attachment

• Attachment


  A close two-way bond between a child and caregiver, it takes a few months to develop

  Shown through

  - Proximity

  - Separation distress

  - Secure-base behaviour
• Reciprocity


  Two-way mutual communication between infants and carers

  - Both are active contributors and can elicit a response from the other

  Troncik's still face experiment - mother and baby interaction, mother stops interacting, baby tries to get mothers attention, baby is active contributor
• Interactional Synchrony


  When a caregiver and infants actions and emotions mirror each other in a synchronised way, moving the same or similar pattern at the same time

  - Meltzoff and Moore - videoed 12-21 day old babies as they watched an experimenter perform different facial expressions, found babies facial expressions matched experimenter more than would happen by chance
• Caregiver-Infant Interaction PEELS

  P: Supporting research from Deyong et al

  E: Infants did not show interactional synchrony to objects simulating human facial expressions

  E: Infants do display specific social responses to human interactions

  L: Practical application - babies placed in same room as mothers after birth

  
  

  P: Problems can arise when studying infants

  E: Infants can't talk - don't know why infant is copying researcher

  E: Sleep a lot, Always moving their faces

  L: Question internal validity

  
  

  P: Presence of various individual differences

  E: Le Vine - Kenyan mothers little interaction with infants, but still form secure-attachment

  E: Isabella et al - Strong attached infants display more interactional synchrony

  L: Mixed evidence about importance of interactions when forming attachment

  
  

  PICL: Determinism - attachments created by interactions
• Schaffer and Emerson p1

  Procedure:60 babies from working class area in Glasgow- Longitudinal study - studied each month for the 1st year of their life and again at 18 months Measures:- Separation Anxiety and Stranger Anxiety

  Findings: Strongly attached children had mothers who responded to their needs quickly and had more interaction 65% 1st attachment to mother 3% to the father 39% not to the person who fed/spent most time with 87% had 2+ attachments after 18 months, 31% had 5+
• Schaffer and Emerson p2

  Conclusions: Pattern of attachment formation - biologically controlled

  Sensitive responsiveness more important than spending time with the infant

  Evaluation points:

  G - lacks generalisability, only WC from Glasgow

  R - good replicability - can be repeated

  A - good real life application - helps mothers when to send child to nursery

  V - good ecological validity - naturalistic study

  E - need parental consent
• Pre-attachment


  0-6 weeks

  Similar responses to all people

  Behaviour between non-human objects and humans similar

  Preference for familiar adults - happier when in presence of humans
• Indiscriminate attachment


  6 weeks- 7 months

  Babies more social, preference for people over objects

  Accept comfort off anyone

  No separation or stranger anxiety

  Recognise and prefer familiar adults
• Discriminate attachment


  7-9 months

  Primarily attached to main caregiver

  Babies show separation and stranger anxiety

  Baby looks for particular people for security, comfort and protection
• Multiple attachments


  10 months onwards

  Multiple attachments follow after the 1st attachment is made

  Baby shows attachment behaviours towards several people
• Stages of Attachment PEELS

  P: methodological issues with Schaffer + Emerson research

  E: Lacks generalisability, Collectivist cultures have different childrearing practices

  E: Good internal validity - Longitudinal study removes individual differences

  L: Good ecological validity - naturalistic observation

  
  

  P: Issue in way they categorised behaviour

  E: Difficult to measure attachments in Pre-attachment stage as they are immobile

  E: Separation anxiety in not necessarily a sign of true attachment, may get distressed when a playmate leaves

  L: Internal validity questioned, as behaviour possibly not operationalised correctly

  
  

  P: Real-world applications

  E: Child will be happy with anyone caring them during stage 1+2

  E: If child starts nursery at 7-9 months they will have lots of separation anxiety and cry lots

  L: Help inform parents when to start their child in nursery

  
  

  PICL: Deterministic - pre-determined stages infants go through
• Role of father is not important

  Traditionally fathers play little role in infant development - historically the breadwinner

  Fathers are not equipped psychologically, socially or biologically (hormones) to care for infants

  Cultural and social expectation that childrearing is stereotypically feminine

  Research support - Schaffer and Emerson - 3% of 1st attachment to father - father usually 2nd attachment
• Role of father is important

  Father is vital for social development and are just as capable of providing sensitive responsiveness and therefore forming a strong emotional bond

  Van Ijzendoorn - babies in collectivist cultures form multiple attachments from the outset, families work jointly together

  Grossman - quality of fathers play relate to quality of adolescent attachments

  Field - filmed 4 month old babies and compared interaction between PCG fathers and mothers, fathers can be nurturing figure - about sensitive responsiveness, not gender
• Role of the Father PEELS


  P: Geiger support importance of multiple attachments

  E: Geiger - Fathers play more exciting in comparison to mother, fathers role as playmate

  E: Links to Grossman, developing infants social skills and attachments later in life

  L: Father is important in terms of play

  
  

  P: Research into role of father lacks historical validity

  E: Schaffer + Emerson 1960 found 3% 1st attachment to father

  E: Society different - more paternity leave, less stereotypical roles, more stay at home dads

  L: If study done again, 3% may increase

  
  

  P: Research suggest role of father is not to provide sensitive/nurturing attachment

  E: Men have lower level of oestrogen making them less sensitive to infant needs

  E: Hardy - fathers less likely to detect lower levels of infant distress than mothers

  L: Therefore father should not be PCG
• Lorenz's Geese Study


  Procedure:Imprinting = innate readiness to develop strong bond with mother - takes place during critical periodLorenz split goose eggs into 2- Group 1, eggs hatched naturally by the mother- Group 2, hatched in an incubator with Lorenz being first moving object the geese encounteredFindings:After hatching, naturally born followed mother, and incubated followed LorenzIncubated eggs showed no bond to motherGeese who attached to Lorenz tried to mate with humansCritical period = 4-25 hours
• Lorenz's Geese Study PEELS

  P: Support from Bowlby' monotropic theory

  E: Bowlby says humans have critical period to develop 1st attachment, similar to the behaviour that Lorenz saw in the geese

  E: Geese trying to mate with humans mirrors the Internal Working Model, early attachments shape later relationships

  L: Study does have external validity and generalisability to human behaviour

  
  

  P: Issue with extrapolating research due to use of animals

  E: Geese have different attachment process in comparison to mammals - brings into question generalisability of findings

  E: Mammal mothers show more emotional attachment than birds do

  L: Some similarities between geese + humans - keep differences in mind when generalising findings

  
  

  P: Guiton question imprinting permanent effect

  E: Leghorn chicks attached to yellow rubber glove - tried to mate with yellow rubber glove

  E: Leghorn chicks learn to prefer mating with other chickens

  L: Imprinting is not completely biological
• Harlow's Monkeys


  Procedure:16 baby rhesus monkeys with 4 in each of the 4 conditionsCondition 1 - Wire mother milk + cloth mother no milkCondition 2 - Cloth mother milk and wire mother no milkCondition 3 - Wire mother milkCondition 4 - Cloth mother milkMonkeys frightened with loud noise and mechanical monkey to test preference for mother during stress - larger cage also made to test degree of explorationFindings:Monkeys spent more time with cloth mother (17-18 hours) compared to wire mother (less than 1 hour)Monkeys with only wire mother had diarrhoea - a sign of stress and were poor parents laterWhen frightened by noise, monkeys went to the cloth motherMonkeys with cloth mother explored moreConclusions:Innate need for contact comfort
• Harlow's Monkeys PEELS


  P: Issue is use of rhesus monkeys

  E: Monkeys different to humans - humans more complex

  E: Monkeys and humans similar in some ways - both mammals and closest relatives

  L: Cannot generalised findings to humans

  
  

  P: Findings have support from Schaffer and Emerson

  E: First attachment not always to the person who feeds them, but gives most sensitive responsiveness

  E: Monkeys sought out cloth mother during times of distress

  L: External reliability to the theory

  
  

  P: Harlow's work has important practical value

  E: Studying Monkeys in the way he did would be incomprehensible to do to humans - gave understanding of attachment

  E: Helped social workers understand risk factors in child neglect and changed the care of captive animals in a zoo

  L: Benefits outweigh the costs due to real world application
• Classical Condition in attachment


  Attachment happens because baby associates mother with food - mother becomes conditioned stimulus and brings baby pleasure by herself

  
• Operant Conditioning in attachment

  Positive Reinforcement (Infant)Childs behaviour (crying) produce a reward of food or comfort from caregiver, means child will repeat behaviourNegative Reinforcement (Infant)When caregiver gives food, it takes away unpleasant feeling of hungerNegative Reinforcement (Caregiver)Providing food for infant stops child crying which takes away unpleasant noise of child cryingFood = Primary reinforcerCaregiver = Secondary reinforcer as they are associated with food - infant becomes attached to caregiver
• Learning Theory PEELS


  P: Schaffer + Emerson provide counter evidence against it

  E: Description of Schaffer + Emerson study

  E: 39% 1st attachment not to person that fed them the most

  L: Sensitive responsiveness, not food that causes attachments

  
  

  P: Contradictory evidence from animal research

  E: Innate drive to attach to 1st moving object found by Lorenz (imprinting) - attachment is biological not learnt by environment

  E: Harlow - Monkeys spent most time with cloth mother despite wire mother which fed them - Contact comfort key in attachment

  L: Attachments caused by imprinting or contact comfort, not food

  
  

  P: Many aspects of human development are affected by conditioning

  E: Little Albert - fear was previously thought to be innate, could be conditioned by the environment

  E: CC likely to play important role in attachment, but infant may associate mother with comfort and social interaction rather than food

  L: Support for classical conditioning affecting human behaviour
• ASCMIC p1


  Adaptive Attachments are adaptive - give us an 'adaptive advantage' making us more likely to survive - the caregiver will make sure the infant is safe and give them food and water

  Social Releasers

  Babies display social releasers which 'unlock' innate tendencies of adults

  Physical - typical 'baby face'

  Behavioural - crying/cooing

  Critical Period - Babies have to form attachment in this critical period of 0-2.5

  If they do not, child will be damaged for life
• ASCMIC


  MonotropyInfants form 1 very special attachment, usually with mother - this is called monotropy - most importantInternal Working ModelInfant would form an internal working model through monotropic attachmentMental template for relationships - all future relationships based on thisContinuity HypothesisRelationship with special attachment provide basis for emotional relationships in adulthoodEmotionally secure infants grow up to be emotionally secure, trusting and confident adults
• Bowlby's Monotropic Theory PEELS


  P: Hazan and Shaver provide support for idea of internal working model

  E: 'Love Quiz' - positive correlation between attachment types as an infant and relationships later on - securely attached infants say love experiences good

  E: Bailey et al (2008) - 99 mothers and babies assessed - If mothers attachment to their mother poor, likely attachment to infant also poor

  L: Supports theory of IWM

  
  

  P: Rutter research show importance of critical period

  E: Romanian orphans who were adopted after 6 months show significant cognitive and emotional issues in comparison to those who were adopted at an earlier age

  E: Lorenz support - critical period for geese = 4-25 hours, if no attachment they likely not survive

  L: Supports Bowlby's critical period

  
  

  P: Schaffer + Emerson mixed evidence for theory

  E: 65% 1st attachment to mother, supports monotropy

  E: Stage 4, 87% had 2 or more attachments to other people

  L: Therefore mixed evidence for monotropy

  
  

  PICL: Nature - attachment is innate
• The Strange Situation


  106 middle class American infants

  Controlled, covert observation

  5 categories tested:

  Proximity and contact-seeking, Exploration and secure base behaviour, Stranger anxiety, Separation anxiety and Response to reunion

  1 - Mother and infant left alone in room

  2 - Mother allows baby to explore

  3 - Stranger enters and approaches infant

  4 - Mother leaves stranger and infant alone

  5 - Mother returns and stranger leaves, settles baby down and leaves

  6 - Baby is alone

  7 - Stranger comes back

  8 - Mother returns and stranger leaves
• Insecure-Avoidant


  Type A - 20-25%

  - explores freely, do not seek proximity or show secure-base behaviour

  - Ignore mother, little or no distress when she leaves - little effort to seek proximity when she returns

  - Mother and stranger treated same

  Willingness to explore - High

  Stranger anxiety = Low

  Separation anxiety = Low

  Behaviour on reunion = Ignores mother - not bothered
• Secure-Attachment


  Type B - 60-75%

  - explore when mother was present, regularly demonstrate proximity and secure-base behaviour

  - moderately distressed when she left and showed moderate stranger anxiety

  - in reunion, sought proximity and comfort

  - mother and stranger treated differently

  Willingness to explore = Moderate

  Stranger anxiety = Moderate

  Separation anxiety = Moderate

  Behaviour on reunion = Comforted by mother
• Insecure-Resistant


  Type C - 3%

  - seek greater proximity and explore less

  - severely distressed by her leaving + severe stranger anxiety

  - sought contact with mother on return, but also showed anger and resisted contact

  Willingness to explore = Low

  Stranger anxiety = High

  Separation anxiety = High

  Behaviour on reunion = Want but resist
• Types of Attachment PEELS

  P: Use of Lab experiments

  E: Artificial setting - behaviour much stronger due to unfamiliarity of surroundings - lacks ecological validity

  E: Kagan - child's response could be due to their temperament, confounding variable influenced by genetics - lacks internal validity

  L: Brings into question external and internal validity

  
  

  P: High reliability

  E: Correlation coefficient of inter-rater reliability = .94 - researchers agreed on attachment types of different infants

  E: External reliability also strong - Main et al found all infants observed as securely attached were still at 6 - test-retest

  L: Reliable method and robust

  
  

  P: Too simplistic

  E: Main and Solomon - fourth type of attachment, disorganised

  E: Infants did not conform to any of the 3, displayed strong attachment quickly followed by avoidant behaviours

  L: Maybe should be 4 types

  
  

  PICL: Reductionist - reducing attachment into 3 types
• Van Ijzendoorn and Kroonenberg

  Meta-analysis of 32 strange situations across 8 countries

  - 2000 babies studied

  Germany - 35% - 57% - 8%

  Israel - 7% - 64% - 29%

  Japan - 5% - 68% - 27%

  China - 25% - 50% - 25%

  USA - 21% - 65% - 14%

  UK - 22% - 75% - 3%

  Conclusion:

  Secure most common across all cultures

  Type A highest in Individualistic cultures - especially Germany

  Type C highest in Collectivist cultures - especially Japan and Israel

  China collectivist, but have equal of A and C
• Cultural Variations PEELS

  P: Population validity

  E: Meta-analysis, 32 studies, 8 countries, 2000 babies

  E: Increased internal validity - less likely for results to be skewed by individual differences

  L: Good generalisability

  
  

  P: Unrepresentative of culture

  E: Comparisons between countries, not culture - within country many different childrearing practices due to economic or social factors

  E: Van Ijzendoorn and Sagi - attachment in Tokyo similar to western studies - rural Japan more insecure-resistant

  L: Questions external validity - applying one regions findings to rest of country not valid

  
  

  P: Method of assessment biased

  E: Imposed etic - Ainsworth (US) + Bowlby (UK)

  E: Lack of separation anxiety seen as insecure, behaviour like that seen as independent in Germany

  L: Not externally reliable

  
  

  PICL: Nomothetic - large no. ppt - general laws
• Separation vs Deprivation


  Separation is when a child is not in the presence of their PCG

  Separation is short-term and has no long term effects

  Prolonged periods of separation is deprivation

  - Long-term separation and has serious developmental effects on the child
• Value of Maternal Care

  Bowlby believed it wasn't enough to keep a child fed/warm/safe

  Infants need continuous relationship with mother to ensure good mental health
• Critical Period


  Emotional care before ages 2.5 essential

  If deprived of this, psychological damage possible
• Effects on Development


  Cognitive development - low IQ

  Social development - delinquency and increased aggressiveness

  Psychological development - depression

  Emotional development - affectionless psychopathy
• 44 Thieves study


  Procedure:44 criminal teenagers accused of stealing interviewed by Bowlby for signs of affectionless psychopathyFamilies also interviewed to see if they had deprivationControl group (matched on age and IQ - matched pairs design) 44 non criminalsFindings:14/44 thieves = affectionless psychopaths - 0 were out of the control group12/14 affectionless psychopaths had experienced deprivation5/30 non affectionless psychopath criminals experienced deprivationControl group 2 had experienced deprivationEvaluations:G - lacks generalisability - all ppts from one clinicR - lacks replicability - hard to replicate with interviewsA - good real-word application - inform mothers not to leave for prolonged periodsV - poor internal validity - researcher bias, Bowlby did interviewsE - labelling - naming people as psychopaths
• Bowlby's theory of Maternal deprivation PEELS

  P: Evidence supporting is poor

  E: Only included boys that had emotional problems - also researched war orphans

  E: Flawed evidence, war orphans traumatised and children in orphanages deprived of more aspects that just maternal

  L: Cannot be sure it is maternal deprivation causing it - lacks internal validity

  
  

  P: Rutter criticised for failure to distinguish between deprivation and privation

  E: Deprivation is loss of PCG, Privation is failure to form any attachment

  E: Rutter says long term damage associated with deprivation more likely due to privation

  L: internal validity questioned

  
  

  P: Contradictory evidence - Koluchova Twins case study

  E: Koluchova twins locked in a cupboard from 18 months to 7 years - then given to a loving family

  E: Twins fully recovered from maternal deprivation

  L: Refutes critical period as boys locked away during period but still recovered

  
  

  PICL - Deterministic - general laws