Attachment

• Caregiver-infant interactions: Reciprocity

  • Both respond to each others signals, turn taking
  • Alert phases: babies will signal when ready for interaction

  > Feldman and Eidelman 2007- found mothers respond 2/3 of the time

  > Finegood et al 2016- found that it varies depending on skill of the mother and external factors

  • Active involvement: both can initiate

  > Brazelton at al 1975- described it as a dance
• Caregiver-infant interactions: Interactional Synchrony

  • When actions and emotions mirror the other
  • Meltzoff and Moore 1977-

  > Saw beginnings of Interactional Synchrony in babies as young as 2 weeks old

  • Isabella et al 1989-

  > Observed 30 mothers and babies together and assessed synchrony and quality of attachment

  > Found high levels of synchrony associated with better attachment
• Caregiver-infant interactions Evaluation

  + Filmed overt observations, high control, inter-rater reliability. Good reliability and validity

  -Hard to interpret babies behaviours, can't be certain of special meaning

  -Socially sensitive research, can be used to argue mother returning to work soon after having a baby could damage their development
• Schaffer's Stages of Attachment 1964

  • Asocial- first few weeks, preference for familiar people
  • Indiscriminate- 2-7 months, clear preference for people over objects, especially familiar people, accept comfort from anyone and no stranger or separation anxiety
  • Specific- 7+ months, attachment towards one person, stranger and separation anxiety, mother 65% of cases
  • Multiple- after primary attachment extends to multiple. Schaffer and Emerson observed 29% form a secondary attachment within a month of primary
  • By the end of 1 year the majority of babies have multiple attachments
• Schaffer's Stages of Attachment Evaluation

  + Observations were made by parents during normal activities and reported to researcher's, good external validity (Though mothers may be bias)

  +Real World Application, day-care may be started during asocial and indiscriminate stage so baby can become familiar before the specific stage

  -Sample from Glasgow working class families, so may be harder to generalise
• Role of the Father

  • Schaffer and Emerson found men the Primary Attachment Figure (PAF) in 3% of cases, in 27% of cases father was the first joint attachment with mother
  • By 18 months 75% had formed attachment with father
  • Grossmann et al 2002:

  > Longitudinal study from baby's to teens

  > Found father's role was more to do with play and stimulation rather than emotional development

  • Field 1978:

  > Filmed 4 month with PAF Mothers, secondary fathers and PAF fathers

  > PAF fathers spent more time smiling and holding the baby- shows fathers can take on emotional side of PAF, but only when required
• Role of the Father Evaluation

  + Real World Application, Reduces parental anxiety, especially if they are a single parent or a same sex household

  -Bias in research, preconceptions about fathers and stereotypes may cause unintentional observer bias, they 'see' what they expect to see more than objective reality
• Animal Studies: Lorenz 1952

  • Randomly divided goose eggs, half stayed with mother in their natural environment, the other half in an incubator where the first moving object they saw was Lorenz
  • Incubator group followed Lorenz everywhere, control group followed mother. When groups were mixed they carried on the same as before
  • Imprinting- a critical period
  • 1952 Case study of peacock reared in the reptile house of a zoo where first animals seen after hatching were tortoises. As an adult the peacock would only direct courtship behaviour towards tortoises- sexual imprinting
• Animal Studies: Lorenz 1952 Evaluation

  + Support, Regolin and Vallortigara 1995, chicks exposed to simple shape combinations that moved, such as a triangle with a rectangle front. A range then followed but they followed original most closely

  -Animal studies, they're not human. Not appropriate to generalise Lorenz's ideas to humans
• Animal Studies: Harlow 1958

  • Reared 16 baby monkeys with two 'mothers', one was a wired and dispensed milk the other cloth
  • Found baby monkeys cuddled cloth mother in preference and sought comfort when frightened (Spent 17 hours a day with cloth, 1 with wired)
  • Showed contact comfort was more important than food
  • As adults they were aggressive, less sociable, bred less and unskilled at mating. Some neglected or attacked their own children, some were even killed
• Animal Studies: Harlow 1958 Evaluation

  + Real-World Value, it has helped social workers and clinical psychologists understand that a lack of bonding experience may be a risk factor in development. Also helps with breeding programmes in the wild. Is practical

  -Ethical issues, the experiment caused severe stress on the monkeys and had long-term affects. Questions if the research was worth it

  -Animal studies, difficult to generalise to humans
• Learning Theory of Attachment: Dollard and Miller 1950

  • Classical- baby starts to associate parent (neutral stimulus) with food, do they become a conditioned stimulus and so give conditioned response of pleasure
  • Operant- babies cry for comfort and this is reinforced as they receive comfort or food each time- social suppressor behaviour. Negative reinforcement for carer as the crying stops
  • Hunger= primary drive
  • Attachment= secondary drive
• Learning Theory of Attachment Evaluation

  -Animal studies show imprinting occurs on first moving object, no relation to food. Monkeys also preferred cloth mother even if both provided food. Other factors are important

  -Schaffer and Emerson showed the main attachment to mother regardless of if she usually fed babies. Food is not the main factor

  + Elements of conditioning could be involved, baby may associate warmth and comfort with caregiver rather than food
• Bowlby's Monotropic Theory 1988

  • Evolutionary theory that put emphasis on one (mono) specific attachment
  • Law of continuity: more constant and predictable care= better quality attachment
  • Law of accumulated separation: effects of every separation add up so safest is 0
  • Social Releasers make adults want to attach
  • Critical period of 6 months- 2 years
  • Internal working model: mental representation of relationship with PAF. Serves as a model for future relationships and parenting
• Bowlby's Monotropic Theory 1988 Evaluation

  -Socially sensitive research, theory suggests that women that work will damage their children's emotional development

  + Bailey et al 2007, assessed attachment between 99 mothers and their babies, then mothers attachment to their own PAF. Found that mothers with poor attachment had poorer attachments with their own babies. Supports the Internal Working Model
• Strange Situation Procedure- Ainsworth and Bell 1970

  • Controlled observation with two way mirror
  • Baby encouraged to explore (exploration and secure base)
  • Stranger enters and talks to caregiver and approached baby (stranger anxiety)
  • Caregiver leaves stranger and baby together (stranger and separation anxiety)
  • Caregiver returns and stranger leaves (reunion and exploration/secure base)
  • Caregiver leaves baby alone (separation anxiety)
  • Stranger returns (stranger anxiety)
  • Caregiver returns and reunites with baby (reunion behaviour)
• Types of Attachment Ainsworth 1978

  • Insecure Avoidant (Type A)- explores freely but no proximity or secure base behaviour. No separation or Stanger anxiety. Little reunion behaviour and may even avoid it. 20-25% of UK babies
  • Secure (Type B)- Explore happily but regularly goes back to caregiver. Moderate separation and stranger anxiety. Requires and accepts comfort at reunion. 60-70% of UK babies
  • Insecure Resistant (Type C)- Greater proximity and explores less. High separation and stranger anxiety. Resist comfort at reunion. 3% of UK babies
• Types of Attachment Ainsworth 1978 Evaluation

  -Culture bound as it focuses on the UK and US, different cultures have different child rearing techniques, Japan= mainly Insecure Resistant. Because of mother baby separation is rare there

  -Main and Solomon 1986 identified Type D, Disorganised, a mix of resistant and avoidant as a result of neglect or abuse

  + Good inter-rater reliability
• Culture Variations in Attachment- IJzendoorn and Kroonenberg 1988

  • Meta-analysis of 32 studies of attachment using Strange Situation, across 8 counties although 15 came from the US. 1,990 children overall
  • All countries had secure as the most common
  • Britain= 75%
  • China= 50%
  • Individualistic had similar rates to Ainsworth's findings but collectivist cultures had insecure attachments for over 25%
  • Variations between studies in the same country were greater e.g. one US study had 46% securely attached and another had 90%
• Cultural Variations in Attachment: Italy- Simonelli et al 2014

  • Assessed 76 babies at 12 months old using the strange situation
  • Found 50% secure and 36% Insecure Avoidant
  • Researcher suggest this is because of the increasing number of mother with very young children working long hours and use professional childcare
  • Patterns of attachment types are not static but vary in line with cultural change
• Cultural Variations in Attachment: Korea- Mi Kyoung Jin et al 2012

  • 87 babies assessed using Strange Situation
  • Overall proportions of insecure and secure were similar to most countries
  • However more insecurely attachment babies were resistant and only one was avoidant
  • Similar to Japan and this may be explained by their similar child-rearing styles
• Cultural Variations in Attachment Evaluation

  -Confounding Variables, different countries don't usually match for methodology, sample Characteristics may confound results. Environmental variables may also differ between studies and may confound results. Non-matched studies may not tell us anything across cultures

  + Indigenous researchers= less misunderstandings, enhances validity of data

  -Imposed etic, assume and idea that works in one culture will occur in the other. May not have the same meanings in different cultures
• Bowlby's Theory of Maternal Deprivation 1953

  • Separation Vs Deprivation- brief separation is ok but not to a point of deprivation of emotional care
  • Critical period- 2.5 years but continuing risk up until 5
  • Intellectual development- Goldfarb 1947 found lower IQ in children who remained in institutions rather than those fostered because of the difference in care
  • Emotional development- affectionless psychopathy= inability to experience guilt or strong emotion towards other, prevents fulfilling relationships and associated with criminality
• Bowlby's 44 Thieves Study 1944

  • 44 Criminal teens accused of stealing
  • All interviewed for signs of Affectionless Psychopathy- lack of guilt about actions and empathy for victims
  • Family interviewed to establish if they'd had prolonged early separations from mothers
  • Compared to control of 44 non criminal but still emotionally disturbed people
  • 14/44 could have AP, 12/14 had experienced prolonged separation from mother the first 2 years. 5/30 thieves had experienced separations
  • 2 of control group had experienced long separations
  • Concluded prolonged early separation/ deprivation caused AP
• Bowlby's Theory of Maternal Deprivation Evaluation

  -Flawed evidence, Bowlby conducted the study himself, left him open to bias as he knew in advance which teenagers were expected to show signs

  -Deprivations and privation, there's confusion between different types of early experience. Deprivation= the loss of the Primary Attachment figure after attachment has developed. Privation= the failure to form an attachment, often in cases of severe child abuse, neglect, or institutionalisation.
• Romanian Orphans: Institutionalisation- Rutter et al 2011 P1

  • 165 orphans followed in the English and Romanian adoptee study (ERA)
  • Assessed physical, cognitive and emotional development at ages 4, 6, 11, 15 and 22-25
  • 52 UK adoptees adopted around the same time= control group
  • Original half showed signs of delayed intellectual development and most severely malnourished
• Romanian Orphans: Institutionalisation- Rutter et al 2011 P2

  • 11 years old= showed different rates of recovery related to the age of adoption
  • Average IQ of adopted <6 Months= 102, 6 Months- 2 years= 86 and 2+ = 77
  • Differences remained at age 16. ADHD more common in 15- and 22-25 sample
  • Adopted after 6 Months showed disinhibited attachment- clingy, indiscriminate social behaviour. Before 6 Months no Disinhibited attachment
• Romanian Orphans: Institutionalisations- Zeanah el al 2005

  • Bucharest early intervention project- assessed 95 Romanian children aged 12- 31 months who had spent most of their lives in care (average 90%)
  • Compared to control group of 50 children who were never in institutional care
  • Used Strange Situation to measure attachment type, caregivers also asked about unusual social behaviour directed inappropriately at all adults (Disinhibited attachment)
  • Found 74% of control were Secure, compared to 19% institutionalised
  • 44% of institutionalised had Disinhibited Attachment compared to <20% in control
• Romanian Orphans: Institutionalisation Effects

  • Disinhibited attachment:

  > Equally friendly and affectionate toward familiar people and strangers= no stranger anxiety

  > Rutter 2006 explained it as adaptation to living with multiple caregivers during sensitive period

  > In poor quality institutions a child may have many carers but doesn't spend enough time with any of them to form a secure attachment

  • Intellectual Disability:

  > Most kids in Rutter's study showed signs of intellectual disability when they arrived in Britain

  > However most adopted before 6 months old caught up to control group by 4
• Romanian Orphans: Institutionalisation Evaluation

  + Real World Application, improvement to care facilities, children tend to have 2 key workers who play a central role to their emotional care

  + Fewer confounding variables than previous studies E.g. War Orphans who had experienced considerable trauma. Romanian Orphans in most cases had been handed over by loving parent who couldn't afford them

  -Lack of adult data, long term affects are unknown such as mental health difficulties and success in relationships. Possible that the children may have 'caught up' later in life
• Early Attachment on Later Relationships: Internal Working Model- Bowlby 1969

  • A baby whose first experience of a loving relationship with a reliable attachment figure will tend to assume this is how relationships are meant to be
  • They will then seek out functional relationships and behave functionally in them
  • A child with bad experienced of first attachment will bring these assumptions to later relationships
  • May mean they struggle to form the in the first place or that they don't behave normally= insecure attachment behaviour towards friends and partners
• Early Attachment on Later Relationships: Childhood

  • Attachment type is associated with quality of peer relationships in childhood
  • Secure babies tend to form best quality childhood friendships whereas insecurely attached babies later have friendship difficulties (Kerns 1994)
  • Bullying behaviour can be predicted, Myron-Wilson and Smith 1998 assessed attachment type and bullying involvement using standard questionnaires in 196 kids aged 8- 11 from London
  • Secure kids were very unlikely to be involved in bullying. Insecure Avoidant kids were most likely victims and Insecure Resistant the bullies
• Early Attachment on Later Relationships: Adult Relationships

  • Hazen and Shaver 1987
  • Analysed 620 responses to Love Quiz

  1. Assessed current or most important relationships
  2. General love experienced such as number of partners
  3. Attachment type

  • 56% secure, 25% Insecure Avoidant and 19% Insecure Resistant
  • Secure most likely to have good and longer lasting romantic experiences
  • Insecure Avoidant tended to be jealous and fear intimacy
  • Suggests patterns of attachment behaviour are reflected in romantic relations
• Early Attachment on Later Relationships: Adult Parenting

  • Internal Working Model also affects future ability to parent
  • Bailey et al 2007, considered attachments of 99 mothers to their babies and their own mothers
  • Assessed using Strange Situation and Interviews
  • Majority of the women had same attachment to their babies that they had with their own mothers
• Early Attachment on Later Relationships Evaluation

  -Validity issues, many not longitudinal instead they ask adult ppts to recall retrospectively. Relies on honesty and accurate perception of ppts. Hard to know if assessing infant or adult attachment

  -Confounding Variable, such as parenting style and genetics. Unsure if other factor is influencing development not just early attachment