attachment 2

• What did van Ijzendoorn's and Kroonenberg's sample consist off?

  • 32 studies
  • 8 countries
  • 15 in the USA
  • 1990 children
• What did van Ijzendoorn and Kroonenberg find?

  Secure was the most common e.g. 75% in Britain and 50% in China.

  Individualist have similar proportion of type Cs as Ainsworth but this wasn't true for collectivist cultures where the rate was above 25%.

  Variations within countries were greater than between countries e.g. US - one study found 46% type Bs and 90% has type Bs.
• What did Simonelli do and find?

  • assessed 76 babies aged 12 months
  • 50% were type B
  • 36% were type A
  • cultural differences affect attachment patterns
• What did Jin study and find?

  • Korean study with 87 babies
  • similar proportions of secure and insecure
  • higher number of resistant with only 1 avoidant baby
  • similar to Japan which can be explained by child rearing patterns
• Strength and CP of Cultural Variations?

  S: indigenous researchers who were from the same background of participants e.g. meta-analysis included research from Grossman and Takahashi. Problems that usually occur in cross cultural research can be avoided e.g. less chance of misunderstanding and a greater chance of successful communication - increased validity.

  CP - not true for all, Morelli and Tronick were outsiders from the USA who studied attachment patterns in Efe of Zaire - data could have been affected by bias and difficulty communicating.
• Weakness of Cultural Variations? - CV's

  Confounding variables - studies are not typically matched for methodology before use. Sample characteristics such as poverty, class and urban/rural makeup can confound results. Environmental variables e.g. larger room may make proximity seeking less visible - A - looking at attachment in different non-matched studies may not tell us anything about cross cultural patterns of attachment.
• Weakness of Cultural Variations? - Emic and Etic

  Imposed etic - impose a technique that works in many cultural contexts e.g. response in Strange Situation. In Britain and the USA a lack of affection of reunion may indicate a type A baby but in Germany such behaviour may indicate independence. Behaviours in SS may not have same meaning in different cultural contexts and so comparing is meaningless.
• What was Rutter's procedure?

  • followed group of 165 Romanian orphans who had experienced poor conditions before being adopted into the UK
  • longitudinal study to test whether good care can make up for poor early experiences
  • development assessed at ages, 4, 6, 11, 15, 22 and 25.
  • control group of 52 adoptees from UK
• What were the results of Rutter's procedure? - intellect

  • 1/2 of the orphans showed delayed intellectual development on arrival to UK.
  • at age 11 recovery rates were related to age of adoption e.g. those adopted before 6 months had a mean IQ of 102, and those adopted after 2 years had a mean IQ of 77.
• What were the results of Rutter's procedure? - Type D

  • clinginess, attention seeking and indiscriminate affection to strangers - rare in children adopted before 6 months
  • findings support Bowlby's ideas about sensitive period and that a failure to form attachment before 6 months and after 2 years can have long lasting effects.
• What was Zeanah et al's procedure?

  • Bucharest Early Intervention Project
  • Strange Situation
  • 95 Romanian children who had spent most of their lives in institutional care
  • compared to control group of 50
• What were Zeanah et al's results?

  • 19% of institutionalised group were type B compared to 75% of control group.
  • 44% of institutionalised groups had characteristics of disinhibited attachment whereas only 20% of control group were type D
• What were the concluded effects of institutions?

  1. Disinhibited attachment - individuals tend to be very friendly to stranger which may be adaptation to multiple caregivers.
  2. Damage to intellectual development - effect was not pronounced if adopted before 6 months.
• Strength of Institutional Studies?

  RWA - led to improvement of care in children's homes - they now avoid having a large number of caregivers and instead each child has 1 or 2 key workers having a central role in the child's life allowing them to develop normal attachments and avoid disinhibited attachment.
• Strength of Institutional Studies? - CVs

  Children in previous studies had often experience trauma or loss before the institution making it hard to observe the effects of institution in isolation. Can be fairly sure that the differences were due to the type of care - higher internal validity.
• CP to CV's?

  The Romanian orphan study may have had new confounding variables. Poor conditions in the homes e.g. little comfort. It may be hard to separate the effects of institutional care from poor care.
• Weakness of Institutional Studies?

  Lack of adult data, too soon to tell permanent effects as data only reaches into early 20s. It will be some time before we can answer any key research questions. We cannot be sure that we have yielded the most important findings as some children may catch up.
• Issues of social sensitivity within institutional research?

  Results may have lowered surrounding expectations creating self fulfilling prophecies.
• The internal working model?

  Quality of babies first attachment is crucial because it will act as a template which will powerfully affect the nature of later relationships. Children with loving relationship will seek out functional relationships and avoid being too uninvolved (A) or controlling (C).
• Influence on relationships in childhood?

  Kerns found secure babies tend to form best quality childhood friendships whereas insecure have friendship difficulties.

  • Myron-Wilson and Smith assessed attachment types and bullying involvement. Distributed questionnaires to 196 children aged 7-11 from London and found As were victims and Cs were bullies.
  • self report questionnaire and sample came from same school and area.
• Influence on parental relationships?

  People base their parenting styles on internal working model and so attachment types tend to be based down generations.

  • Supported by Bailey's study on 99 mothers and children. Interviewed mothers and observed baby and mother and found those who had a poor attachment with their parents were more likely to have a poor attachment with their own children.
• McCarthy's study?

  Studied 40 adult women who had been assessed as babies to establish early attachment type.

  • B had the best friendships and romantic relationships.
  • C had difficulty maintaining friendships.
  • A struggled with intimacy and romantic relationships.
• Hazan and Shaver's Love Quiz?


  620 replies from an ad in a local American newspaper.

  • 56% were type B - good, long lasting romantic relationships
  • 25% were type A - jealousy and fear of intimacy
  • 19% were type C
  • insecure likely to report loneliness

  May be bias in the type of person who replies to adverts in newspapers: e.g. people recently suffered a bad break-up and wished to vent their feelings
• Research Support for Influence on Later Relationships?

  Many studies has displayed the link between attachment type and later development including bullying and success in relationships. Fearon and Roisman concluded infant attachment influenced development in many ways. For example type D were most predictive of later mental disorders - insecure appears to convey the biggest disadvantage for development.

  CP - not all evidence supports link between attachment and development, Regensburg found no evidence of continuity of attachment type from ages 1-16. Not clear of how strong it influences.
• Validity Issues with Influence on Later Relationships?

  • heavily relies on retrospective data
  • most studies assess type in adulthood using questionnaires/interviews which rely on honesty. Studies also assume that type has remained the same since infancy (not true - Regensbrug) May not be valid measures of attachment.
• Possible Confounding Variables with Influence on Later Relationships?

  Some studies assess child and then follow up with later development. Studies can be affected by numerous CVs e.g. personality and parenting style may affect attachment and development. We cannot be sure that it is infant attachment and not another factors influencing later development.
• Extra Weakness of ROS?

  Children were not randomly allocated to conditions in this study, which means the more sociable children could have been adopted first. Raises questions about whether observed effects are truly caused by institutional care or other factors like the children's innate characteristics.