Attachment

• Reciprocity


  Responding to the action of another with a similar action, where the actions of one partner elicit a response from the other partner.
• Interactional synchrony


  When two people interact they tend to mirror what the other is doing in terms of their facial and body movements (emotions or behaviours as well)
• Meltzoff and Moore procedure

  Selected 4 different stimuli (3 being different faces and 1 being a hand gesture), then watched the video tapes. Observers scored tapes twice so that both intra-observer and inter-observer reliability could be calculated.
• Problems with testing infant behaviour

  • Difficult to check if reliable, infants mouth are in fairly constant motion and expression that is tested occurs frequently, makes difficult to distinguish between general and specific imitated behaviours however Meltzoff and Moore measured then got observer to judge the behaviour.
  • Failure to replicate, other studies such as Koepke et al failed to replicate the findings of M&M, however M&M counterargued that the research was less carefully controlled, earlier studies findings were not replicated in later studies although differences in methodology may account for this
  • Individual differences, variation between infants, Isabella et al found more strongly attached infant- caregiver pairs showed greater interactional synchrony where as Heimann showed infants who demonstrate imitation from birth to 3 months show better quality of relationships, not clear on cause or effect
  • Intentionally supported of infant behaviour is to observe how they respond to inanimate objects (non-living), Abravanel and DeYong found median age from age 5-12 weeks made little responses to objects, tongue movements and opening/ closing of mouth, shows specific social response to other humans
• Stages of attachment development

  Stage 1- asocial attachment (0-2 months, treat objects and people the same, but prefer people)

  Stage 2- indiscriminate (2-7 months, infants become more social, prefer human company, still relatively comforted by anyone and do not show anxiety YET)

  Stage 3- specific/discriminate attachment (7-12 months, signs of separation anxiety, content when back with their primary caregiver which has now been formed)

  Stage 4- multiple attachments (12+ months, infant discovers multiple attachments, infants show separation anxiety with these people as well)
• Criticisms of Schaffer and Emerson's attachment development stages


  • Unreliable data, this is due to the findings being based on mother's report of their infants, some mothers might be less sensitive to their infants' protests and less likely to report them, create systematic bias which challenges validity of data
  • Bias sample, taken from working class population and findings may apply to social group and not others, parental care has changed since 1960s, more mothers work, and father may become primary caregiver instead, if study was conducted today, findings may differ
  • Stage theories, difficulty is they suggest development is inflexible, proposes that there is a fixed order for development, e.g single attachment comes before multiple, which in some cultures may be different, may be problematic if this becomes standard and people seen as abnormal if not followed
• Schaffer and Emerson found that fathers tend to not be the primary caregiver as they spend less time with their infants, men lack the emotional sensitivity that mother's have, due to biological or social factors, female hormone oestrogen helps underlies caring behaviour, men are more 'fun' and play with the children rather than care for them.
• Lorenz's study on attachment between goslings and their mother


  Divided goslings into two groups, one with their mother and another in an incubator, when they hatched first thing they saw was Lorenz and soon they started to follow, to test imprinting (strong bond) he put all goslings together with the mother and Lorenz himself. Found that the goslings divided and followed either Lorenz or their mother, found the critical period is essential in forming attachments otherwise animal will not imprint.
• Harlow's study on attachment between baby monkeys and their mother


  Created a wired monkey which provided food and another wired monkey but with soft cloth wrapped around it. Observed how much time the baby monkeys spent with each figure. Found that all 8 monkeys spent most of their time with the cloth-covered mother whether or not it had the feeding bottle, shows infants form attachments with person offering contact comfort not just food.
• Criticisms of animal studies on attachment

  • Criticisms of imprinting, irreversible process however Guiton found that he could reverse imprinting in chickens that had initially tried to mate with a rubber glove, found that later when spending time with their own species, able to engage in sexual activity with other chickens, may not be different to other learning
  • Criticism of Harlow study is that two objects varied in more ways than being clothed or not, two heads were different which acted as confounding variable, this could disrupt findings as the infant monkeys may have preferred on mother to the other, therefore lacks internal validity
  • Generalising animal studies to human studies, humans differ to animals however can be a good indicator for replicating, Schaffer an Emerson support Harlow's research however demonstrates that animal studies can as useful pointer in understanding human behaviour, still need to seek confirmation for human research
  • Ethics of Harlow's study, can not be done with humans but should not be allowed with monkeys, study created lasting emotional harm for monkeys and could not form relationships with peers, helped for understanding of attachment but still breaks ethical guidelines
• Strengths of learning theory explanations of attachment

  • Learning theory has explanatory power, strength of learning theory is it can explain some aspect of attachment, infants learn through association and reinforcement but food may not be main reinforcer, attention and responsiveness from caregiver, does not provide complete explanation of attachment.
• Weaknesses of learning theory explanations of attachment

  • Attachment is not based on food as it is not the key element, Harlow's study showed that infant rhesus monkey moneys were most attached to the wire mother that provided contact comfort, not food, learning explanations is oversimplified
  • Learning theory largely based on animal such as Skinner's research with pigeons, behaviourists believe humans are actually no different from other animals in terms of how they learn, so can generalise both, behaviourist explanations may lack validity because they present an oversimplified version of human behaviour
  • Alternative explanation such as Bowlby's theory, shows more strengths as explains why attachments form, whereas learning theory shows why they MAY form, e.g Schaffer and Emerson findings were infants are not always strongly attached to person who feeds them, learning theory offers no explanation of strengths of attachment, Bowlby's theory says strengths include protection from harm, Bowlby's explanation is more complete explanation
• Monotropy


  One main primary caregiver
• Bowlby's monotropic theory


  • Evolutionary argument- attachment is innate (to aid with survival)
  • Critical period- 2.5 years (must form attachment or will have issues in later life)
  • Internal working model- childhood relationships act as a template for adult relationships
  • Social releasers- inviting attention from primary caregiver
• Research support for Bowlby's theory


  • Lorenz found that imprinting in geese was crucial within a critical period
  • Monotropy- Bowlby found that the primary caregiver is essential in ensuring a child develops emotionally
  • The critical period should be called a "sensitive period'
  • Socially sensitive- mothers returning to work (link to psychology in economy)
  • Research support is based on animal studies (Harlow's monkeys)
• Maternal deprivation


  Frequent and/or prolonged separations from a mother will have a negative effects if they occur before the age of 2 (critical period) or up to age 5 (sensitive period) if there is no mother-substitute
• Bowlby looked into 44 juvenile thieves and found that 86% of affectionless thieves had frequent separations before 2 compared with 17% of other thieves and just 2% of the control group
• Strengths of Bowlby's maternal deprivation theory

  • Theory has real life application, in past, mothers were separated from their children in hospitals and visiting was discouraged, Bowlby's theory has led to social change in child caring in hospitals whereby now mothers are not separated from their children
• Weaknesses of Bowlby's maternal deprivation theory

  • Bowlby failed to properly distinguish between deprivation and privation, Rutter et al distinguishes the two by saying privation is form of an attachment in first place where as deprivation is loss of an attachment after being formed, Rutter argues privation is more likely to lead to long term damage not deprivation as Bowlby states
  • Critical period been found to be more of a sensitive period, Koluchova studied 2 boys that have been isolated from 18 months to 7 years, they were still able to recover by 2 loving adults, suggest effects of maternal deprivation are not permanent as Bowlby proposed
• Ainsworth's Strange Situation procedure

  Procedure - 7 (3 minute) episodes

  1. Child and caregiver play/explore
  2. Stranger enters and talks to caregiver
  3. Caregiver leaves
  4. Caregiver returns, stranger leaves
  5. Caregiver leaves (child alone)
  6. Stranger returns
  7. Caregiver returns
• Ainsworths findings: 

  Secure= (60-75%)

  Insecure-resistant= (3%)

  Insecure-avoidant= (20-25%)
• Weaknesses of Ainsworth's Strange Situation

  • Counter argument- highly controlled= low ecological validity, artificial
  • Lacks cultural validity- western culture only, lacks generalisability as when the research has been repeated, findings aren't consistent
  • Ethical issues- psychological harm caused to the babies, extreme distress
  • Limited procedure- Ainsworth only identified 3 attachment types however, there are more (e.g. disorganised)
• Van Ijzendoorn and Kroonenberg's meta-analysis of 32 studies using the Strange Situation, from 8 countries found that secure attachment was the norm in all countries, greater variation in insecure attachment types
• Secure attachment was the norm in all countries, greater variation within countries than between them (Van Ijzendoorn and Kroonenberg)
• More insecure attachment in German sample (Van Ijzendoorn and Kroonenberg)
• No avoidant attachment in Japan sample (Van Ijzendoorn and Kroonenberg)
• Meta-analysis (Van Ijzendoorn and Kroonenberg)

  • Obtained individualist and collectivist culture, although not many represented, mix of cultures meant able to compare, without mix of culture, aim would not have been achieved
• Half of the Romanian orphans showed delayed intellectual development when they came to UK, those adopted before 6 months had higher IQ than those adopted after 2 years old (Rutter et al)
• Effects of institutionalisation


  • Low IQ
  • Social, mental and physical underdevelopment
  • Problems forming attachments in later life
  • Poor parenting skills in later life
  • Disinhibited attachment
• Research into institutionalisation


  • Can be applied to improving lives of children place in such care, this enhance understand of the effects of this, e.g orphanages and children's homes now avoid large numbers of caregivers for each child to help develop normal attachment
• Romanian orphanages were not typical, although useful data about institutionalisation , possible conditions were so bad results can not be applied to understanding the impact of better institutional care, Romanian orphans had poor standard of forming relationships with other children
• Internal working model


  Of self and attachment partner based on their joint attachment history which generates expectations about current and future explanations
• Positive relationship between attachment type (childhood and current one) and love experiences/ attitudes (internal working model) (Hazan and Shaver)
• Schaffer and Emerson 1964  

  studied 60 (boys and girls) working class babies from Glasgow at monthly intervals for the first 18 months of life using a longitudinal method. 

  Interviewed every month for a year then 18 months 

  Assessed levels of protest from separation and stranger anxiety + behaviour when mother left the room (intensity of reaction- mothers rate protest on a 4-point scale, self-report)