Attachment

• Research into reciprocity is important.


  Tronick (1975) conducted a lab experiment in which mothers were instructed to not respond to their children for approximately 3 minutes.

  Infants showed acute distress, turning away, and becoming still.

  Shows the impact of a lack of reciprocity.

  We cannot guarantee what their reaction actually means as opposed to our interpretation and what they want.
• Lack of supportive research for reciprocity.


  Feldman (2012) points out that ideas like synchrony simply give names to patterns of observable caregiver/baby behaviours. These may not be particularly useful in understanding child development as it doesn’t tell us the purpose of these behaviours.Cannot be certain of their importance in child development.Isabella et al found achievement of interactional synchrony predicted the development of good-quality attachment.
• Studies into reciprocity are usually filmed in a lab.


  This means other activities that might be distracting can be controlled. Analysis can also take place after so key behaviours are less likely to be missed. Inter-rater reliability can also later be established.The data collected is highly reliable and valid.
• Research support for imprinting (Lorenz).


  Guiton (1966) found chicks imprinted on the yellow rubber glove used while feeding Suggesting they imprint on anything moving during a critical period.But it lacks ecological validity - unrealistic as supportive evidence and ethical issues - issues for chicks later on.
• Lorenz's research aids the understanding of human behaviour.


  Seebach (2005) suggests computer users exhibit baby duck syndrome attaching to their first computer system, so they reject others.Although we are different biologically findings are still applicable.
• Lorenz's research lacks generalisability.


  Mammals’ attachment system is quite different and more complex compared to birds. It is a two-way process for both the young and the mother.Not truly representative of human attachmentGeneralising Harlow’s research may be more beneficial as humans are closer genetically to monkeys than birds.
• Harlow's research has real-world applicability.


  Helped social workers and psychologists understand a lack of bonding experiences may be a risk factor for child development meaning they can intervene earlier preventing poor outcomes.
• Harlow's research lacks generalisability.

  More similar to humans than Lorenz’s geese and all mammals share some common attachment behaviours, the human brain and behaviour are still more complex than that of a monkey.
• Significant ethical issues with Harlow's research.


  Resulted in severe and long-term distress to the monkeys due to the nature of his studies. As monkeys are fairly similar to humans they probably suffered to a similar extent.
• Learning theory suggests elements of conditioning may be involved.


  Although unlikely that food association plays a central role, conditioning may.A baby may associate feeling warm and comfortable with the presence of a particular adult influencing their choice of primary attachment.
• Learning theory is reductionist.


  It argues that attachments only form by association and reinforcement reducing it down to two consituent elements.Ignores other potential components such as nature and fails to focus on the whole person and their processes.
• Lack of support for learning theory.


  Schaffer and Emerson found babies tend to form primary attachment with the mother regardless of whether she was the one who usually fed them.Suggesting food isn’t the main factor in forming human attachments.
• Evidence against a critical period - Bowlby's mono-tropic.


  Curtiss (1997) on Genie who was brought up by abusive parents until age 12 when taken in by social services showed some mild attachment behaviours to Drs researching her and caring for her.Suggesting 2 1/2 years is more of a sensitive period as opposed to critical.However, as this is a case study findings cannot be generalised due to its unique nature. We are unaware of genies circumstances prior to social isolation and if she had any underlying social/learning difficulties.
• Bailey (2007) supports the presence of IWM. 


  Bailey questioned 99 teenage mums with 1-year-olds about attachments with their own mum and observed them with their children.

  They found those who reported insecure attachment to their child’s behaviour implied insecure attachment.

  Supports the idea of a mental framework being formed.

  CA: data was self-report - social desirability bias, data was retrospective reducing validity as memory is unreliable and easily manipulated.
• Support for social releasers.


  Brazelton asked mums to ignore baby’s releasers finding babies became distressed quickly with some curling up, becoming motionless.Emphasising the importance of responding to social releases and their significance in attachment.CA: lab experiment - low ecological validity, a stranger was present which may have been the true cause of distress.
• Many cultural variation studies were conducted by indigenous psychologists.


  Van Ijzendoorn and Kroonenberg included research by a German team and Japanese. This reduces misunderstanding language and communication difficulties.

  Communication is more successful, increasing validity.
• Cultural variations research is littered with confounding variables.


  Studies across different countries aren’t often matched for methodology in meta-analyses.Sample characteristics - i.e. class and environmental variables - i.e. room size and toy type, can confound results.This means non-matched studies may not tell us anything about cross-cultural attachment patterns.CA: these encourage a universal perspective in understanding human behaviour.
• Imposed etic on cultural variations.


  Cross-cultural psychology includes the idea of emic and etic. Imposed etic occurs when it is assumed that what works in one culture will work in another. E.g. Babies’ response upon reunion in a strange situation. Findings may not be transferable or mean the same.

  In the US lack of affection suggests insecure-avoidant, while in Germany this would be interpreted as independence.
• Supportive evidence for Bowlby's maternal deprivation.


  Newlines of research have shown maternal deprivation to have long-term effects.One showed that separating baby rats from their mother for as little as a day had a permanent effect on social development.CA: Bowlby’s primary support came from his 44 Thieves study, leaving him open to researcher bias as he knew in advance which teens he expected to show signs of psychopathy.
• Evidence against a critical period (Bowlby).


  In many cases, evidence suggests, good quality care after this period can prevent the majority of the damage.In the case of the Czech twins who experienced abuse from 18m-7yo, they were adopted by sisters who provided excellent emotional care and had made a full recovery by their teens.However, as the twins weren’t separated they may still have formed an attachment just with one another as opposed to their mum.
• Bowlby confused deprivation and privation.


  Rutter distinguished between deprivation (loss of primary attachment figure) and privation (failure to form any attachment) arguing the long-term damage Bowlby associated with deprivation to be a result of privation instead.This means Bowlby overestimated the seriousness of deprivation on child development.
• Supportive evidence for early attachment impact on later relationships. 


  Reviews of studies found early attachment to consistently predict later attachment, emotional well-being and attachment to our own children. Insecure attachment conveys mild disadvantages whilst disorganised attachment is associated with later mental disorders.Suggesting secure attachment has advantages for future development, whilst disorganised appears to be a disadvantage.
• Research into attachment impact is socially sensitive.


  The influence of early attachment is probabilistic, meaning it doesn’t cause an increased risk of later developmental problems. It is more likely other factors are involved. They may just be more vulnerable than those with secure attachments.This means people may be wrongly labelled influencing their behaviour and having negative impacts on their life. CA: For those with disorganised attachments, it may be beneficial as they are likely to benefit from intervention.