered the most interaction and responded quickly and sensitively to the infant’s signals (e.g. crying and smiling). This suggests that the learning theory of attachment cannot explain attachment in human infants. 

   
• The learning theory of attachment has been criticised for ignoring other factors associated with the development of attachments. For example, it ignores the importance of caregiver-infant interactions. Isabella et al. (1989) found that high levels of interactional synchrony are associated with high quality attachment bonds. Findings such as these do not fit with the learning theory of attachment. If attachment developed purely as a result of feeding, as the learning theory of attachment suggests, there would be no purpose for these complex interactions. 
• The learning theory of attachment has now largely been rejected. This is mainly because Bowlby’s monotropic theory of attachment offers a better explanation of attachment. This theory explains why attachments form and the advantages of attachment, which learning theory does not. Bowlby’s monotropic theory of attachment therefore offers a better explanation of attachment in human infants
• What are the strength and weakness of the learning theories explanation of Attachment?

  -Animal studies

  -Isabella ignore importance of interractional synchrony

  -Bowlby = better

  -Shaffer and Emerson primary caregiver
• Monotropy in human infants

  • Infants have a number of attachments but have one primary attachment figure
  • In most cases (65%), this was the infant's mother, but not always
  • The primary attachment figure was always the person that responded the most sensitively to the infant
• One strength is that there is evidence to support the continuity hypothesis. For example, Harlow (1959) found that infant monkeys who formed a one-way attachment to an unresponsive wire mother became maladjusted adults who had significant difficulties in social and sexual relationships. The findings of Harlow (1959) support Bowlby’s continuity hypothesis as they demonstrate continuity between early attachment relationships and later emotional relationships.  
• Schaffer & Emerson's research supports Bowlby's view that infants are biased towards one individual, their primary attachment figure, despite having a number of different attachments
• One weakness is that some disagree with the concept of monotropy. For example, Rutter (1995) proposed the ‘Multiple Attachment Model’. This model suggests that there are no primary and secondary attachment figures, and instead that all attachment figures are of equal importance. Therefore, according to the ‘Multiple Attachment Model’, there is no bias towards one attachment figure as Bowlby suggested. 
• Continuity hypothesis


  The idea that early attachment relationships form a template for later relationships
• Continuity hypothesis


  Challenged by alternative explanations from psychologists
• Temperament hypothesis (Kagen, 1984)


  • Infants are born with different temperaments
  • An innately trusting and friendly temperament may be the prime factor in securing attachments in infancy and also the prime factor in securing successful adult relationships
• Temperament hypothesis


  Suggests continuities between early attachments and later relationships are a consequence of the temperament an individual is born with, not due to early attachment relationships forming a template as Bowlby suggested
• What are the strength and weakness of Bowlby's monotrpic theory?

  + Shaffer and Emerson montropy

  + Harlow —> difficult social and sexual relationship

  • Rutter's mutiple attachement model
  • Kagen tempermant hypothesis, contintuity